HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: RL10
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:30:55 GMT

> As I noted in the part you deleted, after 30 years they are still  
going
> boom. After 30 years, the Wright Flyer was replaced by the DC-3.  
There's
> a limit to how many times you stretch old designs before you get  
out a
> 


INCORRECT. After 30 years and 200 flights with no failures, 2 flights  
have had similar faults in which one of two engines have failed to  
light. Neither went boom: they were boomed by the RSO intentionally.  
Sort of like blowing up your car because the engine turned over but  
didn't catch after the first two tries. (Or like parking your car in  
front of City Hall in Belfast: the army comes and blows it up for  
you.)

The first failure had an additional problem that a restart was not  
attempted because the threshold was set for the deceleration level  
that occured only if BOTH engines failed to ignite. In the most  
recent failure, this problem was solved. The automatic restart  
procedure detected that one engine failed to ignite; it shutdown the  
other engine and then went through a full restart attempt with the  
same result. After the second try, the RSO decided that allowing  
further restarts would be unlikely to end in a different result. At  
that point he blew it up. The pieces are sitting at -19000 MSL. If  
you want more details, refer to 7-Sept Avleak.

It would seem that the problem is more an production one than  
anything else. Also, as Alan has said, neither of these failures  
would have caused harm to a DCX. A simple shutdown of the opposing  
engine and an RTLS or AOA would be performed. Remember that there  
will be 4 pairs of RL10 engines.

Does anyone know for sure whether AOA would be possible with one pair  
out?

And yes, I would agree that a new, improved engine would be lovely.  
Just as soon as the private market is large enough to demand it AND  
TO PAY FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT FROM PRIVATE FUNDS AND MASS PRODUCE IT.

Until then the RL10 is the nearest thing to a commercial, mass  
produced engine we've got.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Subject: Re: RL-10
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 23:54:15 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Summary: RL-10   the 2nd failure was also no startup...


From the AWST, Sep 7, pg 38, the recent failure was also an ignition-
but-no-thrust problem.  The engine was started twice, but the turbine
did not turn, and both engines shut down for another try.  After m2nd
shutdown range safety sent destruct command.

The RL-10 has been a real slick, reliable design, but there is a danger
of turbine sticking, and failing to start with the admission of cold H2
gas which evaporated from the initial admission of liquid H2 to the engine.
Very cold.  When running, the turbine inlet temp is low--something like
-100 F.     Because of two recent failures after so many faultless starts,
the problem is possibly related to some change in handling/checkout or
something.  Remember Apollo 13?
-- 
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
From: dcb@mulka (David Bell)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Star Chart
Date: 9 Sep 92 06:48:56 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

gdg019@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Ridley McIntyre) writes:
: Hi,
: 
: Is it possible for me to find a star chart (or set of charts) that show
: Sol's position in the Milky Way compared to other stars? All I can find
: here are charts of the Milky Way *from Earth* which don't actually show
: where we fit in to the rest of the universe. Is there one on archive 
: somewhere?
:
	There was some time ago (~1985) an article on the Universe in
National Geographic, this issue came with a wall map that had our universe
on it and our solar system in relation to the universe.
	The map was more of an artistic illustration than a technical map
but could perhaps be referenced to a actual starchart or maps.
	It is also just good to look at and I think it is still available
from the National Geographic Society.
	Regards, 
	David
	dcb@electron.ph.unimelb.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:07:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep13.195609.29356@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>	Yes, please explain. Gores voting record in the senate suggests
>that he is one of the most outspoken supporters of technological investment.

That may be, but space is not one of the places he wants to invest money.
I have tried to lobby Gore and his staffers on this. 

Gore heads a subcommittee who has the responsibility of passing an
Authorization bill for NASA every year. He SHOULD have his bill passed
by May at the latest. This way, the bill can guide the Appropriations
Committee later on. That's his job.

In 88, he didn't bother to pas an authorization at all. In 90 he
wated until December to pass one (long after the appropriation).
The 91 bill was also so late to make it ineffectual. This year
it is looking like he won't bother to pass one.

Sure he will tell you he supports space but his record indicates
that he simply doesn't care. for myself, I didn't vote for bush
in 88 but I will in 92.

    Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------223 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 01:55:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.173654.4246@eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes...
>Wouldn't we find out more if we tried to dip the probe INTO the atmosphere?
>After all, we'd get much better close-up pictures :-). As well some better feel
>for the composition of the atmosphere upon entry. 

Actually, the radio science experiment will tell us a lot about the
atmosphere.  As the spacecraft flies by, the radio signal will be
transmitted through the atmosphere to Earth.  How the radio signal is
affected by the atmosphere will tell us its density and composition.
This is a common technique already performed with all of the other planets.
I believe from what we do know about Pluto's atmosphere is that it
quite thin and extends out quite a ways, even encompassing Charon.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Xref: sparky sci.space:12915 sci.astro:9670
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 08:29:37 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Followup-To: /dev/null
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Sep12.194702.23291@usl.edu> pssres12@ucs.usl.edu (Vignes Gerard M) writes:

>	When election day comes,
>	please get out and vote.
>	It's your right AND your duty.

>	A non-vote is not a form of protest;
>	it's a clear signal that you're happy with things
>	just the way they are and you really don't care anyway.

Hear Hear.  Like the great Heinlein said, even if you can't see anyone
you want to vote for, you can surely find someone you want to vote
against.  Aternatively find some well meaning fool (there is always
one around), ask his advice, and then vote the other way.

Yes, I AM in the UK, but the US has so much influence over here that I
really think we ought to get to vote for him (her?).

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space markets
Date: 7 Sep 92 13:40:59 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <6SEP199221315394@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>
>Look at the troubles Iridium is having raising their capital for a commercial
>venture  and they have a great business plan with a high rate of return. The
>prime problem they have is that it is new tech and no one has sufficient 
>intestinal fortitude to bankroll them, therefore they are spreading the risk
>and lowering their own returns by going into partnerships with many companies.
>This has delayed the program for at least two years.

Iridium has tremendous problems, but lack of guts isn't one of them.
The two biggest problems faced by the system are regulatory issues
on a global scale, and what to do if the system actually attracts
a large user base. As terrestrial cellular providers are discovering,
the big problem is achieving *small* enough cells to prevent the
user base from overloading the system. A small satellite can't
carry a big enough array to shrink cell sizes as demand increases.
Users will quickly abandon a system where they almost always get
a busy. Yet without a large user base the system can't turn a
profit.

They can try to limit the user base by charging $100 a minute for
service, but there are only so many drug lords in the third world,
and they've installed their own terrestrial cellular service. 
Iridium can't serve 4/5 of the world's population. All it can be
is a plaything of the very rich, and the very rich are intolerant
of limits. Investors aren't stupid. They can count very well. Iridium 
isn't risky because it uses advanced technology, it's risky because 
it's technology isn't advanced enough to serve it's potential market.

Many companies have failed because they were too successful in
creating a market for their products while being unable to 
deliver on their marketing promises when the scale got too
big. Iridium's main danger is not that it will fail, but that
it will succeed too well.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: CFC replacement
Date: 6 Sep 92 19:43:33 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


>An example of how hard it is to replace existing technologies is current
>household refridgeration. These are largely based on CFCs and will have
>to be replaced due to ozone depletion. The current CFC replacements are
>also not safe, and it may take a total rethink of the technology to get
>something that works properly.

There are usable replacements that are safe for the ozone layer - NIST has
one, and there are others. However the NIST material is flammable, so it's
not as safe *to use* as CFCs. It's probably fair to say that there's not 
yet a *fully satisfactory* replacement. Obviously, it would be desirable
to come up with something that will work in existing systems. I don't know
whether any of the current candidates can be used for this.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: James Oberg (was Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?)
Date: 15 Sep 92 08:17:33 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <9SEP199211390071@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, afwendy@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:
> In article <1992Sep4.160621.3048@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes...
>>The probable origin of this rumor is a book by a contractor at
>>JSC (Jim Oberg) on how to terraform Mars. There have also been a few
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Jim Oberg...now there's an interesting guy!  [...]
> he would do research to find out about cosmonauts who suddenly 
> didn't exist anymore.  He has some great before and after slides--slides 
> where guys were literally erased from the photo and a shrub painted in 

Yes.  Some of the pictures to which Wendy refers can be seen in *Red
Star in Orbit*, James Oberg's excellent book on the Soviet space
program.  He has a number of other books on related topics, including
*Uncovering Soviet Disasters*.  

His book on terraforming, *New Earths*, seems unrelated to these
matters, but it's also very good.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:53:29 GMT

> Even if you ignore all the globe-threatening issues, *population* growth,
> which you can *count on*, will still be one of our greatest challenges. 

> It will keep growing until it simply *can't* and that only happens when  

> world resources, particularly in food stuffs, become steadily taxed. Don't
> kid yourselves, this is *going* to happen whether you like it or agree  

> with it.
> 


Read some demographics books. Population has been shifting from high birth  
rate/high mortality to low birth rate/low mortality for over a century.  
Population growth follows and S curve because there is a social lag between  
the mortality decline and the change in desired family size. The US and  
Western Europe went through this shift at and before the turn of the  
century. The end result was not as disastrous because they started at a  
lower baseline population and the medical technology was just being  
developed. Ie, the transition was spread out enough to allow social change  
to more closely track the technological change. Much of the "Third World"  
got modern medicine almost as a step function and also started from higher  
population bases and lower education/technology bases.

Nonetheless, country by country they are going through the transition to  
stability. The exception so far has been africa, which seems to have very  
stable social structures making large families desirable. Not to fear. It  
will change. Whether by conscious decision or by the four horsemen is their  
own decision to make.

At the end of the transition, populations tend to show NEGATIVE growth  
rates. Many European countries have slowly declining populations, with the  
possible exception of Ireland.

The US would show negative growth already but it is hidden by the large size  
of the legal and illegal immigration.

Japan is facing a massive social security crisis in the next decade because  
it's population is also graying. They have a requirement for heavy  
automation because they face a lack of manpower. (The USA faces a similar  
crisis due to a demographic pulse caused by the post-World War II baby boom  
rather than the demographic turnover.)

China is trying to weave its' way between the Scylla of population growth  
and the Charybdis of an elderly, nonworking population.

Population growth at this time is (except for africa) mostly a momentum  
effect that will stabilize by 2020-2050 or so. That is the good news. The  
bad news is that the stable population level could be as high as 10-15  
billion.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:43:18 GMT

In article <+7qn_q-.tomk@netcom.com> tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
>(I am reposting this at request)
>
>There have been suggestions of terraforming Mars, perhaps
>even Venus. There may even be other planets or satellites
>in the solar system that lend themselves to being improved
>upon by man.
...>
>It is a simple, possibly even elementary, matter to find
>various bacteria, algae, fungi, lichen etc. that can exist
>in the harsh environment of Mars. Or, for that matter, the
>upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere. These life-forms
>are small, light and quite capable of being transported in
>rather massive quantities to these planets by presently
>possessed technology. Should there not be appropriate life
>forms, our present knowledge of biotechnology should lead
>us to be able to develop some in fairly short order.
>
>I suggest that we send a space vessel bearing our life
>substitutes to Mars and Venus. The cost is relatively
>miniscule. Thereon we can sprinkle the makings of man
>himself.


Pseudoscience about Gaia notwithstanding, this doesn't work.

The surface of Mars is extremely dry.  All terrestrial life requires
liquid water to survive.  Even bacterial spores are quickly rendered
nonviable in extreme dryness: experiments that place spores in air of
near-zero relative humidity at 25 C find that the DNA begins to
degrade, and the spores become nonviable within weeks (for this
reason, the bacteria that supposedly survived in the Surveyor on the
moon were likely post-recovery contaminants).

As for Venus: the clouds there are concentrated sulfuric acid.  Should
anything be able to survive there, which is doubtful, it could not
terraform Venus into anything remotely habitable to humans, as the
primary problem is how to get rid of the atmosphere.  Converting it to
oxygen and biomass doesn't work; there is just too much oxygen there.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:10:34 GMT
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu's message of 11 Sep 92 15:55:17 GMT

In article <pgf.716226917@srl07.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:


   irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) writes:

   >Folks,
   >	Hearing all these wild ideas passed around on this Pluto flyby has
   >led me to try to remind everyone of a few things concerning this mission.
   >First, Staehle is trying to bring back the concept of "faster, better,
   >cheaper" that Goldin is pushing, which was so successful in the '60s.

   But ion drives are tested. JPL tested much worse ones than we
   have now back in the '70's, as part of project SERT.

   (or did someone else run the program? I thought it was JPL...)

   So it's tested. Also, I'll bet SERT was pretty cheap. We know
   the exhaust is faster. 

How long did they fire the test engines for?
There's a big difference between concept testing and
operation, for a pluto flyby you need high delta v,
if you use a cheap booster to get it off Earth and
use an ion engine to get the delta v to get it to
Pluto you have to have confidence the things will work
for the (months long?) boost phase.
My understanding is that electrode erosion 
and other finicky details are not well enough understood,
at least as of 4 years ago, and I don't believe any have
been flown in the interim.

   So, ion drives are cheaper and faster than ordinary propulsion.
   I don't know of a "better" criteria you can apply...

That you can be reasonably sure the mission will succeed?

|  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: Shawn.McCarthy@p902.f349.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Shawn McCarthy)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 16:58:00 -0500

 > Although an orbiter has been discussed, the current mission
 > design calls for only a flyby.  To go into orbit, you need to travel more
 > slowly, thus flight times are longer.  And you need to carry more fuel,
 > which impacts the size of the instrument payload.  All kinds of
 > tradeoffs.

Has the possibility of a light-sail been looked into? use it for accelleration
from the 'bright' area near the earth, then brake off Jupiter's light... (more
complex than that, but thats the general idea)...
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Asteroid explorer
Date: 12 Sep 92 22:26:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu


I think the first post of this was nuked by capricious postware..

Given some recent discussion on NASA approaches, howabout the
following for a small explorer mission:

As per the AO you get $17million (1992) for hardware, R&D,
staff etc, same again for launch; mission ops and data analysis
are extra. So, put together a CCD camera, a (IR?) spectrometer,
a low(medium?) gain antenna, redundant tape recorders, the best CPU
and memory that's flight qualified (is the intel chip qualified yet?)
and a couple of ion thrusters with as much fuel as possible - then
go cruise asteroids, first an Earth crosser, then follow it out
to the belt and peek around, keep going till you run out of fuel
or something dies; main problem would be a power supply and weight
constraints... Nick, Phil? you wanna put your time where your mouth
is?

|  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	|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: raveling@Unify.com (Paul Raveling)
Subject: Re: Solar Ram Jet
Organization: Unify Corporation (Sacramento)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 19:35:58 GMT

In article <28yXqB2w165w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>  
> A related idea is a solar ram jet.  I haven't really given this much
> thought but it is probably good enough for science fiction:

	While not identical to the idea you propose, an interesting
	variant from sci fi is the one that Larry Niven used in a
	series of books.  (Was one of these titled "Rammer"?)  In his
	writings these these ram "jets" enabled interstellar travel
	for the first time; look for books published about 2 1/2 decades
	ago.

	Actually the thing I liked about Larry Niven's writings
	was that he'd suggest plausible new technologies, then
	propose how they shape important elements of future civilizations
	and cultures.  This exercise is sometimes fascinating, whether
	the topic is fictional or real technology.


------------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@Unify.com

Xref: sparky sci.space:12906 sci.astro:9663 talk.politics.space:1207 alt.politics.bush:5016 alt.politics.clinton:5287