HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Pluto Fast Flyby mission goals...
Date: 13 Sep 92 23:43:39 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>How long did they fire the test engines for?

I think several months of intermittent operation.
If you really want, we could keep the same design
for the electrode/screen et al and just take advantage
of all the neat new solar cell technology which has
gotten on the shelf in the meantime (shelf as in
"We can get it off the shelf.")

>   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?

Can you be that certain with using five stacked Star 48's (or
whatever they're using)?


--
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

           --> Support UN military force against Doug Mohney <--
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:07:05 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <15008@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>Would it be possible to aerobrake at Uranus or Neptune...

It's a long way from Uranus or Neptune to Pluto, even when the planets are
lined up nicely... which they aren't now.

Any braking you do really has to be done very close to Pluto.  It is too
far away from everything else.
-- 
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: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:24:38 GMT

Those expecting a lunar base out of NASA's proposed "return to the
moon" are in for a big disappointment, according to a recent Aviation
Week article.  It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar
Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function
our first lunar operations, Apollo.

The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the
equator.  The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
size of Saturn 5!

The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.  Geology
treks using an Apollo-style rover (again made larger to hold four
astronauts) would be the main justification.  They would try out
tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to
those who want a real lunar base.  No production plants, no
mass driver, and no biosphere.  Most time at the "base"
would be spent by the astronauts huddled in their capsules, 
studying each other.  There would be no revenue or commercial
interest in the project.

Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for
food, water, and shelter.  The lander would consist both of LOX/LH
propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather
expensive, kluged combination.  The space suits would be designed 
from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS.

No estimate of cost was given, and perhaps none is needed, given
the political unviability of the project.  The project requires 
a new upper stage, a new habitation capsule, a new 4-propellant lander, 
a new rover, new spacesuits, along with the various experiments.  They 
propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5, which 
would not be used by anybody outside NASA.  Thus, I would give a 
conservative guestimate of the cost of Apollo plus the cost of SSF, 
or $270 billion.  In an attempt to mollify Congress, NASA proposes
to take the money out of other NASA projects, but this cost is 19
times the entire annual NASA budget, and NASA already admits to having
more projects than it can fund. NASA has already cut the planetary exploration
budget down to $300 million per year, one-one-thousandth (1/1,000) the
cost of this project to study the geology of one body.  No doubt clever 
accountants will give us a lower number in an attempt to make the project 
politically viable, but that number will deserve a critical look.  As will 
the rationale for repeating the exciting-once but dead-end missions of 
Apollo.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:22:54 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

Mark Brader writes:

> Several slingshot trajectories have been proposed as alternatives to the
> direct Pluto flight, but not the one that I would have thought obvious:
> a simple Jupiter slingshot.  Jupiter should be in the right position
> for a period of, I would guess, some weeks or months, at intervals of
> about 12 years.

The Jupiter slingshot has, I can assure you, been proposed.  Yes, Jupiter
is in the right position about every 12 years, but the interval can be
as long as two years.  If you go for the earliest opportunity, the bending
angle at Jupiter is rather severe, requiring a very close approach, and
consequently lots of radiation shielding.  This essentially sets the limit
for how early one can use Jupiter for a gravity assist.  At the late end,
you're limited by the law of diminishing returns:  little bending angle,
little gravity assist.  The next Jupiter alignment that could be used for
a Pluto mission is in the 2002 to 2004 time frame, and that was the window
the Outer Planets Science Working Group had its eye on before Goldin took
over as NASA Administrator.  He favored a "faster, smarter, cheaper,
sooner" approach, and that's when direct trajectories were given more
serious consideration.
Xref: sparky sci.space:12908 sci.astro:9664 talk.politics.space:1208 alt.politics.bush:5019 alt.politics.clinton:5288
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:37:02 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <1992Sep14.000925.21854@news.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>
>Military research will probably be cut.  As I pointed out, this is not
>necessarily a very bad thing, since this kind of research is no longer
>economically beneficial.  And you're probably totally off base, given
>the voting records and policy statements of Clinton/Gore.

Wrong on both counts. How do you define "economically beneficial"? The Global
Positioning System is one pretty nifty spin-off from the Evil Military, hm?
Smaller computers? Smart-optics compensation for telescopes? 


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terraforming
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:33:24 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: aweder@iiic.ethz.ch (Andreas Michael Weder)
-Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
-Date: 4 Sep 92 14:38:43 GMT
-Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH

-I'd say, forget about that. Even a manned mission to Mars would cost
-*at least* 500 billion dollars (according to a NASA researcher).
-Terraforming is a nice SF idea and sounds like an easy thing to
-do, but IMHO we don't know enough about the involved systems
-to even think about changing a planet. 

I'd agree with you that it's not practical or desirable at present, but
I also think that we don't know enough yet to make a decision for all time
that it will never be practical or desirable. Terraforming is an interesting
concept anyway in the sense that some of its principles might apply to
smaller things like space colonies. (It doesn't *all* have to be done by
brute force machinery.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: 20 Questions About the Delta Clipper
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:26:08 GMT

In article <BuBB9n.156.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

>The DCX is a simple craft using off the shelf parts and well  
>understood technology. There may be some flight regimes in which  
>there is something to be learned, but I suspect there is not much  
>from a science viewpoint. Unlike other vehicles built in the past,  
>its design is not a research project. This is a skunkworks aviation  
>project whose only goal is operational hardware.

The main thing learned from DCX will be the viability of the flip
maneuver they use on re-entry. According to the NASA assessment of
the Delta Clipper design there isn't enough in the database to tell
if it will work.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------225 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mirrors
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:16:25 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: rick@trystro.uucp (Richard Nickle)
-Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?

[This week's award for most frequently used inappropriate subject line]

-Date: 10 Sep 92 12:55:04 GMT
-Organization: The Trystro System (617) 625-7155 v.32/v.42bis

->Do you understand how many 'mirrors' would be required to raise the polar
->caps one degree centigrade?

-Use solar sails to transport cargo to Mars orbit: (sensing gear, microbe
-packages (when needed), the dirt for covering the poles to help it absorb
-heat, gear for colonies....and just leave them there.

How come those solar sails zoom across space while carrying a payload, then
when you get to Mars and remove the payload (thus making them even less 
massive), they just sit there? :-)

I think at the very least, with such light mirrors, you have to continue to
actively sail them, which probably rules out using them to reflect light
onto Mars more than part of the time.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Followup-To: sci.geo.geology
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 01:15:39 GMT

There is an article of non-fiction in the October "Analog" (=old ASF)
by Martyn J. Fogg regarding the futility of now attempting to
terraform Mars. One of the references he quotes implies that he was the
editor of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (at least
in 1991).

I would like to see some critiques or comments by those who have
looked seriously into this subject regarding his article. (pp. 60-77)
To a novice like myself his arguments appear reasonable.

I particularly would like to understand the "carbonate-silicate" cycle
he ascribes to a James Walker et al from the University of Michigan
ca. 1981 but otherwise for which no reference is given. (He does refer
to the December 1989 and April 1991 issues of the BIS, which is not
easily obtainable here, plus a couple of other books I have not had
time to check:
S. K. Atreya et al (editors) Origin and evolution of planetary and
satellite atmospheres, U. of Arizona Press (1989)
and Mallove, E., and G. Matloff, The starflight handbook, Wiley ,
1989.)


Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Arstrong's Boots
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 19:20:53 GMT

gkm@cc.uow.edu.au writes:  > I was aked today a question by
someone who hadn't even thought of all of the useful things I
know about the moon. A typical non scientist! He asked me "What
material was used to make Neil Armstron's boots?" He needed the
answer for a lecture on ?? and was serious in his request.  > >
I don't know where on earth to look. Does anyone out there know
the answer?  > > gkm@cc.uow.edu.au > Science Centre > Fax:
61-42-213151

I'm assuming that Armstrong wore the standard, custom-fitted,
hand-made Apollo Lunar EVA boots made by Hamilton-Standard. If
so, then the regular space suit boots were protected by special
overshoes for extra layers of insulation. (The astronuats
called them their "little blue booties!")
   The blue silicone rubber soles formed the bottom, and curved
up around the sides all around for three inches. The white
outer top layer was "beta-cloth", made from Teflon-coated
fiberglass cloth. Inside that, there were multiple, alternating
layers of non-woven dacron and aluminized mylar plastic. There
was also a sole insert of felt, I don't know what material.
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: The real issue: massive misallocation of funds
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:21:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.065318.10988@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au> phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew) writes:
>
>I fully agree that telepresence has validity in a large number of
>applications. What I would object to is development of telepresence
>as the *sole* means of presence in space.

This isn't the important issue.  The issue is a NASA budget that puts nearly
2/3 of its space funds towards astronaut projects, and less than 1% 
towards telepresence. Does that reflect the potential contributions
of each?  I think not.  



-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: One Small Modest Proposal
Date: 10 Sep 92 11:31:40 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9
-Date: 9 Sep 92 19:31:28 GMT

-On the plus side, station supply will mean placing a lot of
-mass into LEO, and this could make the market for launch
-services a LOT bigger, which could help reduce launch
-costs. But the way things currently are, NASA intends to use
-only the Shuttle (with its high cost) for resupply. Not only
-will this deny the advantages of a larger market but it will
-add huge costs to the Station life cycle.

-If a way to resupply Freedom could be found which didn't
-require Shuttle, the payback would be enormous. Not only
-would the larger launch markets lower costs, but non-Shuttle
-based resupply could mean that the entire Shuttle program
-can be phased out, freeing up roughly three BILLION every year.

I trust you're not trying to win political support for this proposal.
("Not only will it stop your dog barking at night and tearing up the
neighbor's garden, the Winchester cartridge will also *kill* your dog,
so you don't have to pay for all that expensive dog food!" :-)

You'll probably get a more favorable response if you wait until we have
a new dog before proposing to shoot the old dog. Concentrating on the need
for a new dog as an end in itself would probably speed the process.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: begley%lock.dnet@jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Begley)
Subject: Re: The real issue: massive misallocation of funds
Organization: Lockheed Engineering (Houston, TX)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:12:11 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.202154.1225@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
writes:
>
>This isn't the important issue.  The issue is a NASA budget that puts nearly
>2/3 of its space funds towards astronaut projects, and less than 1% 
>towards telepresence. Does that reflect the potential contributions
>of each?  I think not.  

No, it does not, but it does reflect the actual cost of allowing
humans to go into space versus allowing machines to go into space.
Technology development closed cycle life support and safe transportation,
and life science studies, do cost a lot of money.  But if we are not
willing to be armchair explorers, we must pay those costs to allow
us to travel the solar system.


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: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 06:28:56 GMT

Mark Brader writes:

> Several slingshot trajectories have been proposed as alternatives to the
> direct Pluto flight, but not the one that I would have thought obvious:
> a simple Jupiter slingshot.  Jupiter should be in the right position
> for a period of, I would guess, some weeks or months, at intervals of
> about 12 years.

The Pluto proposal using the Mark Mariner II spacecraft would of used
a Jupiter gravity assist.  I managed to dig out an old post from last
December, and it includes tibits on the Neptune orbiter mission.

* Both probes would be Mariner Mark II spacecraft.
* Both launched by Titan/Centaur.
* Launch for Pluto in 2001, with gravity assists from Earth and Jupiter.
* Launch for Neptune 8 months later, in 2002, with gravity assists from
  Venus (twice), Earth and Jupiter.
* Observation of Pluto one year before and after closest approach.
* 100 days before closest approach to Pluto, a daughter spacecraft with
  imaging instruments only will be released to arrive at Pluto 3.2 days
  (half a Pluto revolution) after the main craft, so that both hemispheres
  of Pluto and Charon can be imaged.
* Pluto probe will continue out at a speed of about 3 AU per year, and should
  reach 75 to 110 AU before its useful life ends.
* Neptune spacecraft will release a probe 6 to 8 days before closest
  approach. This will enter the atmosphere of Neptune.
* Neptune orbitor's mission to last 4 years, with 25 to 45 gravity assists
  from Triton.

One benefit of using the 2001 to 2003 launch window instead of the next
Jupiter-assist launch window (2011) is that it would be more feasible to use
the Mariner Mark II, since after CRAF/Cassini it would be difficult to
replicate as parts became unavilable.

Science return from Cassini is likely to end about 2008 - 2010. There would
therefore only be a `short' gap before data starts coming from the
Pluto-bound craft (2014 - 2016, ie a year before and after closest
approach), followed by data from the Neptune craft from 2021 - 2025.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Quiet people aren't the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | only ones who don't say
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | much.
From: keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from?
Date: 8 Sep 92 03:03:41 GMT
Organization: Telectronics Pacing Systems
Originator: keithh@sydrd14


In article <1992Sep2.153142.7358@unocal.com>, stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
> In article <2SEP199204264283@reg.triumf.ca> vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes:
> >Neglecting the engineering problems of high speed travel through an
> >imperfect vacuum, you can travel light centuries in subjective
> >hours if you accelerate long enough. If you arrive at the Andromeda
> >galaxy 2 weeks after leaving earth, you could be justified in
> >thinking you travelled faster than c. It's just that the rest of 
> >the universe will have aged 2x10^8 years.
> 
> No. You would not feel you are going faaster, but the universe got smaller
> and slower.  These are stardard result of Special Relativity.

Neither of the above. The trick is that you are measuring the distance
in one reference frame and the time in different frame. Divide one by
the other and you get a number bigger than c. (Interstellar travellers
might find this useful for navigational purposes.) However, if you
measure distance and time in the same frame, you always get an answer
less than c.

Keith Harwood.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton/Gore Space Position
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:09:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.234835.11091@hsv3.lsil.com> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

>How has he [Gore] voted on the various attemts to scuttle DCX?

To date he hasn't had a chance to vote. The Sanate will be considering
the defense appropriation later this year. That will be his earliest
opportunity.

However, the other senator from Tenn. *IS* on the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee and is therefore in a position to vote yes or no on September
15. One way to support DCX would be to write Gore and ask him to convince
Senator Sasser to support DCX.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------227 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: The real issue: massive misallocation of funds
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.202154.1225@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes...
>In article <1992Sep3.065318.10988@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au> phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew) writes:
>>
>>I fully agree that telepresence has validity in a large number of
>>applications. What I would object to is development of telepresence
>>as the *sole* means of presence in space.
> 
>This isn't the important issue.  The issue is a NASA budget that puts nearly
>2/3 of its space funds towards astronaut projects, and less than 1% 
>towards telepresence. Does that reflect the potential contributions
>of each?  I think not.  
> 
> 
> 
>-- 
>szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
>Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 

Hey I just figured it out! Nick IS a telepresence and AI experiment that went
awry. Where is the soft restart key?

Just kidding Nick. :-)

Dennis


Newsgroups: sci.space