HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
Subject: Re: absolutely, positively overnight
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:45:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.225826.12281@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>But they didn't call the SR-71 the Recon-STRIKE-71 before LBJ's mangling for
>nothing.

And the F-111 and the F-117 are fighters...

-- 
My opinions are my own.
From: jhussain@cs.ucsd.edu (Jabir Hussain)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Current position of past probes
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:40:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.42653
Organization: CSE Dept., UC San Diego


I was reading about all the probes NASA and the Soviets have launched over
the years and they all seem to end with 'lost contact on...' or 'will lose
contact after...'.  I was thinking that, for those that didn't die on the
surface of some planet, it would not be difficult to extrapolate their orbits
to get some idea of where each one is at any time.

I just had this image of future 'space tours' flying alongside Mariner II
(still going undisturbed on its way) while tour guides inform,

	"...and on your right you can now see Mariner II, the
	  first Venus probe, launched AD 1961..."
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:26:00 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <ByuqKM.F2@access.digex.com> <1992Dec7.173321.2812@ke4zv.uucp>  
  <BywyEy.7uE@access.digex.com> <1992Dec9.140455.6628@ke4zv.uucp>  
  <ewright.724092627@convex.convex.com> <71520@cup.portal.com>
  <ewright.724353431@convex.convex.com>


>Nope.  You might get more than 10 people in it, but it would
>never get off the ground.  NASA studied this idea years ago.
>It was dropped because it couldn't meet minimum safety requirements.
>
>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>as the entire DC development program.

   I believe that's the cost of the DC-X development, which will not
   be manned, or achieve spaceflight.
   Also, if Shuttle, which is hung from the SIDE of a giant cryogenic
   fuels tank, cannot meet safety requirements, how will DC-1, in which
   the crew will ride sandwiched between two cryo tanks?
   I also wonder how much safety provisions could be built for a
   passenger module located in this area. I'm not saying Shuttle is
   safer or more dangerous, just that both have considerable safety
   problems to overcome, and trumpeting about DC passenger accomodations
   is definitely premature.
   
   -Brian
   
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Mars: "unusual" landforms, lat/long
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 15:42:02 GMT

In article <s6R0uB2w165w@stycx.hacktic.nl> peter@stycx.hacktic.nl (Author) writes:
>You say that you distribute the original Viking images, how could I 
>obtain these.
>

Email the folks at the NSSDCA at request@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov and ask
for the list of CDROMs that are available.  The turnaround time
is only a day or so.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: absolutely, positively overnight
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:22:52 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 <Bz4841.Ar8@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>I don't seriously expect that a DC-1 would ever become Air Force One,
>actually.  Not because it's dangerous, but because it's too *small*,
>and because servicing facilities for it won't be nearly as common as
>those for 747s for a long time.  But I rather suspect it would be rather
>less than twenty years before the president rides in one.  He *is* the
>boss, after all...

"Air Force One" is just a call sign for whatever plane the President
happens to be riding in.  The Air Force has an entire squadron of planes 
which, at one time or another, may be Air Force One.  The big 707 (now 
747) is the most famous, but not every trip requires something that
large.

A DC-type vehicle would probably find use because it would allow
certain types of diplomatic missions that are impossible today.
Remember shuttle diplomacy?  If the President, or one of his
advisors, can fly halfway across the globe, attend a top-level
meeting, and return to Washington, all in one afternoon, I think
that's a capability that would be used.  If nothing else, it would
allow short-notice meetings to be held before the press figured out
what was going on.
  

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:59:04 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 <Bz462y.4or@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>Anyone ever priced a trip to Antarctica?

International Expeditions charges $4750 for 17 days, plus air fare.  
The cruise departs from Patagonia, so you can add about another $1000 
for air.

This is not the most expensive trip you can take.  Air fare to
Africa starts at around $2400 and the ground cost for an African
safari can easily run to $6000-8000.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:53:51 GMT

In article <Bz7wLM.6s8@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Just which aircraft were you thinking of, Gary?  I can think of one
>aircraft that had a bad performance shortfall but was redesigned and
>continued into a successful program (the F-102).  I can't think of
>*any* F-series "gap" in the last 40 years that fits your description.

Yeah, bad line of argument, most of the systems that made it as far
as being assigned a number weren't technical failures even if they
were market failures. Actually I was thinking of the P-39 when I
wrote that. That aircraft made it into production, but was a dismal
failure at meeting it's procurement goals. It started out as a 5,000
pound turbosupercharged high performance all altitude fighter and
was sold to the Air Corps as such. But by the time it was delivered,
it was 50% overweight, had the turbosupercharger deleted, had poor
rate of climb, and a low service ceiling. This was an example of
fast tracking from a prototype to production without working out
all the bugs required to make it a practical fighter.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mcdaniel@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us (Tim McDaniel)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Organization: GREX Public Access Unix +1 313 761 3000
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:34:53 GMT

My source of information is "From Shield to Storm", James F. Dunnigan
and Austin Bay, William Morrow & Co., New York, 1992, ISBN 
0-688-11034-7.

In article <1992Dec14.221347.3359@iti.org> aws@iti.org 
(Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.144135.14439@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP 
>(Gary Coffman) writes:
>>but as far as I know, no recon aircraft were lost.
>BTW, flying recon is one of the most dangerous types of flying in wartime.

p. 171:
"1 OH-58 helicopter.  Scouting helicopter ...
2 OV-10. Observation aircraft, spotted targets for aircraft attacks."
Missions of other lost aircraft are usually not noted, but it appears
that they were not recon (except perhaps the F-14A loss).  A total of
40 aircraft are shown as lost: that's 7.5%, comparable to the number of
sorties flown for recon.

>I don't think much if any recon was flown. The Air Force had better things
>to do with its aircraft.

*snort*  Much target location and bomb-damage assessment was done via
aircraft.  From p. 155, the top 5 mission types as percentage of
sorties flown:

	Combat supply and support		28%
	Attack logistical and support targets	22%
	Attack Iraqi troops in the field	20%
	Recon and follow-up missions		6%
	Close-air support			6%

Primary aircraft recon was in the "Great Scud Hunt" (remember how much
consternation Scuds caused?), attacks on logistical and support
targets, attacks on Iraqi troops in the field, and pure reconnaissance
and follow-up missions (pp. 150-153).  However, page 164 notes that,
with better sensors, "bombers and recon aircraft become one"; how does
one count those sorties?

P. 166 discusses "communications integration" problems.  "A particular
shortcoming was the ability to get information on targets found to
aircraft that could attack them.  Most of the Allied recon aircraft
were still using film cameras. ... Satellite reconnaissance, the
oft-heralded solution to this problem, was misunderstood (or simply
oversold) before the war."

All told, there are 55 index entries for "recon" or "reconnaissance".
Some, though, refer to ground recon, such as Special Forces or long- or
short-range ground patrols.  P. 153 notes the problems with damage
assessment.  Unfortunately, the Iraqis, like the Russians, emphasize
battlefield deception, and some assets (like pontoon bridges) may be
stored hidden while not in use.  Ground recon was often needed to
assess damage.

-- 
Tim McDaniel
Internet: mcdaniel@{grex,m-net}.ann-arbor.mi.us, mcdaniel@adi.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: cryptocraft photography, Re: Aurora
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 04:09:11 GMT


anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams) writes:
 >>Were there any photos of the F-117A prior to the official release? 
 >>I don't beleive so, even though it flew for almost a decade.
 >Yes, at least one in AW&ST, July 10, 1989, p22.  

Yes... but the "official release" that I was speaking of took place on 
November 10, 1988.  That is when the AF first acknowledged the F-117As
existence and released a single photo (which AW&ST of course printed :).  

 >This is sometime after the first flights of the craft in 1981, but of 
 >course all the early flights were done exclusivly at night.  

The Have Blues flew in 1977, and the first F-117A flew on June 18, 1981.
In all that time it seems nobody really managed to catch a good view of 
them on film (at least nobody without a Senior Trend clearance :)

 >I'm sure there will be pictures of whatever this/these craft are.
I'll certainly be waiting...  It may be a while though.

 >Someone with camera and a telescope lens will catch it.
The sky is awfully BIG...
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:57:31 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec11.175719.24880@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>on several grounds, the low chamber pressures lead to very high
>loads on the turbopumps because so much more fuel per unit time
>has to flow to achieve the high thrust required with low pressure
>engines. Reducing stress in one area can lead to increased stress 
>


I dont think that is an unsolvable problem.   THe Saturn F-1's sucked
fuel like no tomorrow.   The soviet's haul fuel to feed those
big protons and energiya engines.

I suspect packaging and design are bigger problems  then just mass flow.


>tankage and structure are required as well. Certainly I agree that HTHL
>is most efficient since you don't need as much fuel to get to orbit, or
>to get landing fuel to orbit when aerodynamic lift can help out. That
>means your vehicle can be smaller and have a better mass ratio than the
>pure brute force approaches. Certainly a launcher that is never intended
>to re-enter the atmosphere is more efficient without wings, but if the
>wings can handle the bulk of the return trip as passive systems not
>requiring high speed high precision machinery, they deserve serious
>consideration. 




These have been consifdered and dropped.

Horizontal take off  is not simple.   while it makes people comfortable
it means the bird has to sit a long time in the soup,  sucking in 
O2  and feeding the engines.   The stress is high.  the heat buildup
is enormous.     NASP is going berserk on this problem.
Flight near MACH 12  can be a real trick.  

McDaC, chaose to just fly right out of this soup  and take a simpler
approach.  

Wings are not useful if they only generate lift up to abou;t  20 miles,
and you have to keep climbing another 130 miles.

Henry posted something on this.   

Also if an HTHL, is going to be mostly lifting body,  then so will the DC.

As i understand it, it will blunt fly down to mach 3 and then roll
tail first.  engines will provide terminal management.  most velocity
will be shed by passive shielding.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aurora
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 12 Dec 92  12:12:00

Some other reports on Aurora from southern California:
 
On many Thursday mornings, this area is being shaken by earthquake-like
tremors which are supposedly sonic booms from some secret plane.
 
The Los Angeles Times reported during the late 1980's that airline pilots
were seeing delta winged aircraft flying extremely high and fast over the
Pacific Ocean. At the time, the LA Times speculated that the mystery
aircraft was a prototype A-12, a project subsequently cancelled by the
DoD, due to massive cost overruns....

___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.00
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:43:47 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <Bz462y.4or@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> So, if 350 people will pay 
> $52,000 for a vehicle that isn't flying and isn't all that heavily advertised
> I think we can assume that this price will provide a big enough market for
> space tourism.  The next question is how much higher it can get before the
> market dries up.  Is there any other data out there?  What's the maximum that
> real people pay for really cool Earth-bound trips?  Anyone ever priced a trip
> to Antarctica?

Ah, the time-honored game of trying to estimate the market for space
tourism...  makes me nostalgic for the early days of the Shuttle
era...

There's a book review in the 11 December *Chicago Tribune*, on page 3
of the "Tempo" section, of a new book by a guy who paid $30,000 for a
tourist trip to the North Pole.  He rode on a Soviet icebreaker. 
Sorry, don't recall the title or author.

My parents circled Mt. Everest in a jetliner, on a round-the-world
trip that probably cost them several kilobucks apiece.  How much would
it be worth to land there?

Presumably people would pay more to visit the wreck of the *Titanic*,
or maybe live on the ocean floor for a week or two.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:47:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.163114.4715@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.125638.29623@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Last I heard they're
>>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
>>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.
>
>No offense but I would like some backing for that.

Oh. Oh. My source is a post by Nick Szabo Sept 19th of last year where
he quotes a Mir Press article on suited time for sale. Since they offered
John Denver a ride for $10 million, this must be out to lunch.

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program 
Distribution: world
Organization: None
Reply-To: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 01:11:41 +0000

In article <1992Dec19.203626.15126@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com writes:

>In article <1992Dec19.143517.23184@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu
> (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>Breeder reactors exist today.  The technology for reprocessing
>>nuclear fuel exists.  Better, cheaper technologies for this are
>>in the works (the pyroprocess being developed at ANL, for example).
>>They are not moving faster because we have such an embarrassing
>>glut of energy.
>
>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>them?
>
>Brendan
>-- 
>Brendan B. Boerner              Phone: 512/346-8380
>Internet: bboerner@novell.com   MHS: bboerner@novell
>Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
>
>

As a matter of interest, the British government recently announced the
cancellation of the experimental fast breeder reactor programme at
Dounraey, Scotland.  This reactor has been in operation for many years,
producing electricity and selling it to the National Grid.  The cancellation
of this programme will result in the loss of 350 jobs at the UK Atomic
Energy Authority (for whom I work).  Tragic to effectively throw away
decades of work in this manner.

Chris
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
| Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
| (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
|  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: bdickens@el_padre.mitre.org (Brian Dickens)
Subject: LANSAT satellite images.
Keywords:  LANSAT
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:59:58 GMT

Does anyone know where I can find information describing the format of
LANSAT satellite images?

Any help is appreciated...
-bdickens

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:35:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1091@dgaust.dg.oz> young@spinifex.dg.oz (Philip Young) writes:
>|>								... unless
>|> you have realtime downlink in the footprint of the satellite...
> 
>Ever hear of relay satellites?  Do you believe DoD doesn't have anything
>at least as good as TDRSS, in quantity?

DoD *has* TDRS, in quantity. :-)  One of the complications in scheduling
TDRS coverage for things like Hubble and the shuttle is that there is
extensive DoD use of the TDRS system.  I'm told you need a security
clearance to even get involved in scheduling.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary,alt.cd-rom
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 15:37:08 GMT

In article <Byronx.E1B@well.sf.ca.us> shiva@well.sf.ca.us (Kenneth Porter) writes:
>> Yes.  Keep in mind the images are the raw unprocessed data from Voyager.
>> The images are black and white.
>
>So where does the color come from that we see in the news? Is the
>original data in color and the CD just omits it, or is the color
>synthesized somehow?

The Voyager vidicon camera are B&W.  The imaging unit has a color wheel
with several different colored cels.  I believe there are nine different
filters.  The folks at the JPL Image Processing Lab (IPL) combine
the red, green, and violet images together to produce a color image.

Theorectically this is trivially done, but the three images are not
aligned.  Therefore, you must know the position and orientation of
the spacecraft relative to the subject of the picture in order to
align the three images and then combine them into a single picture.


>And does the retrieval software have all of the neat histogram stuff
>that we saw as the images came in live? It would be cool to play with
>false color on these images. [Coming soon to a rock video near you?]

IMDISP is released with the disk and is available on ames.arc.nasa.gov.
It has the capability to manipulate the histogram of the image and
used a pseudocolor palette.
>
>The lack of good marketing on this stuff demonstrates once again why
>the space program needs to be in private hands (unless it's Commodore!).

Note that these are meant for research purposes.  You can get nice
clean pictures from NASA easily.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space