HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 93 20:48:12 CST
Organization: The Inquiring Mind BBS  1 204 488-1607

> 
> New one on me, but I have heard of the supposed race to the moon with solar 
> sails, to celebrate the 500 anniversary of Columbus, not sure if it 
> actually came about.. Maybe the olymbics will have a solar sale race or 
> some other organization will have a solar sail race.. 
> 
> ==
> ==
> Michael Adams alias Ghost Wheel/Morgoth NSMCA@acad3.alaska.edu

I know that there were some plans for an international "race" to Mars 
with Canada, the US, Russia, and some other countries that I don't 
remember.  The plan was to have each country make their own.
This way, the benefits of each design could be looked at.

Unfortunately, the project was canceled from what I have been told.
(I was talking to one of the NASA guys from sci.space.news about it.)
I seem to recall that the limiting factor that was mentioned was money.

Actually, using a solar sail to just go to the moon would be pointless as 
they are only practical over a distance.  Remember, they use the solar 
winds to carry them.  This means that they are going to take a long time 
to build up a decent velocity.  However, over a longer distance, they can 
be quite good.

Personally, I would like to see the use of solar sails catch on as a 
method of travel.

If nothing else, it would be another case of sci-fi become fact.

victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca
The Inquiring Mind BBS, Winnipeg, Manitoba  204 488-1607
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: EVA troubles (Was Re: ground vs. flight
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:07:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <j6v2=m#@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>I'd assume the latter, to safe fuel, and to allow it to "float by' if 
>something goes wrong.  With a Y+ translation if an 'up" thruster
>(to stop the Y+ movement) fails, you risk running the shuttle into the
>orbiter.  With the X+, if something fails, you just float on by...

The thruster systems are redundant; a single jet failure won't destroy
the ability to maneuver in a particular direction.

>>Leasat repair, the hardware was kept very simple and the astronauts'
>>arms did almost all the work.  (How quickly they forgot these lessons...)
>
>	I don't recall what Leasat was.  Could you give me some private email
>sometime to jog my memory?

(Easier to just include it here, in case anyone else is wondering...)  That
was the "Frisbee launched" satellite, aka Syncom, which couldn't light its
boost motor after deployment from an earlier shuttle mission.

>	It seems like a good argument for satellite manufacturers to include
>a grapple point...

If memory serves, the head of Intelsat has said "henceforth we put grapple
fixtures on our satellites".  Not very likely that there'll be any use for
one any time soon, but it sure does save a lot of hassle when the occasion
does arise.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:24:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec27.162459.20371
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <ewright.725129915@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <!jt240c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>>	In reality it sounds more like you are talking about DC-10,
>>DC-12, etc.
>>	Unless you are saying that a 747 is the same plane as a DC-3
>>was.
>>	If your claims are about 50 years from now, or even 20
>>eyars from now, I'll buy them.  
>
>I think it would do you a world of good to go out to your local
>airport and look around.
>
>Do you have any idea how many DC-3s are still flying?  After 50
>years?

Better ask how many Wright Flyers are still in operation. That's
a closer approximation of where we are in spaceflight relative
to aeronautics. And don't forget to check on how many DC-1s and
DC-2s are still doing scheduled flights.

To compare aviation and spaceflight, go back in aviation history
to where the total number of hours of powered flight of all aircraft
equal the total number of hours of powered flight for all launchers. 
We're still at the sticks and string level. Actually, I'd claim we're
back with the Montgolfier brothers.

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: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:00:52 GMT

> Nick Janow writes:
>
> What are the problems with using molten aluminum sprayed into the reaction
> area?  Keeping the aluminum molten in a vacuum should be relatively easy.



        This I like!  Molten aluminum (melting point 660 C) can be kept in
steel tanks.  Using molten aluminum will give a higher Isp than aluminum
metal.  Major problems will be pumping, and how to keep the aluminum from
freezing in pipes and injectors when the motor is shut off.  The idea is not
as crazy as it sounds.  Liquid lithium (melting point 181 C) has already been
fired in motors (use liquid fluorine as an oxidant, with and without the
addition of hydrogen to raise the specific impulse).


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Trivia quiz - answers
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:25:44 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec30.190747.29554@dcatlas.dot.gov> joet@dcatlas.dot.gov (Joe Trott) writes:
>>>30. How many Saturn V's flew?
>>> Thirteen - Apollos 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and Skylab
>>If you really want to be picky, you can argue that the count was 12.6666...,
>>since the Skylab 1 launcher was only the first two stages of a Saturn V.
>
>I vaguely remember some of the Mercury launches and many of the Gemini
>launches...I thought Apollo VI never flew, due to a fire in the CM that
>unfortunately killed 3.  And, I don't remember an Apollo IV.  Oh well...

Apollos 4 and 6 were both unmanned tests; Apollo 7 was the first manned
mission (which did not use a Saturn V).  This was the post-fire numbering.

(The pre-fire numbering was somewhat confused, to put it politely.  At the
time of the fire, the booster people were calling the Grissom/White/Chaffee
mission Apollo 4 (since three unmanned tests preceded it), and the astronauts
were calling it Apollo 1.  Its only official name was AS-204.  Afterward,
the crew's wishes were honored retroactively... which left the unmanned tests
in limbo.  It's not clear why the first post-fire test was Apollo 4.  There
never was a mission officially designated Apollo 2 or Apollo 3; proposals
to retroactively rename the pre-fire tests were rejected.)

Mercury used Redstone and Atlas boosters; Gemini used Titan.
-- 
"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.shuttle
From: klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: $6 million ??? (was: black tiles on the space shuttle
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 23:07:59 GMT

Ty Willis, Stephen F. Austin State University <a_willisgt@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> writes:
> The grey insulation is a composite material called RCC (reinforced
> carbon-carbon).  The principal drawback of RCC is the price - I heard once 
> that, to replace a half-meter strip on one of the orbiter's wings 
> cost somewhere around $6 million bucks...  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ah, the mysteries of government procurement contracts!
If you start with thousand-dollar hammers, yea, it's possible!   :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: black tiles on the space shuttle
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:44:28 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <725334983@romeo.cs.duke.edu> jwt@duke.cs.duke.edu (Jeffrey W. Tannehill) writes:
>...paint the underside black.  This brought up the question "Why is the
>bottom of the Shuttle black?"  It occurred to us that a black surface might
>absorb a lot more radiation and that in space there might be greater
>exposure to radiation than on earth, so why isn't the whole shuttle white
>or perhaps silver to reflect as much as possible?

As Brian pointed out, the difference in colors reflects differences in
materials resulting from different heat loads during reentry.

A black surface will generally absorb more light and heat, but it will
also radiate heat better.  Choice of materials for spacecraft thermal
control is complex and much depends on detail.  Actually, it probably
*would* be preferable, strictly from a thermal viewpoint, to have the
shuttle belly painted white... but I doubt that paint would survive
reentry on the high-temperature areas.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3013 alt.conspiracy:13373 talk.politics.misc:65226
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
From: David B. Horvath, CDP <MBADBH@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 11:09:21 EST
Organization: Hidden - I don't speak for them...
X-Stuff:      <This should be witty, but I'm too tired right now.>

>   <Lots of stuff deleted>

Doesn't this remind you of a plot from a James Bond movie?  Moonraker?

Shuttle takes off from transport 747 causing the 747 to crash...


   - David
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3044 alt.conspiracy:13477
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Disaster Coverup Conspiracy (with extra slaw)
Date: 28 Dec 1992 19:49:25 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <pfritsch.725571937@skid.ps.uci.edu>, pfritsch@skid.ps.uci.edu (Paul Fritschle) writes:
> Please take this thread off sci.astro.. it really doesn't go here.

I beg to differ, sir!  McElwaine threads go *everywhere*!


-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:3002 alt.conspiracy:13338 talk.politics.misc:65042
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Date: 21 Dec 92 19:55:45 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
| 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and
|    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle
|    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and report on
|    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
| 
|    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.

Considering the average shuttle launch can be seen for several hundred
miles, how did they manage to launch one, and NOBODY noticed.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: warden@midnite.pinetree.org (Tim Warden)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Columbia
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 17:20:17 EST
Organization: Midnite Mania Information Services

Could someone please explain to me about this Columbia destruction 
theory?  This is the first time that I have ever heard of such a thing. 
 
Thanks in advance..

--
  Internet: warden@midnite.pinetree.org       |
  UUCP:  ...!pinetree!midnite!warden          |  Happy New Year Everyone!
  Fidonet: 1:163/313      TRFN: 100:649/25    |
  Midnite Mania BBS - Ottawa, Ontario, Canada - +1 613 567 5146 - 2400 BPS
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Spaceport USA tours
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 92 17:20:11 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>In article <72445@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
> writes:
>
>>  Oh, and despite what has been posted here from time to time, the
>>  SPACEPORT USA tourist attraction DOES NOT provide bus rides to see
>>  a Shuttle launch. The facility DOES NOT open until something like
>>  two hours after a launch on the day in question....
>>
>Tickets to see STS-53 were available from the ticket office a week before
>the launch. The facility opened at 3am, some 4 hours before the launch to
>admit those with tickets either for their vehicles or for the bus tours.
>
>I can't speak for the other launches, but we certainly watched the launch
>from the causeway courtesy of Spaceport USA.
>
>Gavin Syme

    I don't think we are talking about the same thing. You seem to be
    referring to the launch passes (which are free if you write to
    NASA or your congressman). I was unaware that Spaceport USA was
    now issuing these, and I stand corrected if so.
    
    However, UNLESS YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE PASSES you cannot get onto
    Kennedy Space Center until two hours after launch. The posts I
    was referring to implied that Joe Public could go out to the Cape
    (Spaceport USA) on launch day and get a ticket to ride a bus out
    to see a launch. This is not true.
    
    Regarding your experience on STS-53, did you get a "ticket" to
    drive your own car out to the viewing site, or did you just get
    a pass to the Spaceport USA facility, and then catch a bus from
    there?
    
    -Brian
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:31:28 GMT

On Wed, 23 Dec 92 02:22:37 GMT, dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) said:

 >NO SHUTTLE GROUND LAUNCHES WERE SECRET.  LAUNCHES FROM A 747, AT 
 >35,000 FEET OR SO, WOULD *NOT* BE EASY TO SEE.

Dean> Right, they would be IMPOSSIBLE to see, since NO such capability exists.

Er, Dean, we did launch the Enterprise from the 747 at altitude.
It was quite easy to see, too.  I saw it all five times.

Having come into this in the middle, maybe I'm misunderstanding what
CAPS LOCK means by launch.  If it's launching in the sense of going
to orbit, you're quite correct; no such capability exists.  There's
no 747 in the world that can carry the Shuttle with the external
tank and SRBs.  The empty Shuttle is nicely within the 747's capacity,
but adding any of the rest of the stack would exceed it.


--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:55:03 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
> 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and
>    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle
>    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and report on
>    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
> 
>    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.

Umm -- have you ever read it?  If so, you'd know that neither alternative
makes any sense at all.

Before I engage in further debate, let me ask just one question:  what
evidence will persuade you that you're wrong?  I'm perfectly serious --
you have a theory, which virtually everyone else here disagrees with.
Clearly, either you're wrong or we are.  But for every objection that's
been raised here, you say that either people are lying, or covering things
up.  So -- what would it take to convince you?

To be fair, I should answer the same question.  I'll find your story credible
if any of a number of things happen.  (a) Someone publicly demonstrates any
one of the technological miracles you've described (cosmospheres, electro-
gravitic whatsits, cloned or otherwise-replicated people, etc.)  (b) an
official who was involved in the coverup or the plot admits it publicly,
and produces some documentary evidence.  (c) the release, via the Freedom
of Information Acts, of substantive documentation of any of this; (d) photos,
from a lunar orbiter, of (the wreckage of?) military bases on the moon.

You're asking us to prove a negative, a notoriously difficult task,
especially when you reject any and all evidence.  We're asking you to
prove a positive, which is much easier.  Do you have any hard evidence?
(References to previous issues of the AUDIO LETTER aren't evidence, of
course.)
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Trivia quiz - answers
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 20:42:12 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <C01FHu.Jsu@zoo.toronto.edu> <1992Dec30.190747.29554@dcatlas.dot.gov>


>I vaguely remember some of the Mercury launches and many of the Gemini
>launches...I thought Apollo VI never flew, due to a fire in the CM that
>unfortunately killed 3.  And, I don't remember an Apollo IV.  Oh well...
>(I was born 11/59)
>
>-JTT

        There were no missions officially designated Apollo 1, 2 or 3.

        The Apollo 1 mission never took place. This flight was to be
        the first manned mission of an Apollo spacecraft and was
        scheduled for February, 1967. As with all space missions at
        the time, it had a technical designation until it achieved
        orbit, at which time it would get an official name.
        Apollo 1 was officially the Apollo-Saturn 204 mission (AS-204).
        A flash fire during a Countdown Demonstration Test on the
        launch pad destroyed the spacecraft and killed astronauts
        Grissom, White, and Chaffee on January 27, 1967.
        
        Apollo 4 flew unmanned. This was the maiden flight of the
        Saturn 5 (AS-501) and proved the risky 'all-up' principle. All
        stages of the Saturn 5 flew live on the maiden flight. This
        mission took place on November 9, 1967. 
               
        Apollo 5 was an unmanned flight of the Lunar Module only.
        This mission was launched by the Saturn 1B on January 22, 1968.
        The Apollo 5 Lunar Module was launched by the same Saturn 1B
        which had been planned for the Apollo 204 mission.
        
        Apollo 6 was the second unmanned test flight of the Saturn 5,
        (AS-502) launched on April 6, 1968. This was less successful
        than Apollo 4, with two engines out on the S-II second stage
        and the failure of the S-IVB third stage to re-ignite in
        orbit.
        
        Apollo 7 was the first manned flight of Apollo, launched by 
        Saturn 1B (AS-205, I think) in October, 1968.
        
        Apollo 8 was the first manned flight of the Saturn 5 (AS-503),
        launched in December, 1968. 
        
        Apollo 11, the first manned landing on the moon, was launched
        on the sixth Saturn 5 (AS-506). Before Armstrong and Aldrin
        left the moon, they left behind a crew patch for what would
        have been Apollo 1.
                
        -Brian  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Columbia
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 02:17:15 GMT

In article <iw4NwB3w165w@midnite.pinetree.org> warden@midnite.pinetree.org (Tim Warden) writes:
>Could someone please explain to me about this Columbia destruction 
>theory?  This is the first time that I have ever heard of such a thing. 
> 

There is no real 'theory', just a little (wild) fiction... 

:->

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up #2
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 22:20:07 GMT

In article <D2150035.lsrsh6@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org (Michael Peirce) writes:
>
>In article <78159@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> (sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc), mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>> In article <1h3059INNq8n@news.cerf.net>, eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>> | 8) One source that you may want to use for your research is "Aviation Week and
>> |    Space Technology".  This weekly industry journal has reported every shuttle
>> |    flight in great detail.  They go to great lengths to find and report on
>> |    secret or classified data.  You will find not a hint about the secret flight.
>> |
>> |    THEY ARE EITHER IGNORANT THEMSELVES, OR AFRAID TO SAY ANYTHING.
>>
>> Considering the average shuttle launch can be seen for several hundred
>> miles, how did they manage to launch one, and NOBODY noticed.
>
>It's obvious: secret bases in the Pacific.
No, it was underground silos in Brazil! :-)

(see the James Bond film 'Moonraker' for more details.  I always wondered
how one could launch 6 shuttles from underground without anyone seeing
them launch, and without anyone feeling the ground shaking)

Simon
From: brent@terra.Eng.Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Orbital elements -> Transit times ?
Date: 23 Dec 1992 01:43:25 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: brent@terra.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: terra

Sorry if this is a FAQ, but is there handy-dandy C program somewhere that I can
download that'll translate the shuttle orbital element sets to transit times for
my location ?
	AdThanksvance
---

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ SunSoft
			 Email: brent@Eng.Sun.COM
			 phone: (415) 336 1051

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc