HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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.C1BzCE.MwE.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: NETOPRBL@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu (Brian Lane)
Subject: Space based combat--the next frontier
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:31:04 GMT

>
>ok....here's a question for all you space buffs out there...
>This is actually for a story i'm writing but I figured that the
>folks here could give me a good estimate...
>If we consider combat in space in say...the next 50 years...there are three
>limitations: the effectiveness of the weapon, the effectiveness of sensors
>to detect the target , and the effectiveness of fire control to aim the
>weapon so it can hit the detected target.
>Let's say that two sides have somehing the size of a naval destroyer out in
>deep space somewhere. how close would they have to be before radar could
>pick the other ship up, how about passive sensors (what kind of sensors
>would they be?)?  How close would they have to be to get an adequate fire
>control solution? (I assume the energy weapon they'r using (laser or some
>other energy weapon) would have a longer range than the fire control.)
>
>I'd appreciate it if replies were sent in e-mail (and i'd post a edited
>compendium of the results), as I don't get on here often enough to avoid
>the reader's clearing of messages.
>
>thanx!
>Brian
>Netoprbl@ncsuvm.cc.ncsu.edu
>Raleigh, NC
>
Xref: sparky sci.space:19854 sci.space.shuttle:3210
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Date: 28 Jan 93 13:57:54 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


> I can't believe they wouldn't let you discuss on of the most tragic
> events in recent history.

I can.  Public schools are notorious for the collection of politically
correct liberals infesting them.  They probably thought that the money
would have been better spent on welfare and that NASA and the
Challenger Seven deserved what they got.

God, I hate PC Libs!  Especially when they are in positions to
indoctrinate our future.
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Solar sails
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:29:43 GMT

18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

>Josh Hopkins: >

>Has anyone given any thought to sailing on something besides optical/IR
>waves?  How about a giant radio antenna?  X-ray reflectors?

The Starwisp uses microwaves if I recall correctly.  Make an impossibly huge
mesh that's impossibly light and send impossible amounts of radio energy at it
(say a good sized SPS worth) and you've got a starwisp.  I think Bob Forward's
proposal used 10 GW to boost at 115 gravities for a few days.  It would then
coast at .2 C for twenty years before zipping through Alpha Centauri. 

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Q:  How do you tell a novice from an expert.
A:  A novice hesitates before doing something stupid.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: drury@esvax.dunet.dupont.com (Robert F. Drury)
Subject: Re: Sabatier reactor? (was Re: Oxygen in Biosphere 2)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Du Pont Electronics
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:11:04 GMT

In article <C16M2y.4uJ@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au>, ggm@brolga.cc.uq.oz.au (George
Michaelson) wrote:
> 
> John Finn <john_finn@qmgate.arc.nasa.gov> writes:
> 
> >Manufactured by Hamilton Standard
> >CO2 + 4(H2) => CH4 + 2(H2O)      (methane formation)
> >conditions: 950 F on a ruthenium/alumina catalyst
> >full configuration for 8-man crew (4 units + spares, etc.):
> >     1096 lbs, avg. 395 watts, 34 cubic feet
> 
> Does CH4 have any role inside a space station apart from making it
> smell farty?
> 
> 	 refrigerant gas?
> 	 cooking :-) yes... I know it makes C02...
> 
> Failing which would venting to space or using as supplement to position holding
> rocketry be worth the effort? 
> 
> -George
> --
>                          George Michaelson
> G.Michaelson@cc.uq.oz.au The Prentice Centre      | There's no  market for
>                          University of Queensland | hippos in Philadelphia
> Phone: +61 7 365 4079    QLD Australia 4072       |          -Bertold Brecht

Methane is an odorless gas; the smell referred to arises from various
aldehydes, ketones, and carboxylic acids present in the "natural" product.

I'm more curious as to how the CO2 is separated from the O2; under these
conditions hydrogen reacts vigorously with oxygen and would use large
amounts of both to reduce a small amount of CO2 unless some
preconcentration takes place.

Standard Disclaimer--My opinions are my own, and do not represent those of
my employer.
R.F.Drury  
Du Pont Electronics
Internet drury@esvax.dnet.dupont.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mrw9e@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Michael Robert Williams)
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:02:38 GMT

I don't know about the "Leonov", but I remember reading something about 
Clarke's intentions for the Discovery's engines. He wanted to use a pulsed
nuclear drive (something like Orion, I think) and tried to convince
Stanley Kubrick to show the Discovery's engines pulsing on and off as
the drive fired. It's been a while since I saw the film, but I don't
remember seeing anything like that.

In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student
e-mail      :mrw9e@virginia.edu|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you ever have a world of your own, plan ahead- don't eat it." ST:TNG
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
Subject: Re: Solar sails
Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:39:41 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

In <C1AC9L.Dp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
> 
> >Josh Hopkins: >
> 
> >Has anyone given any thought to sailing on something besides optical/IR
> >waves?  How about a giant radio antenna?  X-ray reflectors?
> 
> The Starwisp uses microwaves if I recall correctly.  Make an impossibly huge
> mesh that's impossibly light and send impossible amounts of radio energy at it
> (say a good sized SPS worth) and you've got a starwisp.  I think Bob Forward's
> proposal used 10 GW to boost at 115 gravities for a few days.  It would then
> coast at .2 C for twenty years before zipping through Alpha Centauri. 

There was another proposal as well. A small space probe suspended behind a
giant solar sail (2km across, total mass of one hundred kg(?)) would reach
Alpha Centauri in 250 years if we make a close flyby of the Sun - one solar
radius from the surface (0.7 million km). Is there a way to manufacture an
ultra-light sail able to withstand the temperature (4000-5000K at least)?
---
The we come up with the materials and nanotechnology to do it, it might be an
attractive alternative. 3-10 centuries is a long time, but the probe could 
double as a deep space survey probe while moving outwards and building a 
craft having a lifetime of a couple of hundred years will be possible in a 
near future.
 
> -- 
> Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
> 
> Q:  How do you tell a novice from an expert.
> A:  A novice hesitates before doing something stupid.


MARCU$
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Handling Antimatter
Date: 23 Jan 1993 01:03:43 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

Is it possible instead of using Buckminsterfullerene to contain an 
antiproton to use tetrane (C4H4 )  or cubane (C8H8)?  given the lower
dalton numbers,  the enerfy density would be real high.  also
given that these molecules are less stable,  it should be easier
to liberate the energy when needed.

pat
From: buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:32:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C19qIE.DM3.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

I can't recall the technical details, but I seem to remember that the
Leonov was powered by a Sakharov drive. In the book, Sakharov was
rehabilitated by a more democratic Soviet government. When he returned from
his internal exile to the closed city of Gorky, he brought along thw work
he'd done on a fusion power system.

On this bit of future history (written in the early 1980s), Clarke batted
.333.  Sakharov was rehabilitated.  Unfortunately, he didn't invent a
fusion engine before his death. And while a vehicle named Leonev may
someday fly to Jupiter, it won't be carrying Hammer-and-Sickle markings.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Earth's rotation rate may be due to early collisions [Release 93-12] (Forwarded)
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:25:35 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan20.204654.11054@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:

>In article <33529@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>: In article <1993Jan18.210842.12714@hpcvca.cv.hp.com| rayd@hpcvcas.cv.hp.com (Ray Davis) writes:
>: ||     "A popular theory holds that the collision of a Mars-sized planetary
>: || body with the Earth threw considerable debris into orbit, which then came
>: || together to form the moon," Dones said.  "Thus, the same impact which gave
>: || Earth its spin, could also have formed the moon." 
>: |
>: |How does this popular theory account for the moon having zero spin?
>: |
>: The moon rotates once a month, otherwise it wouldn't keep the same
>: face to the earth.
>: 
>: The "lock" occurred due to tidal friction and took a long time to happen.

>Nevertheless, I don't know of any evidence that Moon ever did have much
>of a spin (relative to the "lock").  The fact that the back side of the
>Moon is so different from the front side would tend to argue against it.

>But to answer what I believe to be the original question, the apparent
>inconsistency of a collision giving spin to the Earth but not to the
>Moon is resolved easily.  The Earth and the Collider were already
>formed at the time.  Since they were both sizeable, it's statistically
>likely (but not certain) that after the collision the Earth would be
>left with a significant spin, just as football player getting tackled
>is likely to have his attitude adjusted, so to speak.

>Now here's the key to the conundrum.  The Collider, according to
>theory, *pulverized* both itself and a bunch of the Earth's crust and
>mantle, throwing lots of little rocks into orbit around Earth, but no
>Really Big Ones.  These eventually accreted into the Moon.  Since
>there's lots of little rocks coming from every which a way, however,
>it's statistically unlikely that the Moon would end up with a large
>residual spin, just as a football player doesn't expect to be suddenly
>upset by the air molecules that are pounding him constantly from every
>direction (in the absence of tornadoes).

Isn't there geological evidence that shows that Earth and Moon formed
(were not molten, which I would expect accretion of a body the size of
the moon to result in -- gravitational energy) at the same time?
Theat seems to me to be a death blow to any such theories of
catastrophic formation of the moon (if what I'm remembering is
correct). 


-- 
"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: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: How the media portrays scientists? RE: Was bumbling geek...
Date: 28 Jan 93 10:29:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan28.022914.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

In article <1993Jan27.202027.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> In article <1993Jan26.190640.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>> Also start or help local quality TV organizations, namely cause of what I have
>> seen the basic bent for modern TV is a prime help for the lack of science in
>> the current crop of students.. 
> 
> [I am having trouble parsing this, but it seems to be connected to what
> follows.]
> 
>> Im not talking violence, Im talking about who is cool and who is not..
>> Scientists many times are not cool, they are egghead, nerds, geeks and such..
>> Bumbling social idiots.. (I might be wrong)..
> 
> With all due respect, Mike, you are wrong.
> 
> *I* am cool.
> 
> Ask anybody.
> 
> Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | Here Lies Bill Higgins:
> Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | He Never Ever Learned 
> Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | To Play Guitar So Well
> Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | But He Could Read and Write
> SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | Just Like Ringing A Bell

My comments where not directed against living people.
More towards what scientists are portrayed as.. I might be wrong but most of
the scientist types in th emovies/TV are generally supporting characters,who
are  brains but no cool.. (except for maybe Dr. Jones (Indiana)).

This topic might not be for this area/newsgroup or maybe it is..
Question, how do you all "scientists" see how holywood has portrrayed you
all in movies and TV?? (including news and the media)???


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nbridges@isdmnl.wr.usgs.gov
Subject: Status of future Mir modules
Organization: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, MENLO PARK
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:02:34 GMT

Does anyone know the status of the Priroda and Spekter modules that have been
slated as the next modules for attachment to Mir?  Last I heard they were
scheduled for launch in late 1992 or early 1993.  I imagine that with the
current economic crisis in Russia money allocated for Mir is tight.  Perhaps
they have been delayed due to the budget.
   Also, I thought an Israeli cosmonaut was supposed to be launched to Mir
aboard Soyuz TM-16.  However, Soyuz TM-16, launched a few days ago, only
contained two Russians.  Has the Israeli flight been cancelled or delayed?
                                                           Nathan Bridges
                                                           Menlo Park, CA
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se (Thomas Enblom)
Subject: Re: "Jonathan's 1992 Launch Summary (JSR 139)"
Reply-To: Thomas.Enblom@eos.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Telecom AB
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 07:45:54 GMT

Hello netters!
  "Jonathans Space Report : 1992 Launch Summary" is an excellent survey
  covering the launches of 1992. I would also like to have Launch Summarys
  for the years 1991 and backwards. Do they exist?

  If so could somebody inform me where to find them or just email them
  to me.

  Thanks in advance.




================================================================================
Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
      
Thomas Enblom, just another employee.
From: jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:18:09 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

I seem to recall that the reaction fluid was liquid NH3.   I
would imagine that it would disassociate under that kind of 
temperature and get the extra boost that H ions would give.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Sabatier Reactors.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:25:17 GMT

In article <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>I wonder if people like this are just trying to provoke me? The last I heard
>was that SSF was going to use LOX/H2 thrusters for orbit maintainance.
>Am I wrong? If so, then they are MORE risky than hydrazine.

Freedom will use hydrazine. The original plan was to use hydrogen/oxygen
rockets, with long-term fuel storage made possible by storing water
and electralisizing (sp?) it as needed. Unfortunately, the available
power was less than expected, so hydrozine will be used instead.

>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.  Also the new SpaceHab will
>be flying on STS-57 in April.  These are dependent on Shuttle for
>utilities, but are doing the most important SSF precursor work, which is
>the experiments for microgravity.

If the initial microgravity experiments on Freedom were a failure,
they could be redesigned and replaced. If the station can not provide
power, life support, utilities, etc..., the station will be a failure.
Therefore, the mission critical parts of Freedom haven't been flown or
tested.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
From: kkobayas@husc8.harvard.edu (Ken Kobayashi)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Date: 23 Jan 93 23:32:42 GMT
 <1993Jan21.110438.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> <1993Jan22.201809.156515@zeus.calpoly.edu>

jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes:

>I seem to recall that the reaction fluid was liquid NH3.   I
>would imagine that it would disassociate under that kind of 
>temperature and get the extra boost that H ions would give.

   I believe the Discovery used both - H2 and NH3.  H2 for the initial
boost, stored in expendable tanks, and NH3 for braking and return.  Or
just braking, actually - in the book there was no fuel aboard the
Discovery for a return trip.  Anyway, the book said that the combination
was used because H2 would give maximum performance for initial boost, and
NH3 is easier to store until the braking stage.  Correct me if I'm wrong -
I haven't read it in a while and I don't have it handy.
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: TPS Systems
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:33:23 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <C0vp5C.JH8@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us> mcdaniel@grex.ann-arbor.mi.us (Tim McDaniel) writes:
>Wasn't there at least one Chinese satellite that returned film (?) using
>a heat shield made of oak?

Yes, the Chinese reportedly use chemically-treated oak as an ablative
material.  Apparently it works pretty well.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Rent Mir/Commerical SS Fred not build it.
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:43:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan27.184307.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Maybe what we should do is rent Mir and the Russian space facilties and use
them to help build SS Fred (Interesting name).. I doubt the US people would be
exciting if we bought Mir and Energina and such.. (Jobs and such, even if it
would probably save us money).. 

The Russians alreay have Mir up in space, why not used it to build a
American/US space station, or build a wing onto Mirt that is for US use..
I know Mir is far from ideal, but what is.. Why reinvent the wheel when the
wheel is already in Orbit??

Does anyone know of any Russian Jobs?? Namely space jobs, or Russians who are
looking for jobs int he Use Space industry?..

I do like the idea of a reward for the first commerical space station in orbit
versus NASA/DOD building one.. One thing NASA can do it rent space on the new
station.. Why must the FED own everything, can't it be happy to rent things..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: How many MO's were there planned?
Date: 28 Jan 1993 14:19:08 -0500
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com


I know the current MO was technically the Geochemistry/climatology
bird.(If memory serves)   How many other birds were planned at what would there missions be?

pat