HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Privately funded Lunar probes
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:00:45 GMT

I think most of us agree that a Lunar polar orbiting space craft with  
instruments suitable for the detection of hydrogen (among other things) is a
very good mission that should be performed as soon as possible.  I've seen 
two private organizations trying to pull this off.  My question is what can we,
as a group, do to help them accomplish their goal?  

Lunar Exploration Inc (my apologies if I have the name wrong) appears to be a
continuation of the SSI effort of a few years ago.  They have information on
ames.arc.nasa gov in the pub/SPACE/LEI directory.  While it isn't as complete
as I'd like I strongly recommend that people read it.

According to the latest Ad Astra, the University of Colorado at Boulder is
also planning a polar orbiter in conjunction with the Colorado Space Grant
Consortium.  The Deep Space Exploration Society (which seems to be a group
of amature radio enthusiasts) has two 18m dishes that they hope to refurbish
and use for tracking the spacecraft.  While I'm a tad skeptical, a good 
university with commited students can sometimes pull of some impressive things.

So lets take a break from pricing shuttle flights and mentally crashing SSTOs
and think about this.  We have an opportunity to help make a real step forward.
Just what are we going to do about it?

The most immediate thing that comes to mind is a simple donation of time or
money.  Perhaps we should also work to make this a goal of our favorite space
organization - NSS, Planetary Society, SEDS, SSI or whatever.  Trying to 
convince your employer to take part (if appropriate) might not be a bad idea.
I guess what I'm trying to suggest here is that we do _something_ rather than
just making this the next fashionable point of argument or sticking it in the
FAQ file.  Looking back over my article I think I need to add one final thought:
discussion is good.  Deciding that these efforts are doomed to failure and
showing why is okay.  Ignoring them is bad.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Summary: DC-X costs about $58 million.
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:12:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.105749.28318@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Uh wait, didn't you post that SDIO's DCX program cost totalled $1.2 billion?

The DC-X contract was for about $58 million.  SDIO is accruing additional
costs at its NPO, but since the entire NPO is one three-man team, I doubt
that's very much.

I think the DC-Y effort was for $1.2 billion (this sounds low to me, but I
can't dispute it).

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
Flight Test Engineer                           Tute-Screwed Aero '92
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
These views are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Trees in space
Date: 17 Dec 92 01:03:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzDpMA.8IH.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


Eric Bales writes:
>>I posted this after having a thought on another group, but no one there
>>could find any information on it...

>>How would a tree grow in zero-g's?  I mean, if you take a tree enclose
>>it in a bubble of some sort, with the roots in one half and the trunk
>>and branches in another half, what would it look like after a couple
>>years?  Air wouldn't be moving except what little was necessary to keep
>>it fresh, and the roots would be provided with nutrients.  (So, please
>>don't see read Niven's The Integral Trees, as this is a totally different
>>situation! :-))

Plants do quite fine in enclosed spaces.  "Edwardian Gardens" was the name
given to 'bottle gardens' that were used to protect plants on ocean voyages
during the age of exploration.  These terrariums used edwardian crystal,
hence the name, and were found to protect the plants quite well from
dryness, salt-air, and sudden temperature changes.  This was the first
example of terrariums, and are responsible for the widespread use of
potatoes, pumpikins, and other new-world plants in Europe

>>2.  Would it grow any different in free-fall as opposed to zero-g's?  It
>>seems to me it would not, but I don't know for sure...

Plants do use gravity as a means of determining up and down (see a stand
of pines on a mountain-side - they don't lean) known as gravitropism.
They also have other means, mainly light, to make the determiniation, which
I imagine would become dominant, lacking gravity.  I remember reading (sorry,
forgot the title ) about the experiences of Russian during extended stays in
space.  Some of them brought plants along, for that homey touch, and found
that athough strange-looking, they were perfectly healthy.

I can't imagine that no studies have been done on plant growth, but whether
you can find the results or not, you know as well as me.   I seem to
remember about 2 years ago, a prof. from MSU getting space on the shuttle
for an experiment using tomato-seeds, to study germination in free-fall.

Sorry I can't give you better references.

-Tommy Mac
-----------------------------============================================
Tom McWilliams              | What a tangled web we weave, when at   ". |
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu      |              ,  .first we .practice .*'  .|
(517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986|            '. '  . . to decieve    ,      |
a scrub Astronomy undergrad | After that, the  ,          +             |
at Michigan State University| improvement is tremendous! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Request for "Space News" info
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:53:16 GMT

budd@ccrs.emr.ca (Mark Budd) writes:

>  I have a friend who has a subscription to a weekly newspaper called
>Defense News.  He has told me that the same publishers produce a paper
>called Space News.  Could anyone who has heard of this please pass on
>any opinions as to what it's like?  Preferably people who don't work for
>the paper :-).  E-mail responses would be preferred.

Space News is an almost weekly (44 issues/year) newspaper published by Army
Times Publishing Co.  It's about 30 pages long with color pictures and a
respectable number of adds.  IMHO their coverage is very good - better than
Av Week if all you want is space stuff.  They do tend to spend more time on
commercial developments than you may be used to, but that's their market. A 
one year subscription costs $75 in the US, $105 in Canada and $120 for 
international subscribers.  The address is 6883 Commercial Dr., Springfield, VA
22159-0500.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: SR-1 (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:20:13 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec11.204050.10734@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>Using DC itself as a recon platform
>>seems like serious overkill, 
>
>Not DC itself. DC simply launches the satellite.

Actually, why not DC itself?  It's the ultimate recon aircraft:  pictures
of any location in the world (weather permitting) within an hour of takeoff,
operation far beyond conventional SAM envelopes, and no need for vulnerable
and costly forward operating bases.  You pay for this, of course, in very
high fuel consumption and high wear-and-tear costs (more expensive vehicle
with a shorter lifetime).  Large-scale use would perhaps be too expensive,
but using a squadron of suitably-equipped DCs -- call it, say, the SR-1 --
as the high end of a spectrum of recon aircraft is not ridiculous.

As for it being "serious overkill", lots of problems are solved that way.
When costs of general-purpose solutions fall enough, the special-purpose
solutions wither and die, or are restricted to particularly-demanding
niche markets, because they're no longer worth the trouble.  Architects
from Babylon to Chartres sweated to develop the arch as a way of supporting
things, but we do almost all our structures with post-and-lintel -- the
stone-age precursor of the arch -- because with modern materials, it works
just fine and is a lot less hassle for most jobs.  There is an entire
computer in your *keyboard*, spending its whole life doing nothing but
waiting for your keystrokes and passing them on to the machine that does
the real work... because special-purpose keyboard-encoder chips are no
longer worth designing.  Nuclear propulsion for aircraft once looked like
the only way to get very long range, but in the time needed to half-
solve its problems, conventional jet engines improved so spectacularly
(the unrefuelled cruising range of a B-52H, with early-1960s engine
technology, is *twelve thousand miles*) that it was obsolete before it
ever powered an aircraft.

Nobody will build hypersonic recon aircraft if spaceships are already
available and cheap enough.  The SR-1 may not be good enough, but the
SR-2 or SR-3 probably will be.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:25:22 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

In article <Bz9DnB.68p.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>Think it was Duncan Lunan (from Imperial (?) College, London). Ask
>around on the .sf. groups, I bet there are others there who remember
>the talk.

It wasn't Duncan (though he was there) but Patrick Collins, of the
School of Management, Imperial College.  He wrote an article on the
subject in Analog about the same time.  He now works in Japan and has
an email address, but I haven't got it yet.
-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','    
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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:19:33 GMT

In article <ewright.724446299@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec13.180422.9731@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
 
>>>Oh.  I thought you were talking about the reentry.  No, the controlled
>>>powered landing was demonstrated, again in the 1960's, by a vehicle
>>>called the LEM.  Which had the additional requirement of landing solely
>>>in unprepared fields.
>
>>In 1/6th G in vacuum, single engine, with a vehicle that massed less than 
>>1/10th of DC. A totally different environment, totally different control
>>problem, and totally different scale.
>
>Yes, I'm prepared to assume that engineers can remember to multiple by 
>6 or 10.  Totally different environment?  But, Gary, you just got through 
>telling me that the environment of space is much more hostile than the 
>Earth's atmosphere.  If that's the case, landing on the Earth should be 
>a cinch compared to landing on the Moon, should it?

If all things were as simple as multiplying by 6 or 10, aircraft and
spacecraft design would be trivial child's play. Of course that isn't
true so your sarcasm is lost. Operating in atmosphere is a different
environment from operating in vacuum. I didn't say that vacuum was
more hostile, I said that having to operate in *both* was more difficult
than having to work in one. The variable geometry nozzle they intend to
*try* on the DCY prototype is one of the complications of having to
work in both environments. Powered rocket landings in atmosphere also
have ground effects that are different from landings in vacuum. Having
multiple engines to throttle instead of just one adds to control complexity.
Scale does matter too with both a 6 times higher G field and a vehicle
that masses 10 times as much, the problem is sufficiently different that
transferring design experience from one to the other is not just a matter
of multiplication.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:02:04 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 <pgm2hxr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>	Gee, thanks for the snide answer.  Now, my original point was
>on rendezvous and repair.  So, now we have to get 3 objects in close
>proximity to each other.  You've just made the problem at least 50%
>tougher.  And now you have to transfer between craft.  More 
>difficuly.

Last time I flew back into DFW, I saw more than three planes on
the ground, in close proximity to one another.  I saw people and
baggage being transferred between flights.   Looks do-able.


>>That's what tankers are for.

>	Again, another craft.

I saw a *lot* of airplanes at DFW.


>	Hint, they are flying.  You are talking about a paper=airplane
>and saying it will do all this and more.  I'm saying, build it, fly it,
>and see what happens.

I thought that was what we were doing.


>	Right, that works fine once you've built your power-plant
>on the moon.  I'm talking at first.  It seems to me that someone
>here is forgetting the middle step of testing and flying the thing.

See above.

There's a difference between "testing and flying the thing"
and standing on the sidelines hurling spitballs.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:04:59 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 <1992Dec13.180422.9731@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>That's because you rarely see the prototype engines that blow up in
>testing and are discarded for a different design. Nor do you see the
>engines that worked, but didn't meet the required performance goals.
>A large rocket engine that has to work from sea level to vacuum can't
>be completely debugged on a static stand. 

Nothing can be completely debugged on the test stand.  A turbojet 
may not have to work from sea level to vaccuum, but it does have 
to work from sea level to 35,000 feet.  You need to build a test
chamber in either case.



>What flight articles were they used on? How many went into orbit and
>what was their throttle characteristic? You can't answer because none
>have ever flown.

You deleted your original statement, which said that aerospike
engines had not been tested *even in static tests.*   Are you
deliberately quoting me out of context, or do I need to explain 
the difference between a static test and a design article?

 

>>Oh.  I thought you were talking about the reentry.  No, the controlled
>>powered landing was demonstrated, again in the 1960's, by a vehicle
>>called the LEM.  Which had the additional requirement of landing solely
>>in unprepared fields.

>In 1/6th G in vacuum, single engine, with a vehicle that massed less than 
>1/10th of DC. A totally different environment, totally different control
>problem, and totally different scale.

Yes, I'm prepared to assume that engineers can remember to multiple by 
6 or 10.  Totally different environment?  But, Gary, you just got through 
telling me that the environment of space is much more hostile than the 
Earth's atmosphere.  If that's the case, landing on the Earth should be 
a cinch compared to landing on the Moon, should it?

And how did we ever manage to design a vehicle that could operate in
that "totally different environment" to begin with?  With all the
problems you say rockets have.  Do you believe the Moon landings were
filmed at a studio on Long Island?

Somehow, the Apollo engineers managed to get the job done, even
though the technology, in those days really *was* "radically new."

Isn't it amazine what you can do when you're "success oriented?"
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aurora
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:21:32 GMT
	<BzCzo5.76z.1@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU's message of 16 Dec 92 15:43:10 GMT

In article <BzCzo5.76z.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:


   In article <1992Dec15.141754.9124@spider.co.uk> colint@spider.co.uk (Colin Tinto) writes:

      [Aurora sightings off Scottish Western Isles, speculated Aurora
       range of 5000 miles]

      Hang on - 5000 miles - that means it can just reach Scotland from the East
      Coast USA before having to turn back ?   Something not quite right...

   Assuming that it's launching from the continental USA. Seems much more
   likely to me (given the sightings over the Netherlands as well) that
   one of the long-runway US bases in the UK or Germany is `home' to an
   Aurora.

Nah, not isolated enough, rumour seems to be that the forward
base is a US NATO base in Scotland. 

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:31:52 GMT
Organization: Brunel University, West London, UK

I've dug up a paper by Patrick Collins on this subject.

Author:  Patrick Q. Collins

Title:   STAGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT TOURISM

Journal: Space Technology Vol. 9 No. 3 pp. 315-323 1989

Abstract - It is known that the popular demand for
short passenger flights into low Earth orbit would
be significant even at very high prices, and market
research suggests that as the price of such a service
fell towards $10,000, the number of passengers might
grow as high as one million per year.  Such a level
of activity would be very significant for the develop-
ment of the space industry, requiring much higher
launch rates and lower costs than currently envisaged
for other purposes.  If such a service is initiated,
the range of services offered to passengers will develop
progressively through a number of stages as traffic
increases.  The paper considers the sequence of develop-
ments that can be foreseen - from short sub-orbital
space-flights in the early stages, to extended visits to
large-scale orbiting facilities, such as hotels and even
theme parks, some decades later - and discusses certain
features of each stage, as well as some of their
implications for the growth of a commercial space industry.
-- 
 ',' ' ',','  |                                                  |  ',' ' ',','
   ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
     ','      |                                                  |      ','
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Mars Needs Explanation!2
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:30:01 -0500

          Could anyone be so kind as to tell me if there is any literature
          on the morphology of the caldera of the Martian volcano Olympus
          Mons?  A geology student netfriend and I have been trying to find
          some theory for the "wrinkle ridges" on the floor of the oldest
          crater that conform to the shape of the outside scarp.  The same
          sort of thing does not seemed to have evolved in the subsequent
          craters and we were wondering why?
          
          He has come up with some good explanations (and mercifully
          dispatched a couple of mine,) but we would like to find out what
          the best scientific thought is on the subject (if there is
          _any_.)

          I would have liked to post this to alt.planetary but we here
          at IUPUI have been deemed too delicate for the alt. 
          newsgroups.  We might sneak into alt.sex and get the vapors.
          Thomas Freebairn
          p.s. sorry if this has already shown up.  For some reason
          I could not read the text of my first posting where I am. 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:54:16 GMT

In article <h0l2prg@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>Spacelab is very dependent on the Shuttle for life support, power, and heat
>rejection.  You couldn't fly it on a Titan IV (which was my point).

For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom
space stations or about 20 or so Industrial Space Facilities. Utilization
of either of these would be hundreds of times greater than Spacelab providing
hundreds of times the chance to fly important experiments.

That is my point.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: liquid fuels
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:33:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec14.011954.2338@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
>>>The major problem with cryogenic fuels is that they boil off and the
>>>gas must be vented.  This becomes a real problem if the upper stage
>>>is located inside the shuttle cargo bay.  The modifications that must
>>>be made to the shuttle are non-trivial.  
>>
>>Sorry, wrong.  Cryogenic fuels fly in the payload bay on every extended-
>>duration shuttle flight.  The shuttle's fuel cells use liquid hydrogen
>>and liquid oxygen, and the extended-duration pallet for the cargo bay
>>(first flown recently) is basically a set of LH2 and LOX tanks.
>
>Are you disputing that the modifications that must be made to the shuttle
>to accomodate Centaur are non-trivial? ...

Nope.  My point is that these are accidents of design details of Centaur,
and are *not* fundamental obstacles to carrying liquid fuels in the payload
bay.  It can be done -- it *has* been done -- without such difficulty.
The EDO modifications for this are minor.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry