HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 21:38:08 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <72482@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec28.154624.1000@iti.org>

>However, if you disagree, please post your own numbers. State the rules
>you want to use and apply to both systems fairly. Then show that Shuttle
>is better.
>
>I await your reply.
>
>  allen

   Now I'm totally confused, Allen. Wasn't this discussion about the
   Shuttle's launch rate? I thought that you previously belittled a
   25% increase in launch rate, to which I took exception. It was this
   dual-scale measuring (one for Shuttle, one for the others) that I
   am complaining about. I'm still waiting for your explanation as to
   why 25% is a good increase for one, but not another.
   
   And by the way, I don't seem to be alone in the opinion that 12 per
   year is a more likely maximum safe launch rate. That's a 50% increase.
   Hopefully, the next few months will prove that they can launch
   monthly if they wanted and politics permitted.
   
   In any case, since Shuttle is the only U.S. system flying that can take
   people to and from space, and is the only system presently capable
   of returning 30,000+ lbs. of cargo, it is very difficult to compare
   Shuttle with the expendables (although I think it compares favorably
   to Titan IV in terms of annual costs versus annual launch rate.) All
   ratings show Shuttle to be the most powerful launch system in the
   free world. Depending upon whom you ask, it's either alot more capable
   than Titan, or just a little.
   
   Only the DC is presently envisioned to have more or less the same
   attributes as Shuttle, and we both know there is no way Shuttle can
   ever compare favorably to a paper launch system. Pegasus was new and
   revolutionary too, and it has spent the past eighteen months sitting
   in an assembly plant. TSS was new and revolutionary, but was brought
   to its knees by a mislocated bolt. Titan IV was a relatively low-level
   expansion of current technology, but was a year late off the pad and
   has flown at a rate one-fourth of the proposed schedule. GD did a
   relatively minor design change on the Centaur to accomodate greater
   payload, and it has since failed in flight twice. Shuttle has had all
   these problems, and more. Gary and I say similar bugs will afflict
   the DC program, but you tell us not to worry and then call us
   pessimists. Hmph.
      
   -Brian
   
   P.S., Sorry about the multiple posts of my previous message in this
   thread. PortalX crapped out on me in the middle of message uploading.
      
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: alden@netcom.com (Andrew L. Alden)
Subject: Re: Earthquake Filmed from Space
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:09:27 GMT

baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
:      After precisely lining up enlarged portions of the images on
: a computer display, Crippen flickered between the two and
: observed the differing ground motions across each of the faults.
: He repeated this process with other parts of the images taken of
: several different sites along the faults, and in some cases, he
: observed newly formed cracks in the fault zones.

I watched his display both at the press conference and later downstairs,
and it was quite striking.  The SPOT images are 10 m per pixel, the best
unclassified images you can get, yet even so, movements that were
measured on the ground at a meter or so were clearly visible.  This is
yet another argument for declassifying space photos made by military
satellites, which are of as good quality looking down as the Hubble
Space Telescope's are looking up.

The flicker technique is used by astronomers to detect moving objects
against the backdrop of the fixed stars.  The beauty of Crippen's work
is that he could get nearly the same precision using images with less
precise controls--a satellite in orbits a year apart over the same place
on the ground.

His work will pay off in similar situations where there is poor ground
control, like central Asia.

--Andrew: 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Platinum (was Re: Justification for the Space Program)
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 01:05:24 GMT

Gary mistated the concentration of platinum at Sudbury.  It's about 1
ppm, and would not be worth mining were it not for the copper and
nickel.  The platinum-rich part of the layered ultramafics in South
Africa hits several ounces per ton.  Placer deposits can be much richer
but are limited.  It would be interesting to know the platinum
concentration in tropical nickel laterite deposits.
 
Detecting platinum is actually nontrivial, as, on a small scale, its
concentration in rocks can be rather nonuniform.  Just picking up a
rock and sending it to the lab for analysis won't do; you must grind
up tons to get a decent sample.

Automotive catalytic converters contain a bit less than 3 grams of
PGEs, mostly platinum, with some palladium and rhodium.

The cost of platinum is currently somewhere around $350/oz, not $500.

If we ever go to a full-nuclear economy, a significant source of the
PGEs ruthenium, rhodium and palladium will be from reprocessed nuclear
waste.  A 1 GWe reactor operated for a year should produce on the
order of tens of kilograms of each of these, particularly ruthenium.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: cohn@zephyr.meteo.McGill.CA
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Poker Flat
Date: 3 Jan 93 19:14:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0ALGt.7Kn.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU



> Does anyone know anything about "Poker Flats" in Alaska..
> Up near Fairbanks, AK.. If I remember right it is run by the 
> University of Alaska Fairbanks.. Mostly does atmospheric (northern lights, et
> 
> Michael Adams
> Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu

    This is rather dated information but...10 years ago the University of
Alaska's Geophysical Institute operated the Poker Flat MST Radar.  It was
used to study tropospheric and stratospheric (below about 30 km) atmospheric
turbulence, winds, and waves, as well as mesospheric (around 85 km) echoes.

    Nearby related facilities (the Poker Flat research range?) were used to
launch rockets for mesospheric research, and track balloons to 30km for wind
profiles.

    More recently they have been involved in 'active' experiments using
rockets to release chemicals perturbing (temporarily and locally!) electron
and ion concentrations in the ionosphere.

    Also, I think I recall GI getting money from congress to build
a high latitude radar for ionospheric research.

    Anyway, I'm sure GI would be happy to send you a glossy brochure if you
write to them (Geophysical Institute, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK 99701)
and I think they also have a quasi-periodic newsletter.

Steve
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle thermal tiles
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:27:54 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec21.171239.25448@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>A call to the Russian embassy or Glav-whomever, perhaps? Say you're a
>researcher and offer 'em $20 bucks (U.S.) for the data. Heck, $30 and shipping
>would probably get you a used Buran tile. :)

A friend who works with Payload Systems (the folks who pissed off the
pro fred crowd with the "micro gee xtalography is not really any
better than 1 gee xtalography" paper in Nature recently) was *GIVEN*
a free Buran tile last time he visited space city (or whatever it is
they've decided to call the place).  It's surprisingly dense.

It's got a tacky plastic copy of a Proton glued to it.

-Kevin

Xref: sparky sci.space:18513 talk.politics.space:1654
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 31 Dec 92 18:40:19 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Dec29.011735.16300@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
]In article <1992Dec28.223226.12849@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
]
]> My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
]> which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
]> expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
]> easily argued against using the same historical
]> information. Can I prove my assertion?
]> No. However, neither can you prove the contrary.
]
]
]Let me try this again: your historical argument is just bullshit.  The
]reasoning is vacuous, independent of the truth of the conclusion.

Ah, objectivity.
 
]if they really would be profitable.)  Space resources?  We went
]to the moon and found... very little of practical value.  Space

Gee. We sent six missions to the moon and found nothing so that means that
there is nothing of value on the moon? Do you define "practical" as "everything
jumps out of hiding at you"? There haven't been enough surveys done on the 
moon for you to simply jump to the conclusion that there is nothing of 
practical value on the moon. But then, I am nothing but a mere history 
undergraduate so I guess I've missed something.

BTW, aren't there other places besides the moon to look for things? Things 
that make us go? :)

]manufacturing?  Endlessly hyped with little to show for it.

Has it been tried at any level for you to make that sort of conclusion?

]You advance the straw man argument that I am arguing that there will
]never be any benefits.  As you say, we can't know that.  But lack of
]certainty doesn't mean we are absolved from the need to make decisions
]on how scarce funds are expended.  You can't just say "you can't prove
]me wrong, so gimme."  At least, not with a straight face.

I find it amazing that you can say "you can't prove it so NO!" with a straight
face. You have to try first.
 


-- 
Patrick Chester            |----------------------------------------------------
wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |"The earth is too fragile a basket in which to keep
Politically Incorrect      |  all your eggs." Robert A. Heinlein
Future Lunar Colonist      |"The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are 
#^%$!! Militarist          |  going to the stars." Robert A. Heinlein
(Of the Sun Tzu mentality) |----------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:12:52 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 <zms23rp@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>The key words in your rebuttal are "...neither one is in contact
>with the Earth."  Exactly.  I can't just "walk" from a DC-10 in
>flight to a 747.  I can't just "walk" from a DC-1 to another
>DC-1 in flight either.

You can walk from one place to another carrying a four-ton
cargo container?  On Earth?  I doubt it.


>Ever note how careful NASA is when it sends astronauts on EVA.  

About as careful as divers probably were when logging 
the first hundred man-hours on the first aqualungs.

Ever note how many recreational divers there are today? 


>They make sure they are somehow securred to the shuttle 
>or the RMS so that they don't accidently drift off.

Divers can drift off, too.  And they have to worry
a *lot* more about sharks. :-)

The difference is, we've spent, probably, millions 
of hours perfecting SCUBA techniques and hundreds
of hours on EVA. 


>And as for tranfering fuel while under way, my naval
>knowledge is less, but I don't know too many groups of people
>other than the military that do fuel transfers while in
>motion.  It's generally a whole lot easier to come to a
>dock, or at least anchor in calm water.

So why do you assume that anyone who does inspace refueling
will try to do it "under weigh" instead of docking first?

Oh, I forgot, we're assuming that the pilots are stupid. :-)


>>We aren't talking air-to-air refueling either.  In-space refueling
>>does not require split-second timing, only hooking up the hoses
>>properly.

>	Only.  Given the current understanding I have of DC-1,
>(and please, correct me wrong if I am) there is no mechanism
>for a drogue or probe.  

And the C-130's design didn't include cabbages.  That doesn't
mean that if you needed cabbages someplace, you couldn't use
the Herky bird to haul 'em there.  

Cargo planes are versatile.


>	Now, one way I see around this is to redesign the DC-1
>so that two can accomplish a hard-docking of some sort.  

What makes you think a DC-1 can't accomplish a hard docking.

McDAC has artist's conceptions showing a DC-1 docked to
space station Freedom.  That should tell you something.



>>>	No, some people are telling me, DC-1 will do this, do that, and
>>>hey, we can add this, we can add that... it's all going to be easy.
>>>I'ms aying, "sounds good, but prove it."
>>
>>Again, I thought that was what we are doing.
>>
>	Sorry, but to me, and some others, it sounds like some
>people ahere are trying to skip the prove it step and say, "take
>our word for granted."

No, we're being misquoted.  What we actually said was, "Lead,
follow, or get the hell out of the way."








Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 15:25:25 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:29:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.203937.27599@iti.org> Allen W. Sherzer, aws@iti.org
writes:
>Now you might argue that space is the future of mankind and that a
>spacefaring civilization is more important than rock climbing. I aggree
>with that but must point out that if you think current government space
>activity has anything to do with that then YOU are the one out of touch.

Actually, that is exactly what I am arguing. Unlike you though, I see
the benefits derived from NASA's activities. Are there problems? yes.
Should NASA be doing commercial launches? Absolutely not. However,
to contend that NASA is a failure is to ignore that all pioneering
work started with a few individuals and a dream willing to make the
sacrifices to make their dream a reality. That step has been taken. NASA
should turn the commercial activities over to corporations and return to
doing cutting-edge scientific research, period.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: January 3, 1993
Date: 30 Dec 92 22:21:01 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/428.0 - <ParaNet(sm) , Arvada CO

On  Sunday  evening,  January  3rd,  you  will  be  taken  on  an

incredible  journey back to July 1947.  To Roswell,  New  Mexico,

sight of one of the most important events in the history of  man:

the  crash  of  a disk, alleged to be an  alien  spacecraft,  the

recovery  of  alien  bodies, the subsequent  coverup  by  the  US

government, and more.  Join us on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM  with

our guest, Kevin Randle, co-author of UFO Crash at Roswell as  he

tells  of  his incredible investigation  uncovering  the  Roswell

incident.   That's  Sunday  evening,  January  3rd,  at  9:00  PM

Mountain,  11:00  Eastern.  We guarantee that the truth  will  be

stranger than fiction!

Join us on Galaxy Six, Channel 17, Audio 7.5 MHz.

Toll free call in lines are available.

--  
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC cost estimates
Date: 31 Dec 92 13:45:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C04M9F.58D.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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
-Date: 31 Dec 92 00:45:13 GMT
-Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

-In article <1992Dec27.203327.21241@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
[Debate on cost of DC.]

-You misrepresent my position. All I'm saying is that new systems are
-rarely as cheap and easy in metal as they are on paper. That's what
-research and development programs are designed to discover. Only a few 
-things that pass through development ever reach mass production as
-cheap and troublefree as they were on paper.

Allen generally takes projected "worst-case" cost estimates for DC
and multiplies them by two or more in making his calculations, which
I think shows he is aware of the problem. That the results still come
out favorable to DC is an indication that work on DC should be continued.
(I presume you favor that.)

I should make one additional point regarding Allen's calculations - they
don't include the large opportunity cost if the Shuttle program should
be cancelled before DC is fully operational (and able to handle the full
operational capabilities of the Shuttle, if that ever happens). Doing so
would add a considerable amount to the cost estimates for DC. So I
consider Allen's calculations to be reasonable, provided that the Shuttle
program is allowed to continue while DC is being developed.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:44:26 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 <1992Dec31.004513.12224@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>You misrepresent my position. All I'm saying is that new systems are
>rarely as cheap and easy in metal as they are on paper. 

You're setting up another strawman, Gary.  No one ever said that
building launch vehicles was cheap or easy.  If it was, teenagers
would be building them in the family garage.

IMHO, anyone, in any industry, who believes a million dollars is 
a small amount of money deserves a pink slip.

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Space List Flame Wars
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:25:22 GMT


Flame wars?  Flame Wars?!  You think these are flame wars?  Go over to
comp.os.vms.  There are some beauts running over there!
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 12/29/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Magellan, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 00:15:00 GMT

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                          December 29, 1992

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, performing
a desat (desaturation of the reaction wheels) in each 3-hour orbit,
a starcal (star calibration) on every other orbit, and transmitting
a carrier signal (plus X-band telemetry) which is precisely tracked
by the DSN (Deep Space Network) stations to extract gravity data.

2.  On Sunday, December 20, the spacecraft performed two radio
occultation experiments.  As the spacecraft passed behind Venus (as
viewed from Earth), the S- and X-band signals were carefully monitored
at the DSS-14 station at Goldstone.

3.  Magellan performed a limb-tracking maneuver on both ingress and
egress.  In this way, the received signal passed through the
atmosphere of Venus as it was refracted around the limb.  S-band
communication was maintained through the entire period of occultation.
The X-band signal was tracked partway through both in entry and exit
portions of the occultations.

4.  Radio science investigators Dr. Paul Steffes of Georgia Tech, and
Dr. Jon Jenkins of the SETI Institute/NASA Ames Research Center,
expect the data to yield information on the thermal structure and
abundance of sulfuric acid vapor as well as average electron density
profiles of the Venus atmosphere.

5.  The spacecraft has completed 6426 orbits of Venus; 790 so far in
Cycle-4, which will end on May 25, 1993.  Cycle-4 is 43% complete.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? 
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:46:01 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 <1992Dec27.162459.20371@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>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.

The DC-1/2/3 were all essentially the same aircraft, Gary.

Have you *ever* posted a historical fact that wasn't wrong/silly? :-)

>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.

You'd also claim that the Montgolfiers were wasting their time,
because man would never fly...

Newsgroups: sci.space