HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:52:22 GMT

In article <Bt4yxu.C0.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

>The private  
>measures Allan and others, including myself are suggesting will be  
>coming on line in the early years post-2000. 

Except for the posibility of Delta Clipper, I'm not as optimistic.
We currently have a space program which doesn't consider reducing
cost to orbit to be a worthy goal. Maybe Goldin will change that.

>The shuttle will  
>continue working until it is driven from the skies by economics.  

But it isn't economics which keeps it there, it's government dictate.
Unless we make space a market and subject it to market forces, costs
will never come down.

>Guinness is good for you

Ah yes, 'Guinness, the beer you eat with a fork'.

I envy you living over there where you can get it on tap; the way God
intended man to drink Guinness.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------245 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:41:47 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <ZOWIE.92Aug16114108@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:

>Truax is the fellow who built Evil Knievel's steam rocket to jump the Snake River
>canyon.  

Not to mention the fellow who studied under Robert Goddard, designed the 
US Navy's Polaris missile, and helped design the Atlas ICBM.


>The idea was to have sea launch and recovery to make it cheap, and to adapt
>existing parts rather than build custom ones to build the craft.   A few
>years ago, the Air Force bought the prototype from him for a cool 3/4 of a 
>million dollars -- enough to buy a house in Palo Alto!  

Uhm, not exactly.  It wasn't the Air Force, it was the Naval Research
Laboratory, and Truax built the (subscale) prototype under contract
for them.


>Are there any other people around who've come as close to success (defined
>as a private launch) as even Truax did?

Well, Gary Hudson's GCH, Inc. got as far as blowing up a Percheron
rocket on the launch pad (much like NASA in the early 60's) and Pegasus
has gotten as far as placing a few small payloads into orbit.


>[It bugs me that there are people like H Ross Perot, who themselves
>have enough cash to finance their own space programs, but that none, so 
>far, has underwritten one.]

What, after his Presidential bid?  I can see it now.  The launch of
Perot I.  T-plus-60 seconds.  All systems nominal, in the green, and
go for orbit.  Quick, abort, abort, abort! :-)
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS fouling astronomy
Date: 18 Aug 92 16:52:10 GMT
 <1992Aug12.044959.19501@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 
 <1992Aug13.175839.24133@cfa.harvard.edu> 
 <1992Aug15.224819.15041@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <roelle.714081429@uars_mag>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <roelle.714081429@uars_mag>
roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:

> Are there really persons out there who believe a fair assessment of
> the physical universe can be made by restricting our view to the
> celestial cones around Earth's polar regions?

Hey, wait a minute. THIS wouldn't happen in any case. A full-up SPS
system would brighten the entire sky, largely due to scattered light in
the Earth's atmosphere. This would be seen by any observer on Earth,
except those above |82| degrees latitude, who would see a dark sky
(providing it's night, it's clear, and no aurora is around).
From: gwh@soda.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 17 Aug 1992 15:17:35 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

In article <Bt4tF1.ID0.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>> This is a questionable number. CIS is now quoting commercial launches 
>> on Proton for $65 million, not including payload, and the US and  
>[...]
>I had been under the impression they were charging much less than  
>this, ie a truely subsidized cost.
>
>I think it is questionable to call this an unfair price. Considering  
>where they are on the learning curve, this sounds even a bit high. [...]

The hard part of pricing a Proton is in pricing a russian engineer or
machinist.  At current market prices for those people, the 
$10 million cash I was given as a Proton price 6 months ago
makes sense.  If they start getting paid at what they're worth,
$40 million makes sense.  If they were paid at US levels, it would
be over a hundred million, but that's not likely ...

>I would suggest using the total production to date of Ariane and the  
>cost of $85M as one point on the curve of cost vs total production to  
>date.

BTW, few Arianne's have been sold at that price recently.
The most recent cost data I could find for launches over the
last 30 months or so indicates pricing from $98 million to
$115 million.  That may be due to increasing popularity of the
44L version (heavier lift) but some of it's due to inflation.
They're trying to optimize pricing by launching pairs of comsats
on 44L versions.

It's interesting to note that a design goal of the Arianne 5 is
a 20% lower cost per launch.  

[Source: 3 seperate engineers in 
Ariannespace, one of whom is a
launch coordinator, one who's
doing systems on the Arianne 5
and one who's working on the
Kouru facilities.]


-george william herbert
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Date: 12 Aug 92 01:36:22 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, +1 515 226 2156

Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
> The primary concern here is human life and safety, not lawsuits. Some
> fool had the audacity to e-mail me and say "Thank God Robert Goddard
> didn't listen to people like you." Well, Robert Goddard was a professor
> of physics, and more importantly, *knew what he was doing*, because he
> had the brains to find out, and to pay attention to safety. It does NOT
> further the cause of space flight to get people killed or injured - it
> sets it back, look at Challenger.


Fred,

        I think the point that should be made is "maybe the guy 
who wants to build engines IS more intelligent and safety 
conscious than you have given him credit for"?  All you really 
should have said was "do you know what you are doing" and if they 
respond with "I think so" then help them out.  That is my two 
cents worth..........sq

(usually it is quite obvious when someone is NOT competent...)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Upcoming Delta launches...
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 13:19:53 GMT

 >   SPACE CALENDAR
 >   July 29, 1992
 >
 >   August 1992
 >     20 - GE Satcom C4 Delta Launch

Does anyone know the time/launch window for this flight?

Without it, finding the satellite coverage would be very difficult...

Anyone with info please post or email!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:37:36 GMT

In article <171u2uINNfsq@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>Have you talked to someone who builds or works with space robotics?
No, I was hoping that there might be someone out there who would counteract
hype from virtual-reality types.

>When anyone suggests replacing humans in the short term, they laugh.
>Space robotics aren't as strong, for the most part, have less degrees
>of freedom _and_ less limbs, less end effector dexterity, and more
>likely failure points than a man in space.  They're safer, but often 
>can't do the job.  (note that an astronaut in EVA can't do everything
>either.  both together are much more capable.)
OK, fine.  But the only current `job' for SSF is apparently biological
research on the long-term effects on microgravity, which means loading
rats into a centrifuge.  I submit that that can be done with a conveyor
belt.  Sure, you need people to (dextrously) put the station together
(or at least to install the rats in their cages), but after that its all
BF Skinner (push the bar, get the food pellet, wait for the scalpel).

>Or are you just trying to start a flamewar?
Well, I'm certainly getting sick of some of the topics that have been
battered to death here.  We seem to be going round and round on how to
supply SSF or get the crew away when things fall apart.  I'd still like
to see a discussion of *why*, in the present scheme of things, people are
necessary for Earth orbit operations.  Seems to me you could (in the spirit
of many discussions in this group) free up a lot of $ (possibly some small
fraction of which could be used to improve the dexterity of robots.)  This
is, after all, sci.space, not sci.humansinspace.waiting4Soyuz
-- 
Gerald Cecil  cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is 
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
Xref: sparky sci.space:11740 sci.physics:12776
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:01:11 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <l8k4fdINNd6m@alcor.usc.edu> rone@alcor.usc.edu (Ron Echeverri) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.030630.3919@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>>Hmmm...  at the distance of one parsec, one astronomical unit subtends an
>>angle of one arc second.
>
>Coincidence.  Remember, one AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun...

NOT!

A "parsec" is one (arc) second of parallax -- parallax second -- parsec. 

The unit is quite convenient for an astronomer measuring the distances 
to stars with this method.  An A.U. enters because this parallax is 
measured at distant parts of the earth's orbit about the sun.  

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 17 Aug 92 15:49:37 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <16l1h1INNa8t@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.130334.8888@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>But we will have long duration Shuttles by the time of PMC. So the
>>Shuttle can be crew transport, resupply, material return, and ACRV 
>>until we get something better. Not great, but workable with the current
>>fleet. We also get the use of the docked Shuttle's middeck and Canadarm
>>at no extra cost.
>
>	Oh great.  We're eating up months of shuttle time just sitting them
>at Freedom.  With a four orbiter fleet and one permanently on station,
>the number of flights per year will drop around 25% due to less time to
>refurbish (or the same time with a two month delay).  We don't need the
>middeck or Canadarm; we've got plenty of lab space (well, not enough, but
>_enough_) and an arm on the station already.
>
>	Think these things through...

Indeed. If we follow the plan of using Soyuz and HL Deltas, the Shuttle
fleet is *gone*. That's Sherzer's plan anyway. With this plan 3/4 of the 
Shuttle fleet is available for other work than servicing Fred. Now if
your plan includes operating the full Shuttle fleet in *addition*
to Soyuz at the station, then *never mind*. Expensive though.

As to the $65 million firm price for Soyuz, I've posted about this
several times. That may be the price quoted *now*, but wage rates
in the CIS simply can't stay at $12 a month as their economy changes
to a market based system. That's going to have a major impact on
what their space hardware costs. I doubt that *they* have a good idea
what their hardware costs *now* given the baroque accounting methods of
the former Soviet Union, and certainly they can't predict what it
will cost in ten years given the dramatic changes in their economy.

Gary
From: lips@bernina.ethz.ch (Emil Lips)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Calculating Planet Positions
Keywords: Calculation Error
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:29:33 GMT
Organization: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH

Help!

I+ve a problem with the book "Astronomie & Ordinateur" written by
Guy Serane (Paris, Dunod, 1987)

I am using the routines described in that book to calculate the
position of the planets. Now I have encountered a difference between
the results the program gives and the ephemerids provided by NASA
(which I belief to be more accurate). The error is below 1 degree
but bigger than 1/2 a degree over the range of the next 100 years.
I get the worst results for Pluto and Neptun, but Jupiter and Saturn
do also give errors in the range of 1/5 degree.

So if you have had the same problems with these routines or know of 
a more accurate one, I would be glad if you could drop me a note.
 
Yours Milo
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: "Our" Lunar Base (was Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem)
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:42:09 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Aug11.205655.6840@csi.on.ca>, richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin) writes:
> When ARE we going to have a lunar base?  Why don't we have one yet?
> Richard.

These are two very good questions, but we SERIOUSLY need a new subject
line for such a discussion.

(I have my own opinions, but, noting the domain in Richard's address,
I'm waiting to see Doug Mohney's reply.)

Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking         Bill Higgins
pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar       Fermilab
vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and        HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
atom-splitting-- all in our time.  But nobody     HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
has yet been able to figure out a music           SPAN:  43011::HIGGINS
holder for a marching piccolo player. 
                     --Meredith Willson, 1948
From: george.gassaway@matrix.sbs.com (George Gassaway) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:19:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: george.gassaway@matrix.sbs.com (George Gassaway) 

If "Estes" rocekts are not enough for you folk, try some of the
commercially made larger rocket motors. Notably, Aerotech, who makes
engines for consumers in the that go to E and F power. FAR more snesible
than making your own. I've been into this hobby for 22 years and know
better than to try to make up my own. Eventually, somebody gets injured
of killed making up their own stuff. Just not worth it!!!
                                                                                                          
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Organization: :noitazinagrO
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:29:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.143435.10476@csi.on.ca> richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin) writes:
>If not Nevada, where _could_ we put a permanent beanstalk?  Kilimanjaro?  The Andes?
>Richard.

In "The Fountains of Paradise", Arthur Clarke has his "beanstalk", aka
the Orbital Tower, coming down on an island which is almost, but not
quite, Sri Lanka.  He had to move it somewhat south of its actual
position to get the its high peak (known in the West as Adam's Peak) on the
equator.

Clarke also had his tower made of that famous variety of unobtainium,
monomolecular filament.  Assuming he'd done some basic estimates, you
have to figure that's the kind of tensile strength you need for a cable
23,000 miles long.  He also had a captured asteroid stuck out on the
far end as a counter-weight, possibly at a height beyond GEO.

As far as real peaks go, assuming you really need one (what's a few miles
difference worth in a 23Kmile cable?  Get the base above the weather?)
then Cotopaxi & Chimborazo in Ecuador and Mt Kenya seem the only obvious
candidates.
-- 
||)) Dump the Whatzit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 !  )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS feasibility (WAS: SPS fouling astronomy)
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:49:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug12.204939.4472
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <10AUG199219061012@judy.uh.edu> seds%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
 
>The cost is covered during a general buildup of lunar resource development
>Reference the Lunar materials development papers of the last few years for
>numbers.  A very up to date set is from the ASCE Space 92 conference June 1-5
>1992 in Denver CO.  Look Especially for Dr. Criswell's papers on the subject.

Dr. Criswell makes his numbers up out of the thin blue air, especially the 
mass ratios for his fictional industrial processes.  In many cases he
assumes several orders of magntitude improvement over current industrial
processes, and ignores large industrial inputs like air and water,
without explanation.  He is an utter fraud, and his fantasy (it's not
even good science fiction) is highly destructive to the space
colonization movement.

>No but converting a transportation infrastructure that runs on billions of
>gallons on Hydrocarbons per year to one of running on Terawatts of electricity
>will require a vast increase in electrical production.

You don't need to convince us about this. You need to convince the baby 
boomers running the electrical utilities that it takes more than 
"conservation" to power the world.

>This is a flame and meant to be a flame. 

No, Fred's article was meant to introduce some reality into your 
thick-headed but narrow-minded skull.  _This_ is a flame.

>The Rio summit endorsed only ONE space technology and that was laser
>power beaming from the moon. 

Which part of the "Rio summit"?.  BTW, they also endorsed environmental 
monitoring from space, $100's of billions of give aways from the U.S. to 
3rd world countries, and "sustainable development", for what it's worth.  
No major corporations and no politician beyond Al Gore take Rio seriously.
Nobody with influence in industry takes Criswell seriously.

>The SPS will help those who want to be helped. 

Pointing out the facts about SPS will help those who want to
know the truth, and find out the best way to do things, but it won't
do much for idiots who treat technology like religion. Your arguments
sound far more like a Medieval bishop fighting heresy than a 
scientist searching for the truth or an engineer for the best solution.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: brettvs@hardy.u.washington.edu (Brett Vansteenwyk)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: RE:  Saturn dreams
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:44:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug19.214444.13730
Reply-To: brettvs@u.washington.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

>No if you had looked at my posts you would have seen a progression of
>launch vehicles starting with one in the Titan V class and progressing
>upward toward and surpassing the Saturn V of the sixties capability.  There
>is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.  I started with the single
>engine F1A engined bird as a justification for restarting the line, as was
>done for the Delta and Atlas programs at Rockewll after Challenger. The two
>engine version would use two F1A's with a Lox/H2 upper stage (as would the 
>one engine verison) to double the payload to orbit without major retooling
>of the manufacturing jig for the tanks and external skins.  This would
>put us up in the real Heavy lift league (110,000 to orbit) for only an
>incremental cost, in the spirit of Allen Sherzier. Then as the need generated
>the opportunity the second phase would be implemented which would build a
>new jig for the larger diameter tanks on the first stage & second stage for
>a three engine version with 180,000 to orbit. Then the same incremental 
>philosophy would hold for stretching the tanks and adding engines till the
>full up Saturn V configuration could be reached with only incremental costs.
>
>That is the reason that is backed up by the same market dynamics that Allen
>pursues.  My only argument with Allen is that the HL Delta and Atlas is
>fundamentally limited to his next step.  The path that I propose begins with
>Allen's next step and goes upward from there as the need and political 
>will develops. 
>
>Thats all for now folks
>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

One more possibility for expanding the market for such a vehicle--is it
possible to use the first stage of the single engine version as an LRB?
Vague memory tells me that you can re-design the Shuttle ET to accept 3
boosters without inordinate costs.  However you feel about the Shuttle,
it may be a way of getting more money.  I would suppose that these boosters
would then be useful on other designs, even on a future Saturn class booster,
let alone on a Titan system.
				--Brett Van Steenwyk