HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:55:17 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:

>Folks,
>	Hearing all these wild ideas passed around on this Pluto flyby has
>led me to try to remind everyone of a few things concerning this mission.
>First, Staehle is trying to bring back the concept of "faster, better,
>cheaper" that Goldin is pushing, which was so successful in the '60s.

But ion drives are tested. JPL tested much worse ones than we
have now back in the '70's, as part of project SERT.

(or did someone else run the program? I thought it was JPL...)

So it's tested. Also, I'll bet SERT was pretty cheap. We know
the exhaust is faster. 

So, ion drives are cheaper and faster than ordinary propulsion.
I don't know of a "better" criteria you can apply...

>As a result, the primary concern for this mission is COST.  After that,
>is a rapid schedule.  Finally, they'll address the performance aspects.
>	As a result, this mission WILL NOT use any exotic or unproven 
>technology, just because they strike someone's fancy.  There are a lot more 
>"down-to-Earth" missions that can be used as technology testbeds.  No ion 
>thrusters.  No aerobrakes. 

Then why use rockets at all? They're only 30 years old as launchers of
interplanetary vehicles...

BTW, it is precicely because of the reluctance to do advanced propulsion
that the mission will cost $ 400 million instead of $200 million.
If Goldin had capped the cost lower, you wouldn't have been able
to plan it using only solids, and maybe ion drives would have
been _neccesary_, so stop using the cost excuse.

Because of this "chinese firecracker" tech y'all insist on using,
guess what:

>They are also limiting the scientific payload to 
>only those instruments that have been deemed most critical to a Pluto flyby.  
>These include a CCD camera, a UV spectrometer, an IR mapping spectrometer, as 
>well as the radio science that can be done using the main antenna.  This means
>no magnetometer.  No dust collectors.  Nothing else.

And it doesn't suprise me.

--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
If seven maids with seven brooms swept for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
---------
"NOAH!"                        \           \ Lewis Carrol
"Yes lord?"                     > Bill Cosby, The Story of Noah
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"/
From: slb@suned1.nswses.navy.MIL (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Where is it, then? (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
Summary: This is humor.
Keywords: haha
Date: 15 Sep 92 07:38:53 GMT
Reply-To: slb@suned1.UUCP (Shari L Brooks)
Organization: Naval Satellite Operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

In article <BuH6K9.7r@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
(Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes about Terraforming the Sahara: 

>      Keep in mind that the
>    countries that need this are dirt poor.  Come to think of it, all the
>    countries of the world seem to be broke about now.          

Then who has the money?  The people don't; the corporations are posting losses;
the govt's have deficits; the black market isn't *that* big of a black hole.

Wait, I got it.  It must be the space aliens.  They have taken the world's
money to pay for the carving of the Mars Face...



Sorry, it's late and I'm tired...

-- 
 Shari L Brooks                  |      slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
 NAVSOC code NSOC323D            |             shari@caspar.nosc.mil
 NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013     |  ==> this will change by the end of Sept <==
The US Navy probably disagrees w/all statements/opinions above, which are mine.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: matulka@convex.com (Jerry Matulka)
Subject: Re: RL-10
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:03:31 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 article <ewright.716575398@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>Oh?  You think so?  Do you remember the test pilot who was killed
>returning from space in his X-15 back in the 1960's?  I bet not.
>Compare him to the Challenger astronauts or Grissom, White, and
>Chaffee.
>

Yes I do, the pilot was Michael Adams.

_____________________________________________________________________________
|Jerry Matulka       Phone: (214)497-4305         Email: matulka@convex.COM |
|3000 Waterview Parkway, P.O. Box 833851, Richardson, Texas USA 75083-3851  |
|___________________________________________________________________________|
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: 10 Sep 92 13:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <BuC31F.2L5@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Bu9ADv.6M1@world.std.com> tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes:
>>Could you clarify whether this craft is supposed to just flyby (a la
>>Voyager) or is truly a Pluto "orbiter"? ...
>
>It is extremely difficult to combine a reasonable payload and a manageably
>short trip time with an orbiter mission.  Pluto is *a long way away*; to
>get there in under a decade, the probe has to be fast.  Killing all that
>velocity is inordinately expensive in mass. 

Aerobrake? 

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: farthest Laser signal
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:45:46 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <!r5y6x+@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>>>... lasers for high bandwidth, semi-private, space communication?"...
>>Feasible.  There is intense interest in the idea, and some in-space
>>experiments will fly in this decade. 
>
>Forgive my not knowing the basic vocabulary, but is this what's known as a
>lidar (laser radar?)?  If so, the Lidar In-Space Technology Experiment is
>scheduled for a 1994 launch.

No, lidar is bouncing laser beams off uncooperative objects and observing
the reflection.  Laser communications, the subject of the discussion, is
sending them one way to a cooperative receiver.  (Well, you probably end
up going both ways, for several reasons, but in principle it could be
unidirectional.)

>>It's just possible that secret
>>military systems might be operational already ...
>
>I know work is active in this area, but has anything flown yet?

"I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you." :-)

No, actually, I don't know either...  If they exist, they are quite secret.
-- 
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: grasso@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A)
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Summary: reason for capsule interface
Keywords: FLO Apollo lunar lander
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 00:26:19 GMT

Nick Szabo writes:
>The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
>an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
>the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
>costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the
>equator.  The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
>size of Saturn 5!
> ...
>The lander would consist both of LOX/LH
>propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather
>expensive, kluged combination.

According to the NASA documents I have seen, this system is intended
to act as a portion of the full-up base component delivery system. The
landing stage is to be common for both manned flights and unmanned
base component deliveries, in order to increase commonality of hardware
and save money. Since the base requires the delivery of components, some
sort of HLV is considered necessary for the delivery of surface habitation
modules and the follow-on base construction components.  Therefore,
the manned return capsule is to be mated to the same kind of lander that
can deliver pieces of the base.

I think the decision to launch direct from the Earth to the lunar surface
was made in order to eliminate on-orbit mating of the cargo to a lunar
transfer vehicle. This particular design also eliminates the need to
deliver astronauts to an LEO station for later transfer to the lunar
surface - useful if the space station is canceled, or the transportation
system servicing the station is grounded.

>The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.

I believe that they are to be preceded by a large number of unmanned
missions for resource mapping. The FLO missions provide an opportunity
to test technologies necessary for constructing a base, and perform
scientific and engineering research that cannot be automated. Serious
questions remain as to how to perform some of the most basic construction
tasks on the lunar surface. Techniques for operations as simple as
digging holes in the regolith require full-up testing, as they have never
been performed on the scale that a lunar base may require. 

>Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for
>food, water, and shelter.

True. But, they are not intended to be the final base, they are intended
to lay the groundwork for a permanent research facility. If no further
missions are performed, they will indeed be "like Apollo".

	-Chris Grasso
	 Center for Space Construction
	 University of Colorado


Xref: sparky sci.space:12935 sci.astro:9680
From: rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu (Richard M. Warner)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:31:10 GMT
Organization: San Jose State University, Math & CS

In article <1992Sep12.194702.23291@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:
>From: pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M)
>Subject: Clinton and Space Funding
>Date: 12 Sep 92 19:47:02 GMT

Please move your idealogical diatribes to an appropriate forum (alt.*,
talk.*, or /dev/null)

>	Bill Clinton claims he will cut taxes,
>	balance the budget, and increase social spending.
>
>	We all know those are empty campaign promises,
>	but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>	hostile to technology and research spending
>	and especially to projects involving
>	space exploration and astronomy.
>
>	If you've not yet done so,
>	please register to vote.
>	There's still time.
>
>	When election day comes,
>	please get out and vote.
>	It's your right AND your duty.
>
>	A non-vote is not a form of protest;
>	it's a clear signal that you're happy with things
>	just the way they are and you really don't care anyway.
>
>	Don't stay home that day just because you're disgusted,
>	and let a pitifully small percentage of people
>	determine our nation's future.
>
>-- 
>
>pssres12@ucs.usl.edu	Gerard Vignes, USL PO Box 42709, Lafayette LA 70504 USA
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Maximum Interplanetary Launch Velocity?
Date: 12 Sep 92 09:49:24 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)

In article <65698@cup.portal.com>, lordSnooty@cup (Andrew - Palfreyman) writes:
>Relative to the Earth, what is the highest velocity we
>can currently boost to for interplanetary missions? - is
>this significantly higher than typical orbit speeds?

It's hard to answer this question since it's somewhat vague.  Using the largest
current boosters, and a sufficiently small payload mass, we can get higher
velocities than have been employed so far.  Working from memory, I recall that
Ulysses left Earth with the highest speed, which I believe was slightly over
twice the orbital velocity of the shuttle that launched it.  (Any Earth escape
mission is going to have to achieve a velocity which is greater than orbital
velocity by a factor of at least the square root of 2).

After a day or two, the velocity with respect to the Earth is less interesting
than velocity with respect to the Sun.

>Would a gravity assist from the Moon make much difference,
>even if repeated?

Some difference, I'd guess.  The ISEE spacecraft, as it was being turned into
the ICE spacecraft (its mission was being changed from monitoring the solar
wind to flying by a comet) made many passes by the moon for gravity assist.
Its destination, however, didn't require a great velocity change, so I'm not
sure that the moon is really a great source of energy; it's just what's
available.

>Is the maximum speed likely to change drastically due to
>improved technologies in the near future?

The improved technologies which would make a difference are various forms of
nuclear or electric propulsion.  Using these efficient, low thrust methods
would allow dramatically higher velocities to be reached (I expect the whole
paradigm of interplanetary travel would change from near instantaneous
acceleration/coast/near instantaneous deceleration to something more like slow
acceleration/slow deceleration).  As to "the near future", there are no such
technologies under development, although research and study has been going on
for the last 30 years or so.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mirrors
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:56:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuIuvx.K0B.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

John Roberts:

It has been suggested that mirrors might be able to "orbit" at a  
distance above a fixed spot at which the thrust from the sail equals  
the gravitational force. It would be like a rocket that kept firing  
forever and sat one meter off the ground...

It is not immediately clear to me whether this would allow reflection  
to the surface. The cases I have heard used the sails as sunshades or  
observation stations rather than reflectors.

There was work published (Solaris) that suggested using mirrors in  
GEO (I believe) to increase growing cycles, light cities, etc.

					Dale Amon
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:29:22 GMT

> You are correct about global warming. We have no conclusive  
evidence. On the
> other hand if it is truly happening, and we just cannot figure it  
out, we're
> fucked.  Ozone loss, on the other hand, is quite real and quite  
anthropogenic,
> 


Current worst case warmup scenarios have fallen from the previous  
maximum of +5F to (I believe) 2-3 degrees maximum over a 30-50 year  
times span.

This hardly "fucked". It means some coastal areas recede at a rate  
not much different from the rate at which property is written off.

It means that food production and wealth will redistribute somewhat,  
but no one is really sure if the climate effects will be that severe  
or not. In the worst case, Canadians get to export wheat and corn to  
Kansas.

Bangladesh... Oh, well, they ARE fucked. The exception that proves  
the rule...

To put it in perspective: the temperature change now foreseen in  
worst case scenarios is less than natural average Earth temperature  
shifts that have happened in the past. The Cretaceous, for example,  
was a bit warmer than the expected worst case. And few expect the  
worst case.

The impacts will primarily be economic and amortized over what is  
essentially forever in economic terms.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:54:00 GMT

In article <1469100015@igc.apc.org>, mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman) writes...
> 
>Reply-To: mwgoodman@igc.org
> 
>Gerard Vignes writes:
> 
>>        We all know those are empty campaign promises,
>>        but we also know that Clinton and Gore are
>>        hostile to technology and research spending
>>        and especially to projects involving
>>        space exploration and astronomy.
> 
>You may presume this to be true, but you certainly do not _know_
>it.  Judging by their statements, precisely the opposite is true.
>You would be hard pressed to find a stronger or more knowledgable
>supporter in Congress of research and technology development than
>Al Gore.
> 
>Henry Spencer writes:
> 
>>Of particular note is that John Pike reportedly has major input to their
>>space positions and is likely to be head of the Space Council staff if
>>C/G are elected.  He basically opposes manned spaceflight and does not
>>believe that cheaper launch vehicles (e.g. SSTO) are possible.  Or so I
>>am told; those who get to vote in this election might wish to investigate
>>further if you care about the future of spaceflight.
> 
>John Pike has been a big opponent of military space boondoggles
>(SDI), but a big supporter of human space exploration.  His skepticism
>about cheaper launchers is based not on hostility to the idea but on
>history, as one vehicle after another failed to live up to predictions.
> 
>The key to the future of NASA lies with its new Administrator, not
>with the next administration.  To vote for President in this
>election on the basis of space policy issues is silly, since the
>candidates hardly differ.  To urge people to vote on that basis is
>irresponsible and dishonest.
> 
>Mark W. Goodman

Too bad that one of the first people to be replaced will by Administrator
Goldin.  That is what we heard at the WSC.  Seems he pushes the exploration
and development of space agenda of Bush too much.  Sorry there Mark.

I will get permission from the Huntsville Times to reprint here an article
in Sunday before last paper where they interviewed Gore.  He called 
planetary exploration and specifically Lunar/Mars missions "rah rah" things
that could be done later after the problems down here are solved. Does that
sound familiar?

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space markets
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:03:32 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep4.165453.2505@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>There is no need for tiny-market HLVs; commerce can share launchers with the 
>military and civilian space agencies.  The civilian agencies should be 
>following the lead of military and commerce, instead of living in their 
>own world building space stations, then building HLVs to support them, 
>none of it relevent to the commercial market.

It's not the charter of the civilian space agency to follow in anyone's
wake, certainly not the commercial sector. The agency is supposed to
do space R&D that no commercial entity will attempt because it's too 
risky or too costly. The agency is supposed to break new ground, not 
ride the coattails of the military or commerce. The current commercial
market is irrelevant to the agency's mission.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: LDO shuttle and pilot readiness
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:45:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep4.145946.13209@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>... Though they undoubtedly use
>the Mark I eyeball out the window during landing, Shuttle pilots
>are supposed to be landing IFR *today*. Thus the ground simulator's
>movies aren't strictly necessary.

They are considered valuable, though, to the point where the pilots
have experimented with taking along videotapes of training-aircraft
landings, to be screened using the little monitors on the video cameras!

>... It may be that Shuttle pilots *can't* 
>function sufficiently well to land the Shuttle manually after two
>months on orbit. In that case, Autoland is being developed to handle
>the problem.

Well, "developed" is a bit inaccurate.  The shuttle has theoretically
had full autoland capability from day one.  In principle, the only
things that require manual action are deploying the pitot probes and
lowering the landing gear, both of which are manual-only because they
are irreversible and could be fatal if done too early.  What is being
worked on now is not development of autoland, but convincing the crews
to actually *test* it.  All shuttle landings to date have been manual.
-- 
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: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: overpopulation      
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:28:08 GMT

roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts) writes:

>In article <ryvnn1#.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:

>>Let's see: China and India are hovering on the raged edge of subsistence
>>right now. Most of Africa is one meal away from starvation. -- Why that means
>>that more than half of the world is bearly producing enough food to exist
>>and no more.

>Ah yes, we use the examples of two nations with incredibly corrupt and
>inefficient systems of political economy, and a continent that's been
>wracked by tribal and civil warfare, and assume the whole planet acts that
>way. Very good.

Fine.  So it's their fault.  That makes everything OK.  

I actually thought the post was reasonable, factually based and quite rational
until I came to this line.

>The trick is technological and economic development, not forcing
>Africans at gunpoint not to have babies.

Coments like this blow me out of the water.  Yes, making everyone a first world
citizen is the long term solution, but you can cut growth drastically without
using guns.  Contraception is _not_ available in Africa.  A very large 
percentage of women would prefer to have fewer children if that was an option.
Given that population growth negates much of the progress made by foreign aid
shouldn't we be encouraging family planning rather than giving out short term
help?  

-- 
Josh Hopkins        "I believe that there are moments in history when challenges
                     occur of such a compelling nature that to miss them is to 
j-hopkins@uiuc.edu   miss the whole meaning of an epoch.  Space is such a 
                     challenge"       - James A. Michener   
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Who went to Rio?
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:11:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.054546.1@fnala.fnal.gov> higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>At the moment, "moving some industry off Earth," as a method of
>"saving the environment," must be viewed as pure science fiction. 

It is, however, a valid response to "look at all the exponential
growth of this and that, we're going to destroy our planet in
a hundred years!", which is also science fiction.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Xref: sparky sci.space:12844 sci.astro:9635 talk.politics.space:1180 alt.politics.bush:4922 alt.politics.clinton:5169