HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ref@CS.CMU.EDU (Robert Frederking)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:11:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0DzIF.I7I.2
Reply-To: ref@cs.cmu.edu (Robert Frederking)
Organization: Center for Machine Translation, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: ref@DHAKA.MT.CS.CMU.EDU

>>	I think this is a GREAT idea and that NASA should market MORE space items
>>to help finance its budget.  Whats the approx cost per pound of moon rocks
>>anyhow?

>Go figure.. A two-inch piece of tape with moondust is expected to sell for
>~$100K, so a pound might go for $2 million or so (at that rate). 

This is exactly the mistake Spain made when it started pillaging the
New World.  They saw how much gold there was, multiplied by the
current price of gold, and started hauling it back to Europe.  This
was before ``supply and demand'' was well understood.  The price of
gold was ruined, and Spain along with it.  NASA should follow the
example of the world-wide diamond cartel: sell just a little of it,
in small pieces, with lots of advertizing.

So, how much moon rock do they have?  It would be possible to do
market research and find the optimum amount to sell.
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:16:38 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <1993Jan7.111550.6043@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>
>>But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
>>planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.
>>It's certainly proper, legal, and it's not clear to me that doing
>>otherwise would be beneficial.
>
>Commercial launch services cost the government 30% to 50% less then when
>government buys and operates the system itself. It is therefore very clear
>that doing otherwise would be very beneficial.

This has never been demonstrated for manned spaceflight, but may very
well be.  DC will be a very good occasion to try out, if Murphy's law
can be circumvented.  But didn't I read not long ago that MacDD would not operate DC?  Who would?

-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Re: Cheap Mars Rock Sources...
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 02:57:14 GMT


In article <93011.111344K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> <K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET> writes:
>Nobody knows for sure how the SNC came from Mars to Earth,

Shed spore pod shells, maybe?

-- 
Phil Fraering         |"...Who in the valley shed the poison tear
318/365-5418          |no one knows...
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|An old myth of a mythical hero..."
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:29:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <wwLXwB4w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes:
>However, it still seems to me that carbon-catalyzed may be a great way to 
>go.  1) your carbon keeps coming back ...

I think if you look into it, you'll find that *you can't get adequate
burn rates* just by throwing in some carbon.  It simply isn't that easy,
not unless you assume truly fantastic chamber conditions.

Bear in mind, too, that you're likely to lose a good bit of carbon out
the tailpipe... especially if you're trying to build a scramjet.

>2) you won't have to carry 
>around what I see as becoming GIGANTIC amounts of antimatter...

The amounts of antimatter get huge only when you start trying to achieve
seriously relativistic velocities.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Supporting private space activities
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:19:03 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <C0K4xF.Fvo.1@cs.cmu.edu> dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh) writes:
>The federal government paid the early airlines to carry mail. In some (most?)
>cases, these mail subsidies were the only thing that made the airlines profitable.
>So ... it seems reasonable to wonder if a similar program could be done for the
>private launcher market. What I'm proposing is that the government agree to pay
>$1000/lbs to deliver 1 million pounds to LEO each year from 1995 to 2015. At
>$1 billion/year, this would be a fairly small program (by government standards).

Congratulations, you've reinvented (more or less) the Commercial Space
Incentive Act, which was proposed a few years ago.  Congress didn't like it
and it didn't get anywhere.

Even if you could get it passed, there is the non-trivial problem of
convincing would-be launcher developers that it won't get repealed during
their development period.  It *is* a relatively small expense, and it
almost certainly *would* be extremely effective, but it's not the way
Congress likes to do things.

>... (I realize, of course,
>that NASA would ever let it pass no matter what we did to it)?

It's not NASA's decision.  Congress has passed bills that NASA didn't like.
Forget NASA; the hard part is selling it to Congress.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:19:47 GMT




I turns out that the Mars Observer flight software and the new Mac OS
turned out to be almost identical in hex. The program can fulfill two
such different applications because the Mars Observer SCP (spacecraft
processor)
interprets the code as Mil-Std 1750A instructions instead of motorola
680x0 instructions. The the coincidence was the source of much amusement
when it was first discovered. It looks like the STAREX anomaly tiger team
might recommend code changes that would cause the two programs to differ
again, so we plan to continue our own development rather than waiting
for the next Apple update...
    Steve Collins MO Spacecraft Team (AACS)
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:47:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu

In article <C0IB07.BBL@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>If we mounted a major effort, we could probably be test-firing antimatter
>rocket engines within ten years.  There are *NO* fundamental barriers that
>anyone has been able to find.  

Electron-positron annilation generates a couple of gamma ray photons.
As gama ray photons don't couple well with matter, it would be very 
difficult to use this energy source to heat reaction mass.

Does proton-antiproton anniliation differ?

-Kevin
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 07:36:30 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

> Not good enough, alas.  The pressure at the *center of the Sun* produces
> only the most sluggish hydrogen reaction -- one that will take billions
> of years to consume the Sun's hydrogen supply.
> 
> Ordinary hydrogen burns quickly in thermonuclear reactions only under
> near-supernova conditions.  The heavier isotopes used in fusion bombs
> burn like gasoline by comparison, to the point where they are distinctly
> rare in the universe -- even the small supply existing on Earth requires
> significant effort to explain.
> 
> Building the ramscoop itself is the easy part (difficult though it is).
> Getting the hydrogen to *do* something useful, once collected, is hard.
> Using it as reaction mass for an antimatter-powered jet engine is going
> to be much easier than trying to burn it raw.
> -- 
> "God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoolog
>        -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Ah, but that would defeat the entire purpose of the ramjet itself!  You 
are now carrying around a mass of fuel equal to what you are going to tak 
in in the scoop.  Now we get into all of the standard limitations, as the 
faster you want to go, the heavier the ship's going to get, the more fuel 
you'll have to carry, the heavier the ship's going to get, etc. ad 
infinitum.  The *REAL* advantage of the ramjet is that this is not 
happening.  The fuel is just waiting out there, and it just so happens 
that the faster you go, the more you're going to collect.

Of course, I'm not using the p-p fusion until I'm into the speeds where 
the beta- decomposition involved is not a problem probability-wise, due 
to the large number of chances it will have.  How's a carbon-catalyzed 
reaction sound for getting there (except at the lower end, where we'll 
have to use some conventional engine to attain a speed at which THAT 
reaction is possible)?

                                                Jason Cooper
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:21:09 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: Bussard, Ramscoop, Starflight

In article <Jan05.201225.4538@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> wallacen@ColoState.EDU writes:
>well, sorta. The *correct* name of the book from my earlier posting is 
>"The Starflight Handbook", by Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff.
>Its ISBN number is 0-471-61912-4. *sigh* memory is the first to go...
>


Actually,  memory is the second thing to go :-)

So henry.  if we were interested in deep space cruisers,  what sort of
time scale, R&D Budget and technical problems stand in the way?

Are we looking at some sort of Manhattan project? or something as big for
20 years? or is it more like SDI on a permanent basis.a

You mentioned about something the size of hanford,  but for how long.?

thanks
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ** 
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 12:18:45 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott) writes:

> In article <7Pc3wB2w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca writ
> 
> >(if necessary) it might pipe protons out of the stream.  Thirdly, if we 
> >were to STORE the antimatter, how would it be stored?  I have seen methods
> >for plasma, but can't seem to find antimatter storage.  
> >
> >Any response welcome...
> >
> >                                                Jason Cooper
> >
> 
> Storing antimatter should (in principle at least) be quite straightforward.
> Assuming it's charged, you can both store it and move it using
> magnetic fields.
> 
> Chris
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
> | Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
> | (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
> |  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  

So, if we have an antiproton (p-bar, was it?) then does it have the SAME 
charge as a proton?

                                                Jason Cooper
Xref: sparky sci.space:18874 talk.politics.space:1677
From: bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Bob Martino)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 18:36:14 GMT

Oh, Pshaw sir!

I *NEVER* let trivial facts such as those interfere with my calculations!
Why, if I did, then my furtur plans to become a political figure would
be *RUINED*!  :-)

_________________________________________________________________________
                                    | "...for since the creation of the
      - that Bob Martino guy -      |  world His invisible attributes,
 bmartino@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu |  His eternal power and divine
                                    |  nature, have been clearly seen,
   God invented science.  so there. |  being understood through what
       ^^^^^^^^                     |  has been made        -Romans 1:20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 "That's the whole problem with science.  You've got a bunch of
  empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
                                                  -Calvin
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re:Moon Dust, Soviet Disasters
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:15:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0G072.M2s.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

soc1070@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU (Tim Harincar) writes, re NASA profitability:
>I thought part of the initial selling point of the 
>shuttle was that NASA could recapture its investment through the "putting
>stuff in orbit" business.
>
>What about the big RCA logo on the Delta rockets (as seen in "the 
>Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology")? I hope RCA had to pay
>for that.
>
>I am not trying to start an arguement or anything, it just seems that
>what you said seems to contridect some of the things I've seen from
>NASA. And the wonderful publications - I hope you make money on those,
>it would be stupid not to.

Isn't NASA a "not-for-profit" organization?  I can see them recouping (sp?) 
their costs, but not making a profit off of them.

And Dennis Newkirk <dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com> writes, re Soviet space 
disasters:

>Yes. This last one sounds like stories about the Soyuz 1 accident.
>There were rumors for years about someone listening to Komarov 
>as he decended to Earth and the parachutes failed (this part is true,
>he was the first spaceflight fatality). Its very  unlikely his wife
>would even have been in contact during his short and troubled mission.
>Also, for any manned spacecraft yet constructed I'm sure it would be 
>impossible to reach the Sun by a failed retro burn, there just isn't
>enough performance. It's probably impossible to even intentionally fly 
>to the Sun. 

Reading the discussions of this topic, especially the part about the 
cosmonaut's wife listening in as he goes crashing into the sun, reminds me of 
the David Bowie song, "Major Tom."  Any idea if the song was based on this 
story?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: DC-Y funding
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:12:45 GMT


-From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: Re: DC-Y funding
-Date: 7 Jan 93 02:48:15 GMT

-In article <C0Fq3r.Dyu.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

->The Shuttle only launches about eight times a year, and represents relatively
->few subsidized GAS cans, mid-deck experiments, etc. Is the market really
->*that* small?

-In testimony before the House Space Subcommittee, Dennis Dunbar, VP of
-the Space Systems Division at GD said that if Government bought launch
-services in a commercial and competative manner then costs would be
-roughly cut in half.

-Yes the market is that small and government policies and systems (like
-Shuttle) are sending prices up and not down.

->(And if these incidental payloads were not subsidized, the market
->might be even smaller.)

-Not so. If NASA implements the voucher system authorized in last years
-authorization bill they could launch more payloads for less cost. There
-is a difference between providing subsidies for a hugely expensive system
-like Shuttle and giving somebody enough money to launch their own payload.
-The latter encourages greater reliance on lower cost systems.

I was thinking of the commercial (rather than government) payload market.
The Shuttle has lots of "nooks and crannies" for small payloads, and if
the government is using the Shuttle anyway for the large payloads and
human-tended experiments, then there's very little marginal cost to the
government in also using the Shuttle for small payloads (particularly those
which need to be returned to Earth after several days in orbit), so
the idea of "subsidization" would mainly be relevant to non-government
users who are presumably deciding whether to use the Shuttle or some 
commercial launcher to lift their payloads.

You seem to be implying that the market even for small payloads is almost
exclusively government-funded - that the private sector for the most part
just isn't interested in launches of small payloads - because if there were
a private market, and if commercial launchers were cheaper to the customer
even with the subsidized prices of GAS cans, etc. on the Shuttle, then the
private customers would choose the private launchers even with the current
setup.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: george.gassaway@the-matrix.com (George Gassaway)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DCX tech. info?
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:49:00 GMT
Reply-To: george.gassaway@the-matrix.com (George Gassaway)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

So much financial data being flung about here of late, could someone take 
a time out to tell me hardware/flight details of the DCX? I did not 
realize a test prototype was so far along that a flight is planned this 
summer, I'd only heard of the general concept for the basic vehicle.

What is the size (height, diameter) and mass of this first test prototype?
Thrust?
Flight profile of the prototype - low altitude hop, suborbital, orbital?
Re-entry/landing - heatshield, parachutes, powered descent al-la-LM?
Launching and landing site(s)?

---
 This copy of Freddie 1.2 is being evaluated.
                                              
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 11:15:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.033118.1652@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
>planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.
>It's certainly proper, legal, and it's not clear to me that doing
>otherwise would be beneficial.

Commercial launch services cost the government 30% to 50% less then when
government buys and operates the system itself. It is therefore very clear
that doing otherwise would be very beneficial.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
From: turner@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com (Robert Turner)
Subject: Re: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Organization: Semiconductor Systems Design Technology, Motorola, Tempe AZ
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:59:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.204434.16621@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.181829.13714@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>>The rating of transportation system safety by fatalities per 
>>passenger mile always struck me as bogus.  Subjectively, what
>>matters is the probability of exit.  That is if I climb in and
>>close the door, what are my chances of opening the door and
>>climbing out.  By this measure the STS is only about 1 in 50, 

Isn't the elevator considered the safest mode of transportation meeting both the
"if I get in, I get out" and "deaths per passenger mile".

Robert
-- 
Robert Turner (602) 897-5441 Semiconductor Systems Design Technology, Motorola
turner@ssdt-tempe.sps.mot.com   OR   ...!uunet!dover!turner
GOD is real, unless declared integer. --J. Allan Toogood
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:21:36 GMT

In article <STEINLY.93Jan11183327@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>In particular do people contend that say the Kuiper Observatory
>should be put on a AA flight rather than a NASA owned Starlifter?

If AA can do it cheaper, yes. If putting is on AA will encourage
competition (which will lower costs) then yes.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------102 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: future space travel
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:07:37 GMT

In article <19463@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>
>Do you have to have a planet under you just because your parents did?  Let
>your imagination roam...  :)

Indeed we *may* need a planet under us, and a particular one at that, if
the environmental biologists are right about some of the things they're
currently nattering about. Some of them think a particular magnetic field
is important for biological development, not to mention radiation shielding.
They seem to think that a 1 G gravity field is important as well. And on
and on. 

We like to think that life is infinitely adaptable, but what it adapts
*into* may not be recognizably human or even terrestrial under extra-
terrestrial conditions. A long term space habitat could clarify the 
importance of the various environmental inputs supplied by Earth on 
the development and maintainence of human and non-human life.

It's likely that we can artificially duplicate any conditions needed
to maintain human life off Earth indefinitely, but we can't be sure
that we haven't missed some subtle factor until we actually try it.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space