HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:29:06 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1993Jan5.153035.29862@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu| wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:
|||I'm looking for a '2-line orbital elements list' of junk, i.e. deceased
|||satellites, rocket-bodies and other debris that is still in orbit.
|||I have one very old list, but where could I get a list that is up to
|||date? (I don't know from where I got the list I have)
|||
||Two-line orbital elements for **every unclassified object in orbit**
||are available on the Reports and Information Dissemination Remote
||Bulletin Board System by modem. Phone (301) 306-0010.
||-- 
|Sorry Bruce, thanks for playing.  Seeing how _I_ work with the entire
|satcat on a daily basis, I must inform you that the Unclass elsets that are
|found at this BBS cannot be the entire list.  That's right, you are not
|allowed to know about ALL the Unclass birds (or pieces thereof).  For 

|BTW: I cannot give out Unclass elset files except to government agencies via
|a written request.  Even this is subject to approval.  Sorry.  I highly
|recommend using NASA's satcat (found at your favorite astro BBS or ftp site).

Well, until you can give them out, his best bet is Kelso's list of 180+
two-lines, Molczan's list of 700+ and the RAID BBS with far more.
| 


-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: DC-Y Funding (was: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? )
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 01:04:41 GMT

In article <ewright.726252999@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>The one way to make certain there is no private financing is 
>to place all your eggs in the DoD basket and not look for any.
>This is very dangerous unless you believe DoD funding is a 
>sure thing.  (In which case it's still dangerous, because
>you'd be wrong.)

DoD it the only thing. Much as I wish it where otherwise, the fact
remains that the launcher buisness is a small market, not profitable
for anybody, competes with government subsidzed competition, and currently
suffers from an oversuply of launchers and too few payloads.

Nobody is going to invest the billions needed for the proof of concept
vehicle under these conditions.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:58:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.180732.3931@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan1.021648.20737@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>The Space Shuttle is simply the highest cost (per pound) launch vehicle ever
>>>operated.
>
>>At $37,500 a pound Pegasus is over three times the cost of Shuttle. 
>
>A pegasus flight is more like $12,000 a pound. However, if you used
>the same accounting methods, Peagasus would be far far cheaper. Remember
>that OSC paid the cost of development for Pegasus and charges it to
>customers. Shuttle costomers however aren't required to pay for the
>billions spent on Shuttle.

Arrgh! That should have been $37,500 a *kilogram*. That's about $17,000
a pound. OSC initially claimed 600 pounds to LEO for $10 million, but that's
slipped a bit. OSC cribbed the gross characteristics of Pegasus from X-15, 
they even use the same government B-52 as carrier, and from other programs 
ranging from Polaris to Peacekeeper, their propulsion partner is Hercules. 
OSC didn't spend any government money *directly* to develop Pegasus, but 
they certainly benefited from government funded programs, and DOD guaranteed
them a starter market. Nothing wrong with any of that of course, but they
didn't start with a blank piece of paper or an empty order book. And the
system still hasn't had a completely successful flight.

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
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:06:57 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 <1993Jan2.171539.9059@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the
>proof of concept vehicle.

If we can get *someone* to fund the proof-of-concept vehicle.  DoD
may still have the deepest pockets around, but I certainly hope
McDAC is looking at other sources also.  Perhaps the Japanese
would be interested in a joint partnership.  It's too bad the
Delta Clipper wasn't started several years ago when McDonnell Douglas
was healthy enough to finance such a project itself.
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Energy production on Earth
Date: 4 Jan 93 14:11:11 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


Regarding the utilization of energy sources on Earth, which was discussed
in the context of importing energy from space:

A report on the radio this morning described a genetically engineered
bacterium, in which two genes were spliced in to allow it to do a very
good job of converting complex carbohydrates (including celluose) into
ethanol. Evidently the project is far enough along that there are plans
to build a plant in New York, to produce 15(?) million gallons of ethanol
per year from paper mill sludge.

Now, let's hope the bacterium doesn't get loose in the environment, or 
that it requires something to live that's found only in the culture tanks. :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What was NASA thinking?
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:27:56 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <3_713_635.02b4e7a50@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg) writes:
> c> A shuttle with 5 or 6 J-2s using 2 uprated F-1s in the recoverable
> c> boosters would have taken advantage of a history of literally
> c> dozens of successful flight firings.  Plus there would
> c> have been a much wider range of abort modes.
>
> But how reusable were the Saturn engines? Then again, how reusable are
> the SSME...

Any regeneratively-cooled liquid-fueled engine ought to be reusable almost
indefinitely, if it's mounted on a reusable vehicle.  Test-stand experience
certainly supports this.
-- 
"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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:12:40 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 <1993Jan7.072839.1460@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I don't condemn DC for being a paper design. All new vehicles are paper
>designs at some point. What I do condemn is the idea of giving up an
>operational system in the *hope* that the paper vehicle will meet it's
>promise on schedule and on budget. That would be like telling Delta to
>quit flying all it's current aircraft today and laying off all it's 
>personnel today because there's going to be a cheaper aircraft available
>in 5 or 10 years. 

If Delta used the tactics NASA does to crush its competition,
the resulting anti-trust suit would force them to go out of
business.


>>	Shuttle could have lower costs then  NASA currently has,
>>	but it still needs a tremendous infrastructure.  The OPF,
>>	the VAB, Tilting bay,  the crawler/transporter.  Launch towers.

>Of course Shuttle *already* has this infrastructure, and it's paid
>for whether Shuttle continues to use it or not. 

Not using that infrastructure for the Shuttle would allow you to use
it for a rebuilt Saturn V, Russian-built Soyuz or Energia boosters, 
etc.  There are alternatives.


>Currently there aren't that many missions needing heavy lift, seven 
>people on orbit, remote manipulation, long duration experiments, or 
>payload return. Shuttle does it with less than 8 launches a year. DC 
>may put Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Pegasus out of business, but it doesn't 
>have the capacity to match Shuttle or a true HLV for the times they're 
>needed. 

Can you give an example of a mission that needs *all* of those
things, on a single vehicle?

Of course, the Shuttle does it with less than 8 missions a year,
because at Shuttle prices, that's all anyone can afford.


>Once we have Freedom in operation, even less need
>will be found for Shuttle, and it can be phased out. But there will still
>be missions where there's no viable substitute for heavy lift and only
>the Russians still have an operational very heavy lift vehicle. It may
>make sense just to contract with them, 

Why does this have to wait for Freedom?  We could do that right now.  
In fact, we'd save money launching Freedom on Energia instead of Shuttle.


>but I'd like to see the US 
>develop a new generation VHLV designed from the ground up to achieve
>the lowest possible cost per pound. We've never tried to do that so
>we don't know how cheaply it can be done.

A new gneration VHLV designed to achieve the lowest possible cost
per pound would be an SSTO, which you support as research vehicles 
only. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:50:57 GMT

In article <C0IADo.B1p@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> The radiation hazard from plutonium 238 is insignificant; it's pretty much
> a pure alpha emitter, and human skin stops alpha particles completely.  (A
> sheet of paper will do likewise.)  You don't want to eat the stuff, but so
> long as it stays put, no sweat.

Somewhere in the recesses of my mind lies a memory of a scientist
who offered to eat some plutonium if the journalist covering the
event would eat the same amount of caffeine.  No takers, obviously,
but does this mean that it would be safe to eat plutonium?  If it's
inert it should be passed in due course with only the mucus coating
the alimentary canal getting irradiated.

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:23:33 GMT
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.


>Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually
>worked pretty well.  (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.)  For rather
>longer than a week, too.

Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

One gets the impression that the number of competent people
at NASA fell below critical mass quite some time ago...

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:20:12 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.726184593@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>I've got news for you, Gary.  Those Pert charts that you are
>so fond of were invented for (boo, hiss!) success-oriented
>Polaris-missile program.  Good engineers always expect problems...

What they don't tell you in the textbooks is that although Pert charts
were indeed invented for Polaris, they *weren't* used to manage it --
they were used to intimidate assorted Washington kibitzers, keeping
them at arms length from the people who actually ran the project
(in the traditional way, using competence and judgement rather than
Pert charts).
-- 
"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: loren@pixar.com (Loren Carpenter)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Organization: Pixar - Pt. Richmond, CA USA
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:09:42 GMT

In article <C0n6pG.7v4.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>There's a diagram on the wall in the building where I work, depicting the
>formation of metallic powders. A narrow stream of liquid metal is injected
>into a chamber, along with several intersecting high-speed jets of inert gas.
>The physics of interacting jets causes turbulence which tears the stream
>of metal apart. First the liquid metal breaks up into streamers, several
>times as long as they are wide, then the streamers break up into individual
>droplets, which eventually solidify.
>
>The first part of this process could be used to form a fine mist of liquid
>aluminum, presumably using oxygen instead of inert gas. The metal and gas
>are introduced through different openings, which should help to prevent
>buildup of oxide on the injectors.
>
>If you want a more advanced reusable engine, you probably need to bring
>along a supply of inert gas to blow the molten aluminum out of the
>injectors as part of the shutdown process.
>
>John Roberts
>roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov


This reminds me of an observation I made back when I was building small
amateur rockets.  It seems that an easy way to raise the ISP of a fuel is
to preheat it.  An exothermic reaction consumes some of its output in 
heating the unreacted material up to reaction temperature.  So, liquid Al
at 1000C ought to burn a bit hotter than solid Al at room temperature.  Also,
to pressurize it, you only need something that is a gas at 1000C, like for
example potassium metal (bp 760C, mp 62C).


	Loren Carpenter
	loren@pixar.com
From: erd@kumiss.cmhnet.org (Ethan Dicks)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Newsgroups: sci.space
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 11 Jan 93 01:32:01 EDT
Organization: Not an Organization

In article <schumach.726431013@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

Because the Skylab toilet was just a large outhouse in orbit.  The system
was a very low tech, based on the astronauts filling up plastic bags and
chucking them into the waste storage area.

The Skylab living quarters were built into the area of the Saturn V normally
used for the hydrogen tank in the second stage.  The oxygen tank area was
where the garbage was stowed.  Skylab was never intended to be used enough
to fill the entire waste disposal area with waste.

The toilet on the shuttle was supposed to be a major breakthrough in
orbital waste management.  The collected human byproducts were supposed
to be dessicated in the vacuum of LEO and (devoid of significant volume)
discharged into orbit.

You think the STS toilet is expensive?  Take a look at the head aboard
Fred.  Last I heard, there were two competing designs; NASA was not
expected to endorse either, but rather combine both designs.

BTW, does anyone have the text of the toilet instructions on _2001_?  I
recall that a still was reproduced in the book of the movie.

-ethan
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:26:06 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan7.144516.20330@cam-orl.co.uk>, dg@cam-orl.co.uk (Dave Garnett) writes:
> Peering at a cut-away drawing of the Lunar Module the other day
> I noticed what appears to be a Radioisotope Thermal Generator
> mounted on the outside low down.
> 
> Was this intended to power some experiment - I don't think
> that they generate very much power (order 80 watts ?)

Yup.  They powered the Apollo Lunar Science Experiment Packages
(ALSEP), various experiments left behind on the Moon, such as heat
flow measurements and seismographs.

> What are the radiation hazards (to the crew) associated
> with such a thing, as I understand that they comprise an
> unshielded lump of plutonium ?

Fairly negligible.  Escaping radiation is probably some gamma rays,
but the bulk of the radiation is alpha particles which are stopped
very quickly in the casing of the RTG.  The RTGs were probably fairly
far from the astronauts with considerable material intervening for
shielding.  With care, handling them to set up the experiments was
probably not very dangerous.  My guess is they are really plutonium
dioxide, which is chemically quite inert (insoluble in water and very
weakly soluble in acid, so pretty resistant to corrosion).  Anybody
got more facts?

For lots more detail on plutonium see the references given in the
sci.space FAQ.  They deal mostly with the Galileo and Ulysses RTGs but
there is a good general rundown on Pu toxicity: "Hazards from
Plutonium Toxicity", by Bernard L. Cohen, *Health Physics*, Vol 32
(may) 1977, page 359-379.

A relevant quote from the FAQ:

   Two interesting data points are (1) The May 1968 loss of two SNAP
   19B2 RTGs, which landed intact in the Pacific Ocean after a Nimbus
   B weather satellite failed to reach orbit. The fuel was recovered
   after 5 months with no release of plutonium. (2) In April 1970, the
   Apollo 13 lunar module reentered the atmosphere and its SNAP 27 RTG
   heat source, which was jettisoned, fell intact into the 20,000 feet
   deep Tonga Trench in the Pacific Ocean. The corrosion resistant
   materials of the RTG are expected to prevent release of the fuel
   for a period of time equal to 10 half-lives of the Pu-238 fuel or
   about 870 years.

-- 
     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: man-rating
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:24:56 GMT


In article <C0G2w2.FJI@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan06.165148.9581@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>>There is no need to man rate. It adds cost but doesn't affect
>>>safety. If it where your money would buy the $70 million 98% safe
>>>Atlas or the $90 million 98% safe Atlas?
>>
>>YOU say there's no need to man-rate. The astronaut community and anyone who
>>goes up on it IS going to disagree with you. 
>
>Depends on *who* goes up on it; sensible people will look at the reliability
>figures and conclude that man-rating decreases the chances of a successful
>flight (because it runs up the cost without increasing reliability).
>
>The astronaut community is less conservative, overall, than their official
>public image would have you think.  You'd have plenty of volunteers from
>there if the engineering looked sensible and the purposes looked worthwhile,
>even disregarding the number of qualified volunteers from elsewhere.

These are guys (mostly guys) have a professional career of flying aircraft
on/beyond the edges.  I worked at Edwards for a short while, and one AF
construction types repeated the morbid joke that they are always building new
roads there.  Why should "astronauts" suddenly develop a need for perceived
safety?

BTW, the STS is the safest transportation system we have, based on fatalities
per passenger mile.  But who would pay $1 billion apiece for a 747?  (Please
attach a smiley to the safety record).
>
>However, Doug's point is nevertheless valid, because the original context
>was official government projects... and it is official NASA dogma that
>man-rating is mandatory for such purposes.
 And we all know that a dog ma is a bitch  :-)
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jerry@iat.holonet.net (Jerry Bowman)
Subject: Re: HST Discovers Double Nucleus in Core of Active Galaxy
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:29:56 GMT

baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
: 
: HUBBLE  DISCOVERS A DOUBLE NUCLEUS IN CORE OF ACTIVE GALAXY
: 
:      Astronomers, using the Hubble Space Telescope, now 
: believe that a galaxy they have observed for a decade 
: actually is composed of two merged galaxies and that the 
: collision has provided new fuel for a massive black hole 
: which is spewing out a jet of gas and other matter 240,000 
: light-years long.
: 
: [text deleted]
: 
: NOTE TO EDITORS:  A photograph to illustrate this story is 
: available by calling NASA's Broadcast and Imaging Branch on 
: 202/358-1900.
: 
:              Color:   92-HC-733              B&W:   92-H-794

Is this photograph going to be available somewhere for FTP access?

Thanks, 
Jerry Bowman
Internet: jerry@holonet.net
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Bowman
Internet: jerry@holonet.net
Compuserve: 71174,1201
Newsgroups: sci.space