HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:21:35 GMT

In article <mikew.717803316@kpc.com> mikew@kpc.com writes:
>To be fair it should be noted that the failure of Galileo's antenna only
>jeopardizes part of the mission (the imaging which requires high bandwidth).

There are quite a few people here at CU Boulder involved in non-imaging
science on Galileo who would disagree. If NASA gave up on imaging
entirely, the rest of the mission could get by without problems. However,
they are going to record and slowly broadcast back as many images as
possible. This will have a substantial impact on non-imaging science.

(I'm saying this based on my interpertation of what others have said:
I haven't heard any official or public complaints about the lower
data rates available for non-imaging science, nor any suggestions
that NASA should dump imaging. Those are my own conclusions...)

>Also, if you didn't need a big antenna and a powerful battery on each
>sattelite for communications (because of the relay sattelite), you
>could conceiably make a sattelite much smallar and cheaper than the ones
>they are planning on flying by Pluto.

The Pluto mission isn't going to use a big antenna or a powerful transmitter:
They are planning on recording the flyby and playing the data back
slowly over a low-gain minimum-mass/power antenna.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE 
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:37:06 GMT

>  > In a previous message you said that mars' gravity was too
>  > light to hang on the lighter gasses, thus the atmosphere is
>  > thin.  Titan, a moon of Saturn is slightly smaller than mars
>  > and has an atmospheric density twice earths at the surface. 
>  > How do you explain that? :) 
 
> Titan benefits from the gas torus effect I believe. It loses its atmosphere
> at a respectable rate, but the escaping gas is unable to escape Saturn and
> remains in orbit. A lot of the trapped gas gets reaquired by Titan, so the
> net loss is very small. Anything escaping from the Martian atmosphere is
> lost permanently.

Let's not forget that Titan is much colder than Mars, thus the velocity
distribution of atmospheric gas molecules is shifted toward lower
velocities, thereby increasing the amount of atmospheric gas traveling
at speeds lower than the escape velocity.  That explains part of the
difference.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 27 Sep 92 11:59:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Sep27.115950.29032
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <25SEP199215572129@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>
>Chris's mission was government financed. So were most of the other 
>early "missions" to the new world by other governments.  The difference is
>that the missions were not to investigate scientific principles but to 
>icrease the wealth of the mother countries.  This was also true in Roman
>times with Roman colonies supported by the state after the legions killed
>all the oppostion.  This also happened in the Ionian settlements of Athens
>in what is now Turkey.  Also happened in Sicily.  The Carthigenians and
>their Phonecian Ancestors also applied this logic.  
>
>Funny how the space program is stalled because of the insistance on 
>Scientific missions as opposed to development oriented missions.  Why do
>I say this? Look at the record. Since 1972 we have visited every planet in
>the solar system plus most of their moons with Gaspra thrown in as a bonus.
>How many Lunar missions have we had in that time period?  How many asteroid
>only misions have we had? Actions speak far louder than words on this subject.

Well, we haven't visited Mercury or Pluto *yet*. We've started the first 
Grand Tour of the solar system to see what's out there. That's the first 
step in removing those dragons from the map. While early explorers' missions
were funded in the hope that the knowledge gained would *eventually* pay off 
in commercial gain, most early exploration did not result in gain for the 
backers or the explorers. Columbus wound up in debtor's prison. 

>Lunar Prospector tried to overcome this with a private effort but was 
>plagued with difficulties not related to the spacecraft effort.  Why not
>all of us smart boys here on the net start designing a basic lunar mission
>and think about raising the bucks.  Anybody out there have the guts?
>The obvious retort is why don't you do it. Well well well........:-)

Dennis, we are planning to return to the Moon, though that depends a
lot on the outcome of the current political race. However, we're not
yet ready for a new Hudson's Bay Company. We still need a few more of
those dreaded *scientific* missions to tell us the lay of the land.
My understanding of the Lunar Prospector was that it was to be such
a scientific spy mission. 

The Hudson's Bay Company is not a bad model for Lunar development.
It had a government franchise and private funding. The question is,
what will be the lunar equivalent of beaver pelts? We need to know
that before we can mount a significant commercial venture.

Gary
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: California Aerospace
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Sep 21 1992
Date: 29 Sep 92  08:30:18

California's Aerospace Industry To be the Focus of Forums
 
    The California Space Development Council, a coalition of
pro-space organizations in California, is sponsoring a series of
forums during October to discuss the future of the aerospace
industry in California, and the future direction of America's
space program. 
    On Saturday, October 3, at the Riverside Central Library, 
in downtown Riverside, a congressional candidate forum will be
hosted by the Inland Empire Space Group at 10 am. Among the
candidates invited to the forum are Congressman George Brown,
the current chairman of the House Committee on Space and
Technology, and Dick Rutan, the pilot of the Voyager
around-the-world aircraft. The candidates will address the
issues of preserving aerospace jobs in California, and the
future of the nation's space program.
    On Thursday, October 8, at 7:30 pm at the Reuben H. Fleet Space
Theater in Balboa Park, San Diego, congressional candidates will
discuss aerospace issues and the space program. The event will
be hosted by San Diego L5, a chapter of the National Space
Society.
    On Saturday, October 24, at 10am, at the Sandman Inn, in Santa
Barbara, a forum on the future of the California aerospace
industry will feature representatives of industry and political
figures.
    The general public is invited to attend all of these events and
admission is free.
    For more information on these events or the California Space
Development Council, please contact David Anderman, Events
Coordinator for CSDC, at 714/524-1674.
 

--- Maximus 2.00
From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Pluto,Galileo instruments(was Re: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions)
Date: 30 Sep 92 07:57:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnalc.1992Sep30.135749.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalc.fnal.gov

In article <1992Sep29.183546.19693@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> The proposed Pluto mission will spend no more than $400 million on two
> spacecraft. That would suggest a ~$200 - $250 cost for a single instrument
> sapcecraft. 

Two and a half instruments:

1. Imager (also sensitive in the IR)

2. Ultraviolet "occultation" spectrometer (only looks at absorption  when
sunlight passes through Pluto's atmosphere, as the spacecraft moves
behind Pluto;  not sensitive enough to look at aurora, lightning, or
other faint sources as Voyager or Galileo UVS can)

2.5 Radio science (because of power limitations, rather than using spacecraft
transmitter as a beacon and monitoring signal strength on the ground during
occultation, the spacecraft will listen to a signal beamed from the
DSN; half an instrument, because receiver can be part of spacecraft's
comm system)

> I suspect the Galileo mission (which I have a detailed
> instrument breakdown for) would require about seven or eight such
> spacecraft to meet the same goals. That would suggest $1.5-2 billion
> dollars to accoplish a Mariner Mark II mission using several small
> spacecraft. I don't recall the current Cassini/Huygens budget, but
> I don't think this is a huge savings.

No.  Cassini and CRAF together were growing to over a billion when
CRAF was killed, I think.  Cassini's been recently "descoped" in major
ways.  See the latest issue of *JBIS* for a detailed description of
the mission and many of its instruments.

On the other hand, Galileo does break down into at least two
spacecraft in a rather obvious way:  the orbiter and the "probe" entry
capsule.  Also, the orbiter carries magnetometer, particle, and dust
instruments on a spinning bus, and imager, IRIS, two UV spectrometers,
and a photopolarimeter on a scan platform despun with a motor turning
24 hours a day on a tricky coupling.  One could imagine a small cheap
spinner, and a fancier 3-axis spacecraft, carrying the two instrument
loads.  As Anita points out, you sacrifice the coordinated
observations of having all the instruments together on the same
spacecraft; in a NASA running on FCB budgets, you probably don't even
fly all these spacecraft to Jupiter (or wherever) in the same year.

Moira Higgins on astronomy:          Bill Higgins
"I can always find Orion.            Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Besides that the Moon                Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
is my only other specialty."         Bitnet:   HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
From: John C. Mallery <jcma@ai.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:38:36 GMT

A MAC Hypercard Stack of Clinton-Gore Position Papers and Speeches is
now available. If you would like a copy (800K / 1 disk), please send a
note to Michael (msagosta@cs.unlv.edu), who along with JBLIII authored
the Mac stack.

John Mallery
Join the Clinton/Gore '92
         Volunteer Email Campaign
Send To: CLINTON-WINS@Mail.Clinton-Gore.ORG
Subject: Volunteer Info
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:36:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep28.125324@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM> treitel@gracie.IntelliCorp.COM (Richard Treitel) writes:
>Private outfits often spend billions on building an office complex or
>developing a new jetliner.  These efforts don't even have a guaranteed
>payoff ...

However, they are generally not undertaken unless the odds look pretty good.
Jetliner development, for example, normally doesn't start in earnest until
there are "launch customers" committed to buying the new bird in quantity.
(Typically not in sufficient volume to pay back the initial investment --
that comes much later -- but enough to prove that there is a good market.)
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Space and Presidential Politics
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:40:06 GMT

In article <BvCFxF.5JJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

>I also think Dan Goldin is possibly NASA's last hope. It would be the  
>act of a low grade moron with the mental cabilities of an amoeba to  
>replace him.

My sources within the Clinton campaign say that Clinton is likely to
keep Goldin (who is, after all, a registered democrat). Wether a Gore
run space council will support Goldin as well as the current space
council is at best an open question.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------206 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Atlas E and F questions ( Actually Pershing missile)
Organization: UDSI
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 16:56:16 GMT

In article <BvAz6q.E64@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.163429.14691@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>
>>as for the sounding rocket companies.  pay them to run the launches.
>>then they get the profits from launch...
>
>What about the ones who are neither manned nor equipped to handle Pershings?
>Sounding rockets are not like jellybeans, where a different flavor just
>means a different color.  While they're all broadly similar, details matter
>a lot, and not every company is going to be happy if you dump a bunch of
>free Pershings on its doorstep.  For that matter, how do you decide which
>companies get them and how many?
>
>The way to handle this is to think capitalist, not socialist.  Sell the
>Pershings at a competitive market price for sounding rockets of that size.
>Use the revenues to fund a one-time-only launch-grant program for the
>experimenters:  show your payload ready for launch, get a voucher good
>for $XXX toward one launch, first come first served, until the money from
>the Pershings runs out.  Same net result, but without the destructive
>side effects on the industry.
>-- 


What i was thinking was this.  Every 6 months  auction a bunch of pershings.
best price wins the launchers,  bidding preference given to  universities
and R&D labs and small companies with flight plans.

meanwhile  qualify the sounding comapnies to handle these launches, and train
them on how they are prepped...  part of the qualifications is they commit
to manage launches at published rates.

then accept bids for the pershings contingent on launch ops being done
by the qualified companies at bid rates

now my understanding is that pershings are solids, mil designed so they dont
need much to handle.  i mean a TEL cant be that complex, and besides
the US ARmy has a bunch they are selling off cheap.  no missile no
need for TELs (Transporter, launchers, erectors)....


the way i see it, everyone wins.  labs, universities and business get
cheap launches.   the sounding companies get customers for little cost.
the US govt gets best price on otherwise scrap metal.

i mean this is all moot anyway now,  but next time around when we start
scrapping strategic missiles, it'll make a good model.a

it's not socialism to have a social policy.
From: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Subject: Re: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !)
Reply-To: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:07:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.023604.7173@news.Hawaii.Edu>  
tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:
> Why wait?  We already know it isn't going to hit in 2000.  We do know it
> will pass 0.011 AU in 2004.
..in regard to the postulated risk of a Toutatis impact. People worried  
about that impact should bear in mind that the radius of the Earth is  
000044 AU so even if Toutatis was coming in randomly within a circle of  
radius 0.011 AU the geometrical chances of impact would be about ten in a  
million. Maybe double that for gravitational focussing. Of course Toutatis  
is NOT coming in randomly, and even for its chaotic orbit we know the  
position well enough to say that over the next few encounters it will not  
be hitting and after that its encounters are not so close.
 So don't lose sleep over Toutatis in this century or next....

Martin Connors
Space Research
University of Alberta
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:28:24 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

>If my
>schoolboy physics memory serves me correctly it would take more energy to
>toss waste into the sun than it would to send it right out of the solar
>system. 

Actually, I think you can leave Earth orbit at less than solar
system escape velocity, and perform a Jupiter gravity assist 
manuever that will shoot you straight into the Sun.

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:07:40 GMT


Dennis Wingo writes:
>>[in type-M Apollo-Amor asteroid]...approximately 90 billion dollars worth
>>of gold and 1 trillion dollars worth of Platinum, give or take a few million.

In article <1992Sep28.175027.25554@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>That's before you bring it home. Actual price of gold and platinum on earth
>would drop, ASSUMING you can bring home the metals for a price less than or
>equal to the price of extracting them using current and near-term methods.

If we can produce more cheaply than most earthside mines, we can assume
revenues >50% of the current worldwide mining markets.  These
are roughly $4 billion/yr for platinum-group elements, and $20
billion/yr for gold.  Volume typically goes up faster than price
drops, as the metal is substituted for other materials and recycling
decreases.  If space mining brings the cost down considerably
the market may expand, especially for the industrially important 
platinum-group.  For example, a factor of ten drop in platinum prices 
might increase volume by a factor of twenty, giving a market of $8 billion 
per year.  

For comparison, the worldwide comsat market is about $5 billion/year, 
and total worldwide space spending about $40 billion/year.  Historically 
the minerals have declined as a fraction of GNP as humanity gets wealthier, 
until now mining is only about 1% of GNP for developed countries.  
Communications and other information services, in contrast, have as far 
as we can speculate an infinite potential for growth.  More native
materials mining will go to support these industries than for direct 
export to earth.  For example to build very manueverable spysats with 
big tanks full of native propellants, huge antenna farms in Clarke orbit 
made from native metal regolith, etc.  In addition, native materials
will enable large microgravity and vacuum manufacturing processes where
it is prohibitively expensive to launch raw materials from earth. 
Earthside manufacturing is in the $1,000s of billions per year, so
this also has much more growth potential than export of raw minerals
from space.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: overpopulation
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.232657.11626@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:

>nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:

>>Best guesses I've seen have been 8-10bn, actually. No serious
>>demographers are talking about 16bn any more. Read some demography (I
>>did, after the last time this went around here. I was a doomsayer
>>before).

>But this is just because the great die-off has started.


Actually, you are both wrong.  The UN agency that makes population
projections recently upped their mid-range estimate to as much as 14B
by the end of 2100.  However, most of this increase was because
life expectancies in lesser developed countries are increasing
much faster than they expected, because elderly people are living
longer.

"Great die off" is bullshit, of course.  The world population has
never been healthier, wealthier or longer lived, on average, and
the trends are positive in most of the world.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: bell@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301)513-1663)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Cruise phase orbital elements?
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:58:00 GMT
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	I've captured from a number of sources the cruise phase 
	orbital elements for several spacecraft for our data base at
	NSSDC, but I'm still lacking in the information for some. I
	can actually generate some of them with some programs, but I'm
	feeling kind of lazy. Therefore.....

	First, I'd like to second the motion for the elements of the
	current Mars Observer cruise mode elements. I can find in the
	general literature what the nominal orbital characteristics
	will be once it reaches Mars, but not the characteristics of
	the transfer orbit are. Can someone post these?

	Second, I've a similar situation for Magellan and, even though 
	it didn't obtain any science data en route to Venus, I'd still
	like to capture the cruise phase orbital elements for *that*
	spacecraft, too.

	Third, although I can obtain the encounter trajectory 
	information for both Voyager 1 and 2 from the literature, and
	even though a number of accessible programs can generate the
	needed elements during their (multiple) cruise phases, has
	anyone already done this so I don't have to go to the effort
	(I know, I'm being lazy here!).

	I've really found it useful that the Galileo elements (past 
	and planned) have been posted. It's really made that aspect of
	my job easier. Thanks for any help/info which can be given.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II	|  E-mail:				       |
|  Mail Code 633.9		|	(SPAN) NCF::Bell		       |
|  National Space Science	|	or   NSSDC::Bell		       |
|    Data Center		|	or  NSSDCA::Bell		       |
|  NASA				|	or  NSSDCB::Bell		       |
|  Goddard Space Flight Center	|   (Internet) Bell@NSSDCA.GSFC.NASA.GOV       |
|  Greenbelt, MD   20771	|					       |
|  (301) 513-1663		|					       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 03:47:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1689@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>Is there any way to turn ALSEP back on once we get the ground station
>set up properly?  Or was it a no-return type of prodedure?

Such turnoff procedures are usually irreversible, I believe, to minimize
the chances of dying hardware later reversing them on its own.  I'm not
sure about ALSEP in particular.

In any event, I suspect that the ALSEP RTGs have long since passed the
point where they no longer supply enough power to keep things running.
Limits were being felt there at the time of turnoff.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space