HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinton's Promises (space) in Charlotte Observer
Date: 27 Jan 1993 15:58:06 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: queen.eng.umd.edu

In article <1993Jan27.021023.8557@pages.com>, bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster) writes:
>. I have friends who are still heavily involved in  
>the space industry at various levels. I happen to think that the best thing  
>Clinton could do would be to kill SS Fred and offer $10B, tax-free, to the  
>first US corporation or consortium to put a station on orbit and keep it  
>staffed by at least X people for a year and day. He should also offer $5B to  
>the second corporation/consortium to do the same thing. The government would  
>spend less, create more jobs, and built an 21st century industrial base.  

Gosh, you been hanging out with Jerry Pournelle, huh? 

He has expounded on the bonus plan to build a moon colony through the same
fashion. 

I got some questions for you:

	A) Who owns possession of the technology used to develop the station?
	B) Who owns the data? 
	C) How do you set the damned thing up without using goverment help
	   in the first place? Guess who owns all the big launch facilities.
	   (Unless, of course, you wish to disguise this as a Russian 
	    Marshall Plan, which is not necessary a Bad Thing. Just be say
	    so up front).
	D) Does it have to be a U.S. corp? What if I use off-shore tech, say
	   get the Italians into building my living modules?

IF, in exchange for the prize money, the government gets rights to the
"science" without infringing on trade secrets, it might work. 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shanleyl@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: NASA Criticism and other taboos...
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:03:14 GMT

Hmmm...

I am not too concerned about incurring anyone's wrath but on the other hand I
am not flaming anyone's opinion so if I do (incur wrath) please count to ten,
or something and remember it is only the "Net" (and my opinion).


I feel frustrated when I see so much inter- and intra- Center  (NASA Centers)
back stabbing, politics, and surruptitious [sic?] program/project aquisition.
However, since I am part of a University beuracracy [sic?] I can understand the
basic reasons.  As the saying goes..."University polotics are more vicious
because the stakes are smaller..."  I don't believe that cognitive, malicious
waste is occuring in NASA because of prolific flagrant disregard or ill intent.

I don't believe "line workers" and hired into "middle management" workers are 
being criticized in some of the sci.space postings criticizing NASA.  NASA as
a whole could be arguably called "TOP HEAVY".  Anyone want to disagree with
that.  The government isn't in the position (or shouldn't be) of creating jobs.
Especially with taxes and this years and the rest, Congress caused growing
deficit (FOUR HUNDRED BILLION PLUS).  I say "creating jobs" because in a system
(the civil servant/GS or GM system) that rewards salary raises in part, based
on the number of employees under an individual, you can't but help to create
jobs in order to keep that particular system characteristic satisfied.  

As to NASA's purpose (outlined, mandated, ordered,...whatever, in  1958)
Congress said: "learn to operate automated and manned vehicles in space beyond
Earth's atmosphere; explore our solar system and the universe for the
advancement of knowledge; make certain that all NASA discoveries and technical
advancements are made promptly available for bettering human lives, for
peaceful use by all mankind.

I have to go buy paint equipment with my wife so I will call this post "PART I"
and continue when I get the time (hey!...I have my priorities! :)  ).

Sincerely,

Paul Sylvester Shanley
Researcher ad Infinitum et al
School of Human Sciences
Auburn University
308 Spidle Hall
Auburn University, Alabama  36849
United States of America
VOICE: 205 844 1339 office
VOICE: 205 887 7440 home
FAX:   205 844 1340 office
e-mail  pshanley@humsci.auburn.edu



ad astra per mylanta
From: O.MostynOwen@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: comets in 16th century
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:31:13 GMT

Please can someone help me?

I need to find references to the major comet sightings in the year 1506.

Is there a compendium of such things, and if so what is it called.

Does anyone know of ANY comet sightings in the early 16th century.

I have been asked by a historian to calculate the countries in which a comet
would be visible given that it was visible in Britain at a particular date.
His reference does not specify in which constellation the comet was seen in
1506, hence my question.

Thanking you, 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Mostyn-Owen				     +44 71 387 7050 ext 3673
Internet: omostyno@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Missions to Mars
Date: 27 Jan 93 12:01:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C1IHHo.Hso.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Marcus Lindroos INF <MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI>
> flb@flb.optiplan.fi
> > does "flyby" mean not even properly *orbiting* 
> > Mars, perhaps to take a pick-axe to Phobos and 
> > Deimos, but rather merely sailing on by ?
> Exactly. An orbital mission would require an additional 220 ton rocket stage
> (=one more launch by Mir) and would prolong the mission by up to two years.

Such a mission would hardly seem worth it from a scientific stand-
point. Is there *any* science that could be done on such a mission 
that could not be done more cheaply and safely by a robotic craft ?

(Bioscience sure, but can't that be done in Earth orbit ?)

And BTW, does the data re. the long-term deleterious effects of
weightlessness (such as loss of bone mass) point towards use of
a tether to create 0.X G on a Mars mission ?  What kind of elec-
trical energy could such a tether generate by its rotation ?
Enough to justify the added gear ?

-- 
* Fred Baube         ..when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter
* Optiplan O.Y.           * have gone Berserk    cracking through the Walls
* baube@optiplan.fi       * it's an illUsion     you're sent Spinning
* GU/MSFS                 * you Cannot Shirk     you Have No Choice
* #include <disclaimer.h> *                 -- Sioux proverb
* Where is the follow-on  * Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some 
*       to P.G.P. ??      *    people abuse the privilege -- Josef Stalin
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Scientists' Deaths
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:37:04 GMT

In <C1FCzD.EHs.1@cs.cmu.edu> KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil writes:

>Several years ago (don't ask me how many) there were *several* postings, 
>including excerpts from British newspapers, about the spate of "suicides" and 
>"accidental deaths" of British space scientists in comp.risks.  If anybody is 
>really interested in doing the research, instead of just sarcastically 
>dismissing them as crackpot conspiracy fodder, they can look it up in the 
>Risks archive.

I remember hearing this particular conspiracy theory years ago, back
when it had nothing to do with space.  Something about people employed
at a TS research facility for communications decryption -- the UK
version of the NSA.  Just because something is from across the Pond
doesn't mean that it didn't start with conspiracy theorists over
there. 



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: lunar base/life-support on freedom
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:25:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C1Bw01.KFJ.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: wools@athena.mit.edu (Aaron M Woolsey)
-Subject: lunar base/life-support on freedom
-Date: 23 Jan 93 19:17:25 GMT
-Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

-	o.k., I'm not an aerospace engineer, just a biology major, but I was
-wondering what the outlook is, in the near future, for establishing a lunar base.
- It seems logical to me that before we start planning a manned mission to Mars,
-we ought to start planning a permanent base on the moon.  Is NASA devoting any
-time or resources toward this direction?  

There's some low level of effort in that direction. Galileo did some lunar
science on the recent flyby, Clementine is apparently scheduled to launch
early next year, and there are proposals for further lunar science missions
and some work on planning manned missions. Some of the work done on SSF should
be applicable to establishing a lunar base. We'll probably have a better idea
of how much interest the new Administration has in a lunar base (and if there
is interest, how much they'll be able to sell to Congress) in 100-200 days.
My impression is that a lunar base is of more near-term interest than a
Mars mission.

-	also, does anybody know how the life-support/environment control systems
-will operate on the space station Freedom (or how they operate on mir)?  I
-suppose that these technologies will come in handy when we establish a base on
-the moon.  How is oxygen replenished, what's the waste managment program,
-and how will they replenish the water supply.  

This was discussed in May 1992. According to Henry Spencer, there are plans
to recycle the water (though perhaps mainly for washing, etc.). Dani Eder
says that SSF is scheduled to import all its oxygen for a few years, then
eventually start recycling its CO2 to recover some of the oxygen. Also
according to Henry, the "last-but-one" design of SSF was to use excess water
as reaction mass for reboost and orbital maneuvering, but this was called off
due to design cost constraints.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com
Subject: MIR to Mars
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:34:26 GMT

On the subject of MIR to Mars.

I was present at ISU '91 in Toulouse France.  The Soviets from NPO
ENERGIA gave a presentation on their version of a Mars mission and there
is no doubt that MIR was part of the plan.  The summer project at ISU
was an International Mars Mission and the Soviets (now Russians) were
interested in teaming up with anyone.

the technical means for using a MIR to get to Mars were being worked on
right up until the lastdays of the Soviet Empire.  I'm sure I still
have the pictures in my notes but I can remember them well.  The idea
was to attach two VERY BIG solar arrays to a MIR complex and use
electric propulsion.  The trip times were long, but that is why Russia
was concentrating on long duration MIR flights.  This also was the
force behind their advanced electric propulsion research.  My impression
was that they were planning an attempt to Mars for about 1997 or so.  
I was left with the(perhaps mistaken) impression that the Russians
were going to accept a lot of risk in order to pull off the trip.  I
know that there were some questions as to whether MIR would physically
deteriorate over the long mission timeline (due to humidity INSIDE the
vehicle, not outside fluences.)

P.S.  The ISU mission used artificial g through rotation of a truss
structure (not tethers).  We settled on .37 g (Mars) after a lot of
agruement with the Bio folks.  Anyone who is interested can get a copy
of the report from ISUU headquarters in Boston (its about 700 pages,
bound and costs $25-55, I can't remember how much.)

Grant Anderson
Sr. Design Engineer
Lockheed Space Station WP-04

P.P.S  I maybe wasn't clear enough.  MIR was conceived as a trial Mars
Mission vehicle, not a space station in the earth orbiting sense.  That
was the impression I received.
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar Rotation
Date: 22 Jan 93 05:22:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C18ppu.C2H.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: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
-Subject: Re: Lunar Rotation (was: Earth's rotation rate...)
-Date: 21 Jan 93 20:15:20 GMT
-Organization: NetLabs, Inc.

-In article <C16EL7.Cqw@brunel.ac.uk> mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
-: BTW, I heard that the Moon is actually *bistable*.  Aren't we lucky we
-: got the pretty face?

-If we get bored we could always turn the Moon the other way 'round...

The center of mass of the moon is displaced from the geometric center by
2-3 km. That being the case, it seems unlikely that it's bistable.

Incidentally, this displacement provides evidence that the moon's tidal lock
was achieved while it was still molten. (It's thought that the chief feature
of the asymmetry is a much thicker crust on the far side. This would also
account for the greater incidence of mascons on the near side.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Reason for SSTO/DCX and Market
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:56:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.190643.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>Long Distance flights seem perfect, namely the London or Paris to Tokyo/Hong
>Kong Route.. Or maybe Australia to US or Australia to Europe..

The ticket will cost (round trip) $100,000 to $200,000 (assuming you pack
them in like sardiens for a very uncomfortable trip). That's roughly a
years pay for a typical corporate senior executive.

This is not a very big market.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------138 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: PSHAWCRO%NAS.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (Paul Shawcross)
Subject: Mir mission to Mars?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:55:39 GMT

The major problem with using Mir for a manned Mars mission
is that Mir is not designed to protect its crew from the
interplanetary radiation environment.

At most times in the solar cycle, there would be a near
certainty that any unshielded astronauts on a two
year mission to Mars would be killed by solar flares. (At
the minimum of the cycle, the astronauts might make it
--some years have no major flares)

Adding a shielded "storm cellar" to Mir could greatly
reduce the danger.  Probably about 25 gm/cm^2 of shielding
would be needed to allow the crew to survive a major flare
in fairly good shape - extra mass would be roughly:
25 gm/cm^2 * 2*pi*200cm * 200 cm = somewhere around 6,500
kg for a 2meter long, 4 meter diameter "cellar".

Of course, there's also the cosmic ray radiation dose,
which is much more difficult to shield against and is
about 20-40 REM/yr depending on the time in the solar
cycle (more or less inverse to the flare probability)
This is below, but close to, the annual limit allowed for
shuttle astronauts (50 Rem/yr last I heard)

For more details I recommend looking at the AIAA's report
on assessment of technologies for the SEI -- it has a
lengthy section on the need for shielding and the effect
on total mission mass.
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-1 eventual construction question...
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:36:07 -0500
Organization: UDSI
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

 John asserts Boeing doe snot study the airplane market on an operational
sense.

I have to disagree.  I know the other big companies constantly study the passeng
er market, looking for missions.  Sure, the airlines study the market,
but Boeing has to figure out what distance, payload and cost and speed.

the 727, 707, 747, 767 were all developed based upon studies that
N number of people wanted to go between certain distances and at certain
times.  otherwise we'd still be using DC-3s.

pat
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Reasons for SS(was Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.))
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 04:08:10 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 <1993Jan27.201146.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Microgravity materials science, currently the #2
>justification for the station, has been waning in popularity since the
>ballyhoo days of the early Eighties.

That is hardly surprising.  You have two groups of researchers:  Group
A, who try to make better materials in space, and Group B, who try to
prove that they can do better on Earth.  Group B can afford to do 100
experiments on Earth for every one that Group A can do in orbit.  The
fact that the argument is still going on suggests that Group A is probably
right.

And the situation will not get better with Space Station Freedom.
From: bry@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bryan Glancey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Request for guidance (aka words of wisdom)
Date: 20 Jan 93 16:17:45 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C15unz.G6I.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


	I see a lot of footer in this digest that are from JPL and all sorts
of other big aerospace places. I'm just finishing my undergraduate degree in
physics with a concentration in computers, and am about to start my Masters
in physics; I wonder if any of you can give me any words of wisdom about what
the best path into the industry is. I'd really like to get into NASA, but they
don't exactly advertise in the classified section. I would mind working for
any other aerospace firm where I can have a part in some sort of space program
 either.
	Any suggestions?

			Thanks;
				Bryan Glancey


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'I want to know God's Thoughts the rest are details' - Albert Einstein
                      ***********************   
'All you need is      *	Bryan Glancey       *    'It's alright with me'
	 Love'        * Clarkson University *         -Ella Fitzgerald
		      *	Box 3961            *  'God is testing us and I for
-John Lennon	      *	Potsdam, NY 13699   *    one am going to be ready -	
                      * (315) 268 - 4372    *     where's the Vodka'
		      ***********************           -Woody Allen
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'Life's the illusion, love is the dream'   Buzzcocks

'Life is just a dream; a story that I read, a picture that I've seen a thousand
times before - but it's never quite the same.'
		-Nine Big Dogs
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC-1 eventual construction question...
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:43:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.141726.1@max.u.washington.edu> games@max.u.washington.edu writes:
>Let me start by making 4 assumptions.

>1:  The DC-X tests in a couple of months will be a success.
>2:  MCD successfully builds more of the DC-X's as sounding rockets.
>3:  Funding for DC-Y never materializes.
>4:  We want the DC-Y and DC-1 to be built.

>Now, the question is, HOW to we accomplish this goal.  Assuming that the
>big G doesn't kick in money, we are left with convincing MD of the long
>term commercial viability of further development.

If Uncle Sam doesn't pay for the initial development of the Y vehicle
(and possibly DC1) it won't happen. Period.

The existing launch market simply isn't large enough to justify the
investment. The fact that nobody is making money in launch services at
the moment makes it a lot harder.

One DC-1 would be enough for almost all of the current launch market.

BTW, it turns out that at least two other contractors have developed
SSTO designs. One is intended as a Titan IV replacement.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------141 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Next unmanned missions to Venus
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:02:22 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu


-From: rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff)

-Hmmm, well, I guess if we were to make any kind of serious exploration of
-Venus's  surface we would have to develop electronics componants that
-operate comforably at 900f. 

A sterling engine (running off of a VERY hot RTG, so as to get
reasonable efficiency when the exhaust is coming out at greater
than 700 K) used to run a refrigerator that cools equipment inside
a dewar flask to workable temperatures appears doable.

It has few moving parts, and no one cares if it springs a leak and
vents its' cfcs into the atmosphere.

-Kevin
From: bill.edwards@almac.co.uk (Bill Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as an ACRV
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: bill.edwards@almac.co.uk (Bill Edwards)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371


aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>However, several U.S. commercial vendors can supply launchers that
>can easily orbit a Soyuz for a more reasonable price than the shuttle.

Can someone tell me if its the full Soyuz including the orbital module 
which is being proposed or a "stripped down" version?

Bill / Usenet: bill.edwards@almac.co.uk
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #9224 . 
  
Newsgroups: sci.space