HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:00:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <19AUG199220200286@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>> There
>>> is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.
>> 
>>Sure, I believe you. I'm curious to know: what is the demonstrated
>>need? How is it demonstrated?
>
>... Look at the growth in size of geosync communications satellites.
>Ariannispace has and that is the basline for the growth into the Arianne 5...

Ariane's numbers on the subject are somewhat controversial, since some of
the organizations involved might be considered to have ulterior motives
(making A5 big enough for Hermes).  Even setting that aside, though, we're
talking about slow incremental growth of existing boosters, the sort of
thing that is accomplished most cost-effectively by tank stretches and
more/bigger strap-ons.  This is especially so when you bear in mind that the
comsat suppliers and customers are far more concerned about reliability
than cost -- as well they should be when the birds cost much more than the
launches -- and they see upgrades to an existing system as less risky.

At the moment, there is *one* firm customer that appears to really need
larger lift capability than is now available:  NASA's space-station office.
Possibly I exaggerate when I call them a "firm" customer, mind you, although
their political backing appears more solid now than it used to be.  In any
case, they are very heavily hemmed in by politics, and also don't want very
many launches.  They aren't a very promising "launch customer" for a new
vehicle.

Apart from them, there is *no* actually-rolling project, anywhere, that
has a firm need for more than incremental improvements to existing boosters.
If there were, there would be commercial interest.  There have been several
commercial heavylift projects that needed only some committed customers to
justify proceeding with privately-funded development.  None have appeared.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Laser Communications experiment with Galileo
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:48:56 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

A long time ago, I read an article that described a laser
communication experiment to be performed with the
Galileo spacecraft.  The experiment would
consist of a laser sending a data sequence 
to Galileo's CCD camera, and the data would be
compared with a copy of the sequence sent up by conventional
[microwave] means.  Has this been done yet?  Is it still planned?

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: World Space Congress on NASA Select
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:32:37 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


They appear to be showing considerable coverage of the World Space Congress
on NASA Select. I'm trying to tape as much of it as I can, but I won't
have a chance to look at it until later. Bill Higgins is scheduled to present
a paper on Friday morning.

On Monday night, they replayed the Planetary Society conference discussing
justifications for the exploration of Mars. Carl Sagan spoke, and also
at least one person from Russia. I haven't watched it in detail yet.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Nugent       )
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Keywords: SSTO Energy
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:15:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BtpEMH.3KC
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew) writes:

>This is probably a FAQ, but I couldn't find it, so here goes...

>My basic understanding of rockets (developed back when I couldn't
>reach the top of the fridge :-) ), was that they were broken up into
>stages so that they would be able to get into orbit with a useful
>payload, instad of wasting all the propellant on boosting the tanks
>and engines.

>All the mentions to Single Stage To Orbit now make me wonder what
>is different. My understanding was that a kilogram of fuel didn't
>have enough chemical energy to get itself into orbit, let alone
>anything else, but lacking the chemistry I can't verify this.

> What method/s have been adopted for the SSTO
>now under development, or on other similar projects?

From what I understand, 5 years ago you could not get into space without
stages.  However, with various materials developments, at least some of which
came from the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program, it is now possible.
First of all, the tanks which hold the fuel are now lighter because of the
advanced materials.  (Actually, so is alot of the craft.)  Therefore, with
the same amount of fuel, you have less required mass, and can actually think
about having a payload.  The second point I'm not so sure on: some advanced
materials also allow the fuel to burn hotter and therefore more efficiently.

I imagine Allen will make any corrections to the above.


-- 
Tom Nugent	voice:(217)328-0994	e-mail:tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:30:55 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug25.194016.3584@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
>...If and when GPS receivers for cars are mass-marketed, the effect on
>people's attitudes will be interesting...

It won't help.  The belittlers will just redefine the "space program"
they are criticizing to exclude these obviously-useful things.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: grasso@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A)
Subject: Ground support for LDO shuttle as ACRV
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:22:20 GMT

Several times during the discussion on station resupply and crew return,
	the notion of using one of the long-duration orbiters as the
	crew rotation and ACRV has been mentioned. While one shuttle is
        docked at Freedom, others would presumably fly indpendent
	missions.

	My question: what changes to mission ops will be necessary to provide  
        ground support for the two vehicles simultaneously? Presumably,
	since an LDO is specified, the docked shuttle will not draw power
	and control signals from Freedom, but will be an independently
	operating vehicle with its own systems "on" and requiring oversight.
	Or is some sort of data adapter planned to hook Freedom data and
	control paths to shuttle flight control systems? Or is the flight
	telemetry to be relayed to Freedom to allow the astronauts on station
	to control shuttle systems in a manner similar to ground controllers?

		-Chris



-- 
 Chris Grasso
 CSC
 Univ. of Colorado, Boulder
From: fred@iapetus.earth.nwu.edu (Fred Marton)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo Video Clips
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:51:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Geological Sciences Department, Northwestern University

In article <17h3qoINNloo@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>The famous feather and hammer trick is on the PBS special "For All Mankind".

Incidentally, if anyone knows where the video of this can be found, I'd
love to know.  I saw it two(?) years ago when it was in theatrical
release and I thought it was way boffo cool.

fred



-- 
 
 *****************************************************************************
 **   F. Cung Marton              **    "You're looking at me as if this    **
 **   fred@earth.nwu.edu          **    weren't a scientific explanation."  **
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:57:30 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <26AUG199221234806@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>>>> is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.
>>>>... what is the demonstrated need? How is it demonstrated?
>>>... Look at the growth in size of geosync communications satellites.
>>Apart from [SSF], there is *no* actually-rolling project, anywhere, that
>>has a firm need for more than incremental improvements...
>
>...one F1A engine, one or two STME's you get better payload to orbit...
>at the same or lower cost because the cost of the labor to put all of those
>strap ons on and the software developemnt and verification that it takes begins
>to become a negative factor in the cost cycle of the existing boosters...

I'm not contesting that you can build cheaper boosters than the current
ones, or even that using F-1 derivatives would be a good way to do it.
The trouble is the capital investment needed to get to the point of having
an operational launcher.  That includes development plus test flights.
The operating costs of an incrementally-improved Atlas may be higher,
but the cost and (perceived) risk of getting there are smaller.  Which
is why General Dynamics is enhancing the Atlas rather than starting from
scratch.  So long as demand can be met this way, that's the way it will
be met.  It's going to be very difficult to justify any development
of a new launcher until you can come up with a requirement that *can't*
be met by incremental improvement of existing ones.  There is none;
lower cost is not a requirement for the current customers, nor is the
ability to expand to a heavylift design.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:34:11 GMT

Makes you wonder how the "particle" of light "knows" how fast or slow to
speed up by to be travelling at the -speed o' light- at or near the
local frame of reference.  Does it "feel" the local gravity, or something?

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 01:16:41 GMT

barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort) writes:
>A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters
>tells me:
>        A fairly large team <at NASA>, is planning the terraforming
>        of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it.
>        Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C.  And with minimal study of
>        that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur.
>        After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based
>        micro-organisms and rugged plant life.
>Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise
>elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars?

There are no plans by NASA to terraform Mars.  You might see an occasional
discussion of what if scenarios on to how to terraform Mars, but there is
definitely nothing concrete in the workings.   NASA follows its own planetary 
protection requirements that complies with international planetary quarantine
agreements not to contaminate Mars with terrestrial organisms.  For example,
Mars Observer is required to survive in orbit until the year 2009 with a
99.9% probability and to survive thereafter until the year 2039 with a
95% probablity.  Mariner 9 was placed in an orbit that will remain
stable for at least 50 years.  The Viking landers were sterlized and
placed into hermetically sealed biocaps before they were launched, and
the Viking orbiters were placed in a long-term stable orbit.  The spacecraft
landers used in the upcoming MESUR mission will also be sterilized and 
stored in bioshields. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: Boinger@myamy.comsat.hacktic.nl (Paul Kolenbrander)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Last weeks (possible) meteur hit in the Netherlands. 
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:17:36 MET
Reply-To: boinger@myamy.comsat.hacktic.nl (Paul Kolenbrander)
Distribution: world
Organization: System Information 2.0 Development
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

Last week we had an occurrance in the north of the Netherlands.
At first the people though it was an earthquake,  but the local
geologists ruled that option out as the only registered a sound
wave and no tremors...

Now the experts are split into two camps. One group says it has
been a meteorite hit, the othere argues it must been a piece of
space junk coming out of orbit. I recall NASA has a dept.  that
keeps an eye on all that 'junk' up there.  Does anybody know if
they are missing something that could have come down here?

CYa, Paul

-- 
Paul Kolenbrander  \ UUCP: boinger@myamy.comsat.hacktic.nl
Turfveldenstraat 37 \ Fido: 2:284/114.3 Paul Kolenbrander
NL-5632 XH EINDHOVEN | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Voice: +31-40-415752 | Timezone:GMT+1 | Fax: +31-40-426446 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Is Galileo's antenna still brok?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:29:44 GMT

evert@CPSnet2.cps.edu (Mike Evert) writes:

>How's that antenna doing?  The last few Galileo updates that I've seen
>posted here had nothing to say on the subject.  Did they fix it or
>give up on it?  Is there hope?

The High Gain Antenna is still not functional.  Someone from JPL told me 
recently that they have discovered that if they turn on the motor very briefly,
it will advance a tiny amount, but not slip back.  He said that they plan to 
try this up to a hundred times and hopefully will be able to get the screw to
advance at least a full revolution.  He was optimistic, but "we won't know until
we try."
It should be noted that thanks to compression techniques, JPL expects to do 
75% of the science they had planned even if the HGA never opens, including 
receiving 100% of the data from the atmospheric probe.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:14:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.175857.5940@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>No, I think you lack the common sense to realize that if it was a commercial
>venture, it would be built with private monies, 

We are talking about having it built with private money. No, not the
station but the resuply vehicles. Note the difference.

The US Air Force is not a commercial venture yet it is supplied by
commercial ventures. Do you think the govenrment owns the refineries
that supply the jet fuel? Everything from F-15s to toilet paper is
bought from the private sector.

Launches whether used to send satellites or resuply a government space
station can be commercial.

>They don't operate McMurdo Base in Antarticia <sp> as a "market."

I'll bet they do. Not the research conducted but the resuply.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: World Space COngress
Organization: UDSI
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:58:43 GMT

Is anyone holding a net party at the WSC????
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Another Shuttle Tank Reuse Idea, From NASA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 05:01:50 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <15292@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>...hydrogen tank inside would be removed, leaving the oxygen tank and
>intertank structures, to which would be added living quarters,
>instrumentation, an airlock, and small thrusters and fuel tanks...

Small correction... I doubt it really said that... because there is
no hydrogen tank "inside".  There is one, 1, 00001, layer of metal
between the liquid hydrogen and the outside world.  (There is some
spray-on insulation on the outside of the metal.)  The tank wall
and the outer shell are one and the same.  If you cut away the
hydrogen tank, you're cutting away roughly the lower two-thirds
of the ET.  Still might be a sensible idea, although it seems a
shame to throw away most of the internal volume (the oxygen tank
is much smaller).
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: cdost+@pitt.edu (Constantin D Orogo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Looking for gyro compass
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:06:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Hello, sci.space netters! Anybody out there have information
on where I can buy a cheap gyro compass? Thanks in advance.
-Constantine Orogo, cdost+@pitt.edu
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:10:48 GMT
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

In article <9209010437.AA10756@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes...
>Will the trajectory of Pioneer Venus as it burns up provide useful
>information for the planning of the Magellan aerobraking experiment?
>(Density and drag at various altitudes, etc.)

That is the plan.  The Magellan and Pioneer projects are working together
to collect the data from Pioneer Venus to be applied toward Magellan's
aerobraking next year for Cycle 5.  Of course, this is assuming that Magellan 
isn't turned off at the end of Cycle 4.  Magellan is in Cycle 3 right now with
Cycle 4 due to start on September 14.  Each cycle lasts 243 days, or one
Venusian day.  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:52:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Sep3.145240.20070
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <BtIH0M.CJt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Nugent       ) writes:

>Last week's Space News mentioned this a bit.  In a round table discussion   
>regarind commercial space, it was agreed that OSC (Orbital Science
>Corporation, the makers of the Pegasus laucnh vehicle) is about as close as
>you can come to the 'little guy goes big' in space,

This is ridiculous, since OSC gets over 90% of its revenue from the U.S.
government.  They have commercial expectations, but first they have
to make Pegasus and Orbcomm actualy work instead of just looking good
on paper.  Pegasus was a great concept, and still is a great concept
IMHO, but its implementation by OSC has been a dismal failure.

There are many significant players, both old and new, in commercial
space.  Hughes and Loral both get nearly half of their space-related
revenue from commercial satellite building, and Comsat gets over three-quarters 
of its revenue from commercial satellite ops.  Comsat stock is near its
all-time high, and Hughes is signing deals across the planet to bypass
primitive local telephone switching systems with satellites.  There are 
many start-ups both for building (Norris Satellite, Iridium) and operating 
(Alpha Lyracom, American Mobile Satellite Corp., Skypix, etc.)
commercial spacecraft.  General Dynamics and McDonnel Douglas, while still 
dominated by government contracts in the space field, have significant 
commercial launch operations.  E'Prime is a small rocket company with a 
commercial contract but no government support.  Arianespace gets most
of its revenue from commercial launches.  None of these may fit the 
stereotype of the ideal space startup, but they are all in there duking
it out in one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Laser distance record?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 04:05:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.193838.19912@sunova.ssc.gov> faught@redfox.ssc.gov writes:
>In article <26059@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>>In article <rabjab.77.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)  
>writes...
>>>To date, what is the farthest that a laser has been seen from?
>>> 
>>>I recall a successful experiment sending a laser beam from the
>>>Earth to a Surveyor lander on the Moon in the sixties.  That would
>>>make the current record approx. 384,400 km?

*And* back.

>>
>>If you allow masers, then the answer is best measured in parsecs.  Oh... you
>>want man-made lasers.  Never mind.
>>
>>-Scott
>>--------------------
>>Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
>>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
>>				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
>>				had been definitely settled, I think I would
>>				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
>
>I seem to recall reading something about natural lasers in the atmoshere of  
>Venus??????

Hmmm, I think that's Mars.  I had read it was CO2 transitions which would be
thermally crowed transitions in the Venutian atmosphere.

Can anyone confirm?

>--
>Ed Faught  WA9WDM  faught@psychosis.ssc.gov
> Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space