HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: det@bigbootay.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: 31 Dec 1992 20:18:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigbootay.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec30.175447.5258@news.arc.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>Superior Galleries in Beverly Hills, California is having an auction
>of space memorabilia on January 11, 1993.  One item of particular interest
>is a 2 inch piece of transparent tape which has some Moon dust on it.  This is
>the first time that Moon dust is being offered for sale.   The Moon dust
>was collected by a NASA technician from the spacesuit of astronaut Dave Scott
>after his Apollo 15 trip to the Moon in July, 1971.  It is guarantteed
>to be genuine by Superior Galleries and is expected to be sold
>in the price range of $75,000 to $100,000.  For more information on the
>Moon dust or the auction, you can contact Superior Galleries at
>(800) 421-0754 or (310) 203-9855.

Out of curiosity, just how do they "guarantee it to be genuine", if it's
from an unofficial source, as it appears to be?  How would one know that
the technician didn't just glob up some rock dust sterilized in a
crucible?  Provenance would appear to be difficult, especially if
there's a legal position that might lead to incrimination of the techie
for theft of government property.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: blumb@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bill Blum)
Subject: Re: Justification
Summary: Magnet Schools (was RE: Justification)
Keywords: gifted talented
Organization: Techno-Zealots for a Better Future
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 07:36:49 GMT

In article <Bzvn8D.JB4.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>Has anyone had personal experience with magnet schools? I'm curious about 
>whether they provide any benefit.
>
Well, I did not attend a magnet school, but I was part of a gifted/talented
program in grades K-8.

My only complaint was:  Some programs (such as the one I was subjected to)
do not take into account that not all students will be interested in the
same things.

We were taught Spanish, we produced plays, we saw nature films.
A friend of mine and I grew immensely bored with the material presented and
spent our time in the library, reading books like Issac Asimov, etc.  I was
never given a reason to WANT to learn Spanish, or to learn about nature, or
to care about drama.  

I'm sure that magnet schools would fare better in this regard---they are
aimed towards what some students WANT.

-- 
Bill Blum			* "God willing...we shall return."        
Purdue University		* Gene Cernan, The Moon, Dec 1972(BSEE P.U. 56)
School of Nuclear Engineering	* Member of the SEDS National Board
blumb@sage.cc.purdue.edu 	*        Ad Astra Per Ardua!!  
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:17:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.223226.12849@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

> My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
> which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
> expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
> easily argued against using the same historical
> information. Can I prove my assertion?
> No. However, neither can you prove the contrary.


Let me try this again: your historical argument is just bullshit.  The
reasoning is vacuous, independent of the truth of the conclusion.
There are too many differences between then and now to accept the
argument as anything more than sloganeering.  For example: (1) the
vessels they used to explore were straightforward extensions of known
technology, (2) the lands explored did not involve significant
differences in technology in order to survive [those that did, like
the high Artic, were left largely alone for centuries], (3) the
resources they found could be exploited at low cost and yet returned
benefits large in proportion to the size of their economies.  These
conditions don't appear to apply to space.

The track record so far in space is that some limited automated
applications are useful, or profitable (comsats are profitable, at
least for the moment; the others are government-run, so we don't know
if they really would be profitable.)  Space resources?  We went
to the moon and found... very little of practical value.  Space
manufacturing?  Endlessly hyped with little to show for it.
Microgravity research?  Impartial scientific review says it isn't
worth much.

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

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest)
Subject: Re: Breeders
Followup-To: sci.physics
Organization: Stanford Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Distribution: sci
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:18:04

In article <foo> pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
   \Session's Answer was too flipant.  The reason the U.S. doesn't hav mre
   /ooops have more breeder reactors is that the anti-nuke forces won a battle
   \in the late seventies and President Jimmy Carter stopped the development
   /of them.  The arguements given revolved around the proliferation of 
   \Plutonium that the reactors "breed" and not on the safety of the 
   /reactors.  The nuke power industry was trying to sell them as the answer
   \to lmited supplies of nuclear fuel (o.k. expensive supplies) because they
   /produce 5 lbs of fuel for every 4 they consume.  Unfortunately, the 
   \plutonium is also a great nuke weapon resource.  

   From what I've heard, it's the wrong isotope or mixed with such as
   to be useless in constructing a nuclear bomb.

What the Carter Administration stopped was reprocessing plants.  In
order for breeder reactors to breed, you've gotta separate out the new
fuel from the miscellaneous fission products (some of which are highly
radioactive) that accumulate in the fuel.

In fact, if you have a reprocessing plant, you win big regardless of
whether you're running a breeder, because the limiting factor in fuel
rod use is buildup of neutron-absorbing fission products, *not* loss
of the fuel isotope.  I haven't got my books handy, but I think it's
around a factor-of-ten or more. (ie <10% of the fuel is used up, when
the rod can no longer be used.)

In fact, one of the issues surrounding the reprocessing plant thaang
was the development of a viable nuclear bomb design by a Princeton
undergraduate student. (whose name I forget.  John Archibald?)  He did
it to prove that a sufficiently motivated terrorist could build one,
if only he could get his hands on some plutonium.  He was contacted by
intelligence agents from Iraq!  (This was back before they were our
friends, before they were our enemies.  They had, of course, just
bought their `peaceful' nuclear reactor from the French.)  The Carter
Administration blocked the development of a reprocessing plant,
largely (they said -- I'm sure general anti-nukular paranoia helped)
because it would entail shipping large amounts of reprocessed fuel
(including plutonium) around, and there was danger of hijacking.

Note that it's relatively easy here in the U.S. to get slightly
enriched Uranium (<20% U-235), but it's very hard to get anything
more pure.  In Canada, they don't enrich their uranium at all for
the CANDU reactors -- by using heavy water as a moderator, they
improve the fission efficiency to where natural uranium is sufficient.
--
DON'T DRINK SOAP! DILUTE DILUTE! OK!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 00:07:13 GMT

> Gary Coffman writes:
>
>  Shuttle *is* expensive to operate, but it offers capabilities not found on
> any other current system.
>



        The apparent high cost per pound of the Shuttle is largely due to
people counting as payload only what is in the cargo bay.  If you allow that
the shuttle itself is a payload (in that it acts as a short term orbiting
workstation for manned spaceflight research), the "cost per pound" drops
sharply.




--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Xref: sparky sci.space:18174 rec.models.rockets:3369
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Saturn lift capabilities
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 07:35:48 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <23DEC199220530775@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>... The Saturn 1B could lift the CSM or the LM, but not both (i.e. it
>>could not carry the full Saturn V payload to LEO).
>
>From my information this was always the program intent of the Saturn 1B. This
>helped to lower the costs for the test program of the full Saturn V by flying
>most of the Saturn V hardware before the big bird was ready. According to 
>folks here at MSFC the 1B could lift that weight...

Dennis, please back this up with numbers.  The references say that the
1B's orbital payload was circa 18 (metric) tons, which compares rather
unfavorably with the total Apollo orbital weight of 45 tons.  (It was
closer to 50 tons at launch, with the escape tower and protective cover,
but those were shed on the way up.)  This is *not* a small discrepancy.

Could it be that someone got confused because the 1B's available payload
to orbit was circa 45000 *pounds* and the Apollo mass was circa 45000
*kilograms*?

>Remember that the ASTP payload was the full up CSM as well as the docking
>adaptor and the launch was to a 51 degree inclination orbit. This easily
>equals the weight of the Lunar Module in a 28.5 degree orbit.

Uh, Dennis, the ASTP payload was *not* a "full up" CSM; indeed, it was
the lightest CSM ever flown manned, because it needed almost no main-engine
fuel for its mission.  (In fact, it carried more RCS fuel than main-engine
fuel.)  It weighed 12.7 tons.

Furthermore, the docking adapter was tiny, weighing only 2 tons.  The
combination weighed about as much as Apollo 7's CSM, and only about 800kg
less than the Skylab CSMs (which were also launched into high-inclination
orbits, and at higher altitudes to boot).

With tanks *empty*, a CSM-LM combination might just have been able to go
up on a 1B.  But that configuration couldn't have flown a useful mission.
The Apollo 9 Earth-orbit-test CSM-LM stack weighed 36 tons, far beyond
the 1B's lift capability.
-- 
"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
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:43:05 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <PqVNwB6w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes:
>> I don't know exactly how you will get the hydrogen to fuse in the ramjet.
>> So far that problem remains unsolved here on Earth, except for fusion
>> reactions catalyzed by atomic explosions.
>
>The H will be highly compressed by the pressures from the rest of the H 
>coming in.  It'll be blocked where it stops by magnetic fields...

Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.

Ordinary hydrogen burns quickly in thermonuclear reactions only under
near-supernova conditions.  The heavier isotopes used in fusion bombs
burn like gasoline by comparison, to the point where they are distinctly
rare in the universe -- even the small supply existing on Earth requires
significant effort to explain.

Building the ramscoop itself is the easy part (difficult though it is).
Getting the hydrogen to *do* something useful, once collected, is hard.
Using it as reaction mass for an antimatter-powered jet engine is going
to be much easier than trying to burn it raw.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 92 21:38:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>The cost of shuttle operations is so high that regardless of whether the
>flight rate is 4 or 6 or 8 per year that the cost compares unfavorably with
>private launch services (or a successful DC-1).
>
>The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch vehicle ever
>operated.
>
>--- Maximus 2.01wb
>

  Space Shuttle is also the only system designed to be used repeatedly,
  is the only system capable of returning very heavy payloads to Earth,
  and is the second most-powerful booster every made in the U.S. It is
  also one of only two man-rated systems presently in use.
  
  Shuttle is also as much a technology demonstrator as it is a launch
  system. That the technology proved to costly to replace the expendable
  market is beside the point. This was the very argument used to scrap
  the Saturn V program... too expensive as I recall. Hopefully the DC
  program will eventually be able to replace both Shuttle and the aging
  expendables, but until it has proven this performance let's stick with
  what we have and use Shuttle to its fullest advantage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 18:00:58 GMT

In article <ewright.725734633@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>> There's a very good argument for multistage rockets - it makes the mass
>> ratio much simpler to manage (see some of the books by Willy Ley).

> There's also a very good argument for multistage airplanes -- it makes
> the mass ratio simpler to manage.


The mass ratio on an airliner is much less than in a launcher with
chemical rocket propulsion, for rather fundamental reasons.  It is
therefore not inconceivable that multistage launchers would be
appropriate even though multistage aircraft are not.

(Actually, effectively multistage aircraft are in routine use,
through the use of midair refueling.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:52:56 GMT
Distribution: sci
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 <1992Dec30.211506.19286@netcom.com> ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley) writes:

>People keep debating the merits of 2sto vs ssto, and are overlooking what
>I think is the main consideration.

>The 2nd stage will have the highest Isp possible, a large nozzle for the
>vacuum conditions, and little or no consideration for aerodynamics.

Unfortunately, you have what Max Hunter calls "Isp on the brain."

The goal of the SSTO development program is not to maximize Isp,
minimize mass ratio, or build "the most powerful launcher in the
West" (whatever the hell that means).

It is to reduce the cost of putting payload into orbit.  Period.
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 28 Dec 92  08:57:44

The cost of shuttle operations is so high that regardless of whether the
flight rate is 4 or 6 or 8 per year that the cost compares unfavorably with
private launch services (or a successful DC-1).
 
The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch vehicle ever
operated.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:01:33 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 <19045@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>        This somewhat confuses the issue, in that it tends to imply that the
>technology necessary to build a DC-1 was available a generation ago.  

Nope.  It clarifies the issue because the technology to build a DC-1
(or Hyperion, as McDonnell Douglas called its SSTO back then) was available 
a generation ago.  In fact, one of the original Shuttle designs (the SERV 
proposal, submitted by Chrystler) was a ballistic SSTO very similar to a
scaled-up DC-1.


>The S-IVB derivative would be a ***non-reusable*** SSTO, which is a different
>animal than a ***reusable*** SSTO.   

Then I guess the engineers who called it a reuseable rescue and recovery
vehicle must have been smoking something funny.

In the development stage, the vehicle would have recovered by parachute
and landed "upside down" on extendable legs.  

Later, the S-IVB's J-2 engine would have been replaced by an aerospike,
which would double as a heat shield.  The vehicle would then be capable
of reentering and landing "rightside up" and a Gemini capsule would be
added on top for manned missions.
From: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Don M. Gibson)
Subject: Re: Did HGA suffer from heat? (Re: : Relay to
Reply-To: dong@oakhill.sps.mot.com
Organization: Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:19:36 GMT

In article 1@fnalo.fnal.gov, higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <roelle.724695444@uars_mag>, roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>> Is there a possiblity that, despite Galileo's HGA parasol, solar heat
>> could have still been a factor in its failure to deploy?  Especially
>> when one considers that for the nine successful deployments out of
>> ten, cited above, every corresponding spacecraft never left earth
>> orbit, while Galileo got as close to the sun as the planet Venus.
>
>My guess: No.  Good question, but also a very obvious one (launch was
>in October 1989, Venus encounter February 1990, HGA attempt April
>1991).  I would presume that the Galileo people investigated this idea
>very thoroughly, although I don't have first-hand knowledge about
>their inquiries.  
>
>They've never publicly suggested that solar heat was involved in the
>problem, so I presume they have reason to be satisfied that the cause
>lies elsewhere.  Their best guess is loss of lubricant between the
>alignment pins on the ribs and the sockets on the central mast,
>possibly due to excessive vibration as Galileo was trucked  to
>California from the Cape and back again after modifications.
>


For the VEEGA mission, GLL was modified to have an antenna shade.  this
kept the antenna/mast fully shaded upto 14 degrees off sun.  at no time
when GLL was less than 1AU from the sun was it allowed to get more than 
5 degrees from sun-point.  thus, the antenna was always shaded and never
heated by the sun.  thermal control via heaters was continuously 
maintained for the pre-deployment period, of course.

another point, is that the GLL antenna is a *modified* TDRSS model.
i don't know the extent of the modifications, though.
--DonG
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Barbara Trumpinski)
Subject: Re: Media and space
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:07:30 GMT

In <C0ABxu.539@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.045416.15301@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>>Concerning public opinion about the space program, IHMO those opinions can
>>and are greatly influenced by the media's depiction of space exploration.
>>Next time watch news coverage of a shuttle flight.  Invariably some reference
>>is made to the cost of that particular mission, plus any important technical
>>information is either watered down or omitted.
>>I've had people tell me that the media doesn't cover the space program very
>>much because people aren't interested.

>>But here's somethin to think about: did people lose interest and the media
>>reduced it's coverage in response, or did the media cut back coverage and then
>>convince people that they weren't interested in it?

>How much interest SHOULD there be in any particular shuttle launch?  If we
>had an adequate space program, there should be not much more interest than
>in a trip of an ocean liner.  As the saying goes, "When man bites dog,
>that's news."  

>The first landing on the moon was quite properly a big media event, but
>it is not at all surprising that the later ones were less so.  
>-- 

this is true...some of us, a few, are interested in anything about the
space program...most people, given the choice between watching (yet
another) shuttle launch and an interview with ozzy osbourne will chose
ozzy.  i think that this is because the media doesn't do enough to
present the space program in an interesting manner and because most
people don't give a tinker's damn about outer space...we really ARE
the minority...

barb
--
***************************************************************************
conan the librarian a.k.a. kitten           /\ /\  barbara ann 
"my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"      {=.=}
                                              ~   trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu 
"love is the wild card of existance"
                          rita mae brown