HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:13:43 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 <1993Jan7.060559.805@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>You'll notice that after Saturn achieved it's Cold War objective of 
>oneupmanship against the USSR, it was promptly dropped because no other 
>missions could justify it's expense and there was never a hope of 
>recouping it's development costs. 

With your talent for rewriting history, it's too bad the Soviet Union
is no longer in business. :-)

In fact, there were plenty of missions that could have justified
its expense: the follow-on Apollo missions, additional Skylabs,
Space Base, nuclear-powered space tugs, and the manned Mars mission,
to name a few.  The Saturn was cancelled because Congress didn't
want to do those missions and NASA didn't want anything to compete
with Shuttle.


>We should never again make the mistake of killing our only operational 
>system in favor of a paper spacecraft that hasn't established a solid 
>track record of meeting it's performance and cost goals. 

Instead, we should make the new mistake of funding a system
whose managers seek to crush any potential competition?

>Thus I champion continuing to fly Shuttle until there are proven 
>systems on line to replace it. 

And, like the Shuttle managers, bad-mouth any potential systems
that *might* replace it.  (Or seek keep them limited to research
programs only.)

>Neither the paper DC-1 nor the proposed Soyuz on Titan have that 
>track record yet. 

Why did you avoid mentioning Soyuz on Soviet launchers?

>Meanwhile Shuttle continues to maintain a presence in space for 
>the USA that does worthwhile missions.

At the cost of how many worthwhile missions we can't do with
the Shuttle but could with a true space-transportation system?
Since you talk about the opportunity costs that would be incurred 
by cancelling the Shuttle, why do you fail to consider the 
opportunity costs involved in continuing it? 


>Unlike Allen, I am completely convinced that killing Shuttle now will
>not cause any money to be reprogrammed to his pet schemes. 

So am I.  I am also completely convinced it would wipe out
a major political base opposed to alternative launchers.
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Bion 10 (Cosmos 2229, 92 095A) observed
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:36:30 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

I observed Bion 10 as it passed over my location here in Denver.
It was moving from the NW to the SE and brightened to 0 magnitude
at a slant distance of 246 km.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
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: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:18:24 GMT

In article <ewright.726516760@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan7.072839.1460@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Once we have Freedom in operation, even less need
>>will be found for Shuttle, and it can be phased out. But there will still
>>be missions where there's no viable substitute for heavy lift and only
>>the Russians still have an operational very heavy lift vehicle. It may
>>make sense just to contract with them, 
>
>Why does this have to wait for Freedom?  We could do that right now.  
>In fact, we'd save money launching Freedom on Energia instead of Shuttle.

The *redesign* (yet again) of Freedom required for it to be launched
by Energia would very likely cost more than any launch cost savings
that might be achieved. Planning Freedom from the start for launch
on a heavy lifter would have been the cheap way to go, but at the time
of Freedom's initial design the Russians were the "Evil Empire" and
we didn't have any heavy lift in the class of Energia operational.

>>but I'd like to see the US 
>>develop a new generation VHLV designed from the ground up to achieve
>>the lowest possible cost per pound. We've never tried to do that so
>>we don't know how cheaply it can be done.
>
>A new gneration VHLV designed to achieve the lowest possible cost
>per pound would be an SSTO, which you support as research vehicles 
>only. 

A SSTO *might* be a low cost launcher, or it might not, but a VHLV it
is very likely *not* going to be. SSTO claims of low cost depend on
reusability. The only reusable launcher we have experience with most
definitely *isn't* cheap. That's one of the things *research* vehicles 
may tell us. That's why I support them. I'm not going to gamble taxpayer 
money on another operational system until it's costs are *proved* to be 
enough less than current vehicles to make it's deployment cost effective.

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
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Thursday, 7 Jan 1993 12:03:40 PST
From: Jon J Thaler <DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***

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

> Kilogram quantities of antimatter are quite adequate for early interstellar
> probes, given modest vehicles.  I don't have numbers for the antimatter-
> fuelled ramjet on hand, but it *has* been studied and 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)
From: jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Railgun in Southwest US
Date: 6 Jan 93 21:47:31 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

I've heard a rumor that some organization (SSI?) has actually 
built a large railgun somewhere in the SW USA.  It's apparently
supposed to be big enough to put small payloads (>5 kg) into 
orbit, though I don't know if they've done that yet.  

Is this a rumor or is there some truth to it?

/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| Perhaps the universe is filled by planets peopled by folks    |
| with advanced brains.  On the other hand, perhaps humans have |
| got the universe's most advanced intellects.  Either way it's |
| a mighty sobering thought.                                    |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Organization: Morituri Te Salutent, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 14:48:19 GMT

ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com wrote:
> Henry Spencer's ramscope talk sparked a question in my small mind.  How can
> we talk about the performance of antimatter propulsion without knowing
> the mass fuel ratio? How much hardware does it take to contain a "tank" of
> antimatter (magnetic fields, etc.)?  Does anyone have the input required
> for insertion into the rocket equation???
> 
You're just using the antimatter to heat hydrogen, so the rocket's 
efficiency is of the same order as the Nerva nuclear design: Isp = 850-1500
or so, depending on how well it can be engineered.

Robert Forward claims that the storage requirements of anti-H2 are modest
if you use low enough temperatures and store it in solid form.  Annihilation
only occurs at the surface of the solid and can be controlled.

I think we already had this discussion......

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:56:58 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <C0Hun4.13t@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Actually, it is not at all uncommon for airlines to lease planes complete
>with crews, 

NASA could consider leasing shuttle services if a provider were
available;  but there's none, and with orbiters at $1.5 billion a pop,
plus gigadollar infrastructure, none is likely to appear out of thin
air.  With shuttle costs at their astronomical levels (even if reduced
30% by private industry's magic wand), NASA would likely be the major,
if not only, customer.  A would-be shuttle service provider would want
a multi-year commitment for a fairly large number of launches before
investing, which Congress will not make easy.  So the basic reality of
today is that either i) NASA flies the shuttles, or ii) they stay on
the ground.

>or to contract with specialists for support services like
>maintenance.

NASA does that too: spent SRBs are send back to Utah for refurbishing;
the orbiters are sent to Palmdale for their mid-life
maintenance/upgrade; and there's probably an impressive number of
Rockwell/Thiokol/you-name-it employees involved directly in shuttle
operations.  But NASA remains the maitre d'oeuvre, probably for the
reasons stated above.

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wallacen@ColoState.EDU (nathan wallace)
Subject: Genetically Engineered Microbes in Real Use?
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 20:52:54 GMT
Reply-To: wallacen@ColoState.EDU
Organization: Colorado State University -=- Computer Science Dept.

I recall hearing on Chicken Noodle News that a bacterium (*Chlostridium*
I suspect, they'll eat virtually anything, including those buried polystyrene
bottles which were supposed to last ten thousand years and instead lasted
five or so...) has been developed to help in some types of oil spills and
was successfully used in a spill near Galveston a few years ago. Anyone
know more about this?

ps. *Chlostridium* are anaerobic soil bacteria, for which we should all be
**very** thankful, I suspect.

+----------------------------------------------+------------------------+
|                                              |              __        |
|                                              |             / /\       |
|  Nathan F. Wallace                           |      ______/ /_/___    |
|  email: wallacen@beethoven.cs.colostate.edu  |     / ____  ______ \   |
+----------------------------------------------+    / /\__/ /\____|\/|  |
|                                              |   | |\/ / / /     \|/  |
|  Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, and are |   | || / /_/_____      |
|              not those of any other person,  |   | ||/_______  /\     |
|              organization, or supreme being. |   | ||\______/ / /     |
|                                              |   | ||      / / /      |
+----------------------------------------------+    \ \_____/ /_/__/\   |
|  "War is the art of deception."              |     \_____  _______/|  |
|                                 Sun Tzu      |      \___/ /\______|/  |
|                                              |          \_\/          |
|                                              |                        |
+----------------------------------------------+------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.space,comp.robotics
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: was: question about SETI, now: planets around pulsars?
Date: 8 Jan 93 02:05:59 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <C0HvLB.1op@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Actually very little, as these things go.  The ongoing SETI efforts are
>quite small.
>Astronomers are very interested in the immediate vicinity of pulsars,
>because it's an excellent bet that you can find objects of great theoretical
>interest (accretion disks and such) there.  Peculiar and conspicuous objects
>thereabouts would not be missed.  And yes, astronomers take the possibility
>of finding an extraterrestrial beacon quite seriously -- the first pulsars
>caused a considerable stir until it was clear that they were just natural
>phenomena.

About a year or so ago, some astronomers thought that they might have
found planets orbiting a pulsar.  One suspect pulsar planetary system
turned out to be false (orbit of one "planet" was 1/2 the time of Earth's,
and thus suspect), but another looked good then.  Anyone know if this
other (at the time) good detection has held up?  Confirmed?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:18:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.152456.25477@mksol.dseg.ti.com> pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com  
(Dillon Pyron) writes:
> BTW, the STS [Space Transporation System/the Shuttle]
> is the safest transportation system we have, based on fatalities
> per passenger mile.  But who would pay $1 billion apiece for a 747?  (Please
> attach a smiley to the safety record).

The rating of transportation system safety by fatalities per 
passenger mile always struck me as bogus.  Subjectively, what
matters is the probability of exit.  That is if I climb in and
close the door, what are my chances of opening the door and
climbing out.  By this measure the STS is only about 1 in 50, 
although it probably isn't as dangerous as, say, a fighter in combat.

Does anyone have any idea how various means of transport rate 
according to probability of exit.  Is the private car better than
a commerical airliner?  {Lots of safe little trips would up the
exit probability.}
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: skoester@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott A Koester)
Subject: Bussard Ramscoop: Some FAQ?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:56:17 GMT


  I've read many articles on the Bussard Ramscoop and antiprotons (effectively 
anti-matter) and I am intensly facinated and interested by this.  I would like 
to see if anyone would like to write up an FAQ on this as I would like to have 
some concrete condensed (meaning all in one place) information on this.  I 
would do it..but I'm only a sophomore on college and am trying to bone up on 
stuff....even though I might not understand some of it..I am ever daring to 
try, plus I'm sure some others would like to see this also.  If there already 
is one...someone just hit me and send it to me in email? Thanks....


Scott Koester
Xref: sparky sci.space:18809 news.answers:4968
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: averting doom
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:29:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0Gv9L.Lnq.1
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: u108502@beta.lanl.gov (Andrew Poutiatine)
-Subject: Re: averting doom
-Date: 6 Jan 93 15:52:12 GMT
-Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

->In article <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
->>from a U.P. story
->>
->>	     WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
->>     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
->>     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
->>     million years, scientists said Wednesday.

-I believe the above prediction is based not on earth climate and weather
-considerations (for which I must agree predictions of more than a few days
-are not very dependable), but rather on the evolution of the sun.

-I am not an astronomer, but as I recall, theory predicts that stars of our
-sun's size go through a stage in their evolution at the end of their lives
-when they become hotter and expand.  It is this, I believe, that would
-parch the earth, killing life "as we know it."

A significant feature of the recent calculations is that as temperatures
rise, CO2 levels drop (thus regulating the surface temperature of the Earth
to some extent). Eventually CO2 drops too low to support photosynthesis,
leading to the death of multicellular organisms. The recent addition to
the model is the observation that certain plants such as corn and other
grasses do not require as much CO2 for photosynthesis as most other plants,
so there should continue to be functioning plant life for much longer than
previously expected.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: matthews@ecfa.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Reply-To: matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA/JSC Engineering Computation Facility
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:55:14 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.190043.24897@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <jfelder-080193105134@latvia.lerc.nasa.gov> jfelder@lerc.nasa.gov (James L. Felder) writes:
>
>>> is very hard to replace with some substitute.  Fossil fuels are
>>> an example -- there is no reason why we should not be able
>>> to survive indefinitely without them, if some other source of
>>> energy is available.
>
>> And no matter what we will have to learn to do without them.  And will
>> probably be cursed by future generations for burning such a useful
>> commodity simply to heat our homes.
>
>Just like we curse the shortage of whale oil?  Hardly -- they will
>view fossil fuel use as a curious historical anomaly, and pity
>us for being (so) relatively poor and ignorant that we could not
>use cleaner alternatives.

No, more like we curse the shortage of whales.  :-)

There are many useful things to do with petroleum products other
than produce energy -- they are useful as lubricants and are needed
for the production of plastics and other petrochemicals.

>...
>Powersats as usually described can't hack it as the primary energy
>source for earth, since there's not enough room in GEO.  They'd have

What does this mean?  Are you implying that powersats would be as restricted
as comsats in "orbital slot" width?  Why?

>to be farther away.  That drives up cost.  I am also not convinced the

There are reasons to think that a lunar surface-based solar power 
infrastructure could be considerably cheaper than GEO powersats, due to
the lack of a requirement to develop a very large-scale lunar surface-
to-GEO transportation infrastructure for delivery of lunar raw materials
for powersat manufacture.


--
Mike Matthews, ex-Tether Dude +------------->   matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov
"Had the Shuttle on a String"  \_ Now accepting NeXTMail via KlugeNet(TM)!
Lockheed-ESC                  |  
Houston, TX                   |          *** WILL HACK FOR FOOD ***
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saving an overweight SSTO....
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:33:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.075346.12742@bby.com.au> gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:

>1) It's overweight by some relatively small amount, say, 5000lbs.  This
>leaves 5000lbs payload, still a worthwhile cargo.  And the price/lb is
>double projections, but still a small fraction of ELVs.  So the
>project is still a win, albeit smaller.

The current DC-Y concept has a payload of a bit over 20,000 pounds. In
addition, there is a design margin of about 15,000 pounds. So in the above
scenario where the vehicle is 5K pounds overweight the un-used margine
goes to payload and thus payload goes to 30,000 pounds.

>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....

Note that the 15% margin allows for lots of mistakes. However, if
it turns out that overruns are too great, the program is still
a success. We will know EXACTLY what systems must be weight reduced
to make it work. After a few years of research in those areas, we
will have a working vehicle.

>And in any case, you know a lot more than when you started, and you
>can do it right next time! 

Or, you continuously improve the DC-Y until it flies.

  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,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:21:04 GMT

In article <9JAN199300533179@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>Ka Band Link Experiment (KaBLE) activities have begun and are scheduled
>to take place daily through January 12.  There are additional KaBLE
>opportunities projected for January 16 and 17.

What exactly is the Ka Band Link Experiment onboard the Mars Observer?

---
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:12:26 GMT

In article <ewright.726192136@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V.  
Wright) writes:
> In <1993Jan4.202421.11388@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)  
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.
> 
> Wait a minute, I never wrote that! That was Gary Coffman!
> 
Oops.  Must be a glitch in my newsreader (right !;)

Aside to John Neff:  your use of "The FSU" confused for a second
- Former Soviet Union - right?  How about USSW - USS Were -
a joke I heard somewhere:-) 
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space