HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: burris@ennex1.eng.utsa.edu (John Burris)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: What happened to Viking?
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:37:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: ringer.1992Aug20.233734.691
Reply-To: burris@ennex1.eng.utsa.edu (John Burris)
Organization: Univ of Texas at San Antonio

What happened the Viking spacecraft?  

I heard through the grapevine that someone sent a bogus signal to it which  
turned the antenna away from Earth, resulting in LOS.
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Keywords: rockets, fire, injuries, pain, blood, scorch marks
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:47:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BsxLB8.7E3.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin) writes
> Here's a very simple, safe, easy and challenging part of model
> rocketry.  With a little common sense, nobody can get hurt...
> and it's cheap, too.
> 
> Take a match, preferably one out of a match book with a blue head.
> Wrap the head tightly in aluminium foil, leaving an exhaust port.
> Deform a paper clip to about a 30 degree angle, and place the 
> match `rocket' on top.  It is probably a good idea to do this on
> some cardboard that you don't care about, on an asphalt surface.
> Make sure that nobody is standing in front of the rocket!
> Using a candle, or some other good heat source (*not* a blowtorch),
> heat the end of the rocket from underneath until the head ignites
> and the rocket launches.  After a lot of trial and error, the `art'
> will probably become apparent, and it's a pleasantly mindless way
> to while away a long summer afternoon.

For extra credit, scrape off the chemical mixture from the match head
and just use that, thereby saving weight.  My most complex
(successful) match rocket was a two-stage affair, using the propellant
from 5 match heads in the first stage, and 2 match heads in the
second.  My most stylish was a winged design, which I glide-tested
first, and then launched with a 2-match booster. 

There are several fine points to this art, if I remember correctly:
 a) uniform consistency of launch fuel.
 b) making multiple stages work reliably without either premature
    ignition or no ignition at all.
 c) making a rocket case with just enough foil to resist burn-through.
 d) persuading your mother to give you another box of matches.

By the end of four boxes I was playing around with venturi designs.
Launch precautions?  I didn't take any, since like all 11-year-old
kids I had an innate belief in my own immortality.  You *might* be
able to damage an eye if you ignited a multi-match-head bomb a foot
from your face and it flew _just so_ into your eyeball, so parents
might want to tell little kids to ignite at arms length, keep the box
of matches well away from the launch pad, always leave an exhaust
port, and DON'T try shooting at the family cat :-)

> Richard.
> 
> P.S.:	The record distance that I know is 20 m.  Beat that!

Never even came close.  The successful flight of a two-stage rocket
only an inch long is a wonder to behold, however... 

Jonathan H.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nicho@VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:10:23 GMT
Reply-To: nicho@vnet.ibm.com

In <1992Aug18.125111.15553@iti.org> Allen W. Sherzer writes:
>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
>got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
>my buisness to Martin Marrietta".
 I think you're stretching this one a little bit Allen. Theoretically
you're right, this is what should happen, however I've got money that
says it wouldn't work that way. Firstly MM would have to have a
viable alternative ready to roll, which means that the Govt. would
need to give them a share of the launch business in the first place.
This reduces the incentive per contractor. If the US govt. needs the
20 flights you say, then to ensure viable competition, the govt. could
only promise GD and MM 10 flights each. In addition, you can bet that
the management of GD would be savvy enough to try gentle seduction,
rather than blatant rape.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------
               ** Of course I don't speak for IBM **
Greg Nicholls ... nicho@vnet.ibm.com or nicho@cix.compulink.co.uk
                  voice/fax: 44-794-516038
From: kym@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (R. Kym Horsell)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: statistical significance
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:53:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: newserve.1992Aug19.205348.24819
Organization: State University of New York at Binghamton

Apropos of something is was yammering about a week ago the following is 
reposted here -- without the permission of the authors :-) -- from another 
newsgroup. I'm afraid I don't know Jerry, but Herman Rubin is at least a 
mathematician with statistical leanings. ;-)

-kym
===
From: jerry@ginger.hnrc.tufts.edu (Jerry Dallal)
Newsgroups: sci.math.stat
Subject: <None>
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:35:58 GMT
Organization: USDA HNRC at Tufts University

In article <57241@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> As for statistical significance, neither I nor anyone else has been able
> to come up with any good reason to use it; it is a leftover from the time
> when it was misinterpreted.  

I agree whole-heartedly.  The real problem is that many people have come up
with good *ways* to *mis*use it, from requiring statistical significance as a
prerequisite for publication to concentrating on statistical significance while
ignoring practical significance.  I see no quick way out of these traps,
although things seem to be improving ever so slightly over the long haul.  (Like
the hour hand on the clock, you don't see it move, but it moves.)
===
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk (Mark Evans)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: beanstalk in Nevada
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:11:17 GMT
Distribution: sci.space
Organization: Aston University

stiles@quik.clearpoint.com writes:
: Wouldn't it be possible to have a beanstalk terminus in Nevada just as long as
: you had a complimentary terminus an equal distance south of the equator, to
: form a dual stalk beanstalk?  As I envision this thing, there would be a single
: upper terminus, located directly above the equator, and the lines descending
: from it would have a catenary shape.  Of course, it would be difficult enough
: doing a beanstalk to a terminus on the equator, but as long as we are dreaming
:  ...

Why Nevada?

Nirobi would be far easier from the orbit point of view...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Evans                                   |evansmp@uhura.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 565 1979 (Home)                     |evansmp@cs.aston.ac.uk
+(44) 21 359 6531 x4039 (Office)             |
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:59:37 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug19.183403.1527@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Whatever became of the idea of inflatable space habitats/workstations ?
[deleted]
>
>What's the problem ? Is this perhaps a TOO CHEAP solution - meaning that
>the contractors couldn't steal enough money during development ? If we
>want nice BIG space stations, with loads of internal room, with easy
>expandability ... inflatable spheres sound like the economical solution.
>Any feedback on this ?

Large low mass structures at LEO don't stay in orbit very long. In 
ballistic terms their Sectional Density is lousy. At higher orbits, 
balloons don't offer enough radiation shielding. A lot of assembly 
work is required to move equipment in and anchor it to hard points 
unless the balloon is equipped with a rigid internal truss capable 
of taking launch stresses and that drives up costs. Other than that 
Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

Gary
From: quest@iowegia.uucp (Steve J. Quest)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Date: 16 Aug 92 06:23:14 GMT
Organization: Iowegia Waffle BBS, Clive IA USA, +1 515 226 2156

roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

> Sounds like you were really a top-notch rocket designer. Probably not
> one amateur rocket designer in a thousand could do as well as you did. So
> what was reasonably safe for you could still be very dangerous for others.
> I learned early not to hand a big Fresnel lens to a random person outdoors -
> the usual instinctive reaction is to try to look at the sun through it!
> 

John,

        My first reaction when I got a big Fresnel lens was to 
burn things.  I did this with my friends, all of whom were not
nearly as adept as myself in the area of science.  Needless to 
say, they DID look through it, but not at the sun.  Also, they did 
NOT place their hands at the focal point.  I have concluded that 
people are not nearly as stupid as we intellectuals believe.

        By the way, I liked to burn ants.  I was god, bringing 
fire down from the skies.  They tried to run, but so long as they
remained upon the surface of the ant hill, they were targets, and 
victims of my beams of destruction.  Demented little sucker, 
wasn't I?  I remember that I could burn ants for hours.......sq
Newsgroups: sci.space
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
From: Simon_Demler@kcbbs.gen.nz (Simon Demler)
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:26:20 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

> [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.]

Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money 
on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program...You 
must be one of those space for the sake of space of types...

Come on get real...there are MUCH larger problems that need solving 
on this planet before trying to get peoples private wealth for space 
purposes..
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:56:51 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug18.125700.16134@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.155955.24162@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Shuttle fixed cost is around $5 billion a year, but support for Fred
>>after PMC will only occupy 1/4th the Shuttle fleet at any given time. 
>
>The Shuttle flies eight times a year and four of those are needed for
>Fred resuply. Thus Fred uses 50% of Shuttle at an anual cost of $2.5
>billion (1.5 times the cost of doing the same thing with expendables).

The Shuttle has flown 8 times a year without Endeavor and with Columbia
down for update mods. NASA is taking about 2 months at it's current
leisurely pace, one shift, no overtime, to stack and launch a Shuttle. 
There are two pads and room in the VAB for two Shuttle stacks. Thus
with a full fleet of four, NASA should be able to launch once a month
for a total of 12 launches a year if that many missions are available.
That assumes Shuttle lands at the Cape saving two weeks, and that 
Shuttle mission time is two weeks in orbit. That leaves two months
prep time before that Shuttle has to fly again.

Shuttle resupply missions should be somewhat simpler to prep than
science missions like Spacelab and Astro where complex payloads need
to be integrated into the payload bay and experiment racks swapped on
the middeck.  So without three shifts and overtime galore, NASA should
be able to do four Fred support missions without seriously impacting
other mission timetables. They *have* flown 8 missions with fewer than
four available Shuttles.

>If we use Shuttle for ACRV then Fred uses 100% of Shuttle flights for
>an anual cost of $5 billion. This is five times the cost of doing the
>same thing with expendables.

This is simply nonsense. The same four launches are required for using
Shuttle as ACRV as for resupply. The resupply Shuttle just stays up
until the next one arrives in three months. Still four launches, and
still four recoveries. The only difference is the duration of the
flight. Thus each of two Shuttles devote a total of half a year in orbit
at Fred. While at the station, the Shuttle provides additional workspace
equivalent to two station modules. The long duration Shuttle is in the
works anyway, and when docked at Fred, it doesn't have to draw as heavily
on it's own expendibles as it would as a free flyer.

Given that Shuttle is used for resupply, it makes sense to just dock the 
long duration modified Shuttle at Fred until the next flight. Now if
you do resupply on expendibles, then having the Shuttle at Fred doesn't
make sense simply as an ACRV replacement. Then using Soyuz makes sense.
But the long duration Shuttles *can* do the job for under $2.5 billion
a year while giving additional capacity to Fred. Plus the remainder of
the Shuttle fleet remains alive to do other missions like Astro.

Gary
From: higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Want to scan Moon Map?(Re: Russian Cosmonaut Pics)
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:55:56 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <14AUG199211294086@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, afwendy@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:
> I have something that some people may be interested in:
[description of 41 cosmonaut cards deleted]
> Any suggestions?

Yeah.  Get 'em made into GIFs and get Peter Yee to stick 'em on the
Ames archive.  (Unless they are copyrighted, of course.)  I know you
can't scan them, but there must be somebody in Cleveland who can.

Also, hang onto them and keep them in really good condition.  In a
nation gone insane for baseball cards, who knows what cosmonaut cards
may be worth before the bubble bursts?

In a similar vein:   I have two Russian maps of the Moon ("/\YHA
KAPTA"), one sheet 1:10,000,000 and nine sheets of 1:5,000,000.  I
would be willing to have them scanned in if there is anybody near
Chicago interested in taking on the project.  We would have to clear
permission with the publishers, but that might not be too much
trouble.

     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: dietz@mpii01036.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPS Feasability
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:15:41 GMT
Distribution: sci

In article <1992Aug12.010311.268321@cs.cmu.edu>, 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

|> I've never seen 'multiple-orders-of-magnitude' projected improvements
|> in my (limited) studies.  And isn't it reasonable to assume that when working
|> with a new technology, you will find greater marginal improvements than
|> within contemporary technologies that have been around for a while?

Many things have to be done many orders of magnitude more cheaply
than can be done at present.  For terrestrial-launched systems,
launch costs have to come down about by a factor of nearly 1000.  The cost
of processing lunar materials has to come down enormously, if you
go that route (what's the cost per man hour of a lunar base using
existing technology?  More than the cost on Freedom).  In general,
space activities have to be scaled up by multiple orders of magnitude.
One microwave SPS has more mass than everything ever put into orbit combined.


|> Didn't I once read that solar-power-cells (to pick a competitor off the
|> top of my head) were never expected to be more than ~40% efficient?
|> And didn't I see Dennis post a bit about current developments in solar
|> cells, with the best efficiency listed as 37%, and lots down in the 20%+
|> range?  This seems to suggest to me that at least one, if not many,
|> competing technologies have, indeed, reached the upper part of their
|> 'learning' curves.

You are in error: "efficiency" is not the correct figure of merit
for terrestrial PV cells, "cost per peak watt installed" is.  The
cost per watt of PV cells has over time declined quite rapidly,
and is not near any fundamental limit.  It has declined much more rapidly,
in fact, than the cost of launching astronauts into space.  This
is not surprising, since technologies that can be worked on on a
fairly small scale typically advance more rapidly -- a fact that also
does not bode well for macroengineering schemes.


|> Consider oil, for example, where the reserves in many places are
|> well into the second, and working on the third level of extraction.
|> (For oil, level 1 is when it comes out the ground for you.  Level 2
|> is when you must pump it.  Level 3 is when you have to force water or
|> mud down, to get any oil up.)

But, in fact, it is getting cheaper to produce oil, because
of improved reservoir modeling, horizontal drilling, and so on.
In any case, the cost of oil is dominated by how much OPEC thinks
it can charge without stimulating alternatives.  The cost of
production in the Saudi Arabia is less than $3/barrel.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: A pet peeve...
Date: 14 Aug 92 12:37:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bsz4G6.D8.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Every once in awhile it has to be said. Please think about all the  
extra junk you are posting. It particularly struck me when I just  
read a posting that had about 30 lines of > text, followed by ONE  
SINGLE LINE with 5 words on it, followed by a signature line.

The Signal to Noise ration of that post approached 0. With newer  
mailers it is getting all to easy for the lazy to just repost it all,  
even unto the third >>>. PLEASE summarize. PLEASE keep you  
.signatures down to a reasonable size, ie a couple lines at most.  
Cute is fine, but after the umpteenth time, I'm hardly interested in  
it.

It is particularly striking how the percentage of junk surrounding  
the information has gone up between the early volumes and now,  
something very apparent since I've been going through them back to  
V1-1 while working on the archive.

If people were to cut back on the use of > and .sig, we could  
probably double or quadruple the real information content of an issue  
of Space Digest. Or else let the bandwidth be used for something  
useful.

					Dale Amon
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What about Saturn?/Future not Past
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:35:36 GMT
 <qeHkPB4w165w@clubzen.fidonet.org> <15AUG199222342936@judy.uh.edu> 
 <1549@hsvaic.boeing.com>  <1992Aug20.014256.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Aug20.014256.1@fnalo.fnal.gov>
higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

> > This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than cryogenic
> > rocket engines would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
> > actually built for the first time in the 50's.
> 
> This may seem futuristic to some, but no more so than magnetic
> confinment fusion devices would have seemed in the 40's, and they were
> actually built for the first time in the 50's.

Surely you're joking, Mr. Higgins. Magnetic confinement fusion devices
don't work so great, in the early '90s!
Xref: sparky sci.space:12115 sci.astro:9140
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Asteroid report
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:33:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug21.093353.4934
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Aug21.001737.638@morwyn.uucp> forrie@morwyn.uucp (Forrie Aldrich) writes:
>Recently, and associate mentioned there was a report of a rather large
>asteroid (or some object) approaching or within our solar system, and
>with a trajectory currently in our direction.  And that radio signals
>have been transmitted from said object.
>

We have thousands of large asteroids in our solar system.  People
like Steve Ostro at JPL occasionally bounce radar off them, and analyze
the radio signals that come back.  Could this be the origin of your
rumor?





-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: What happened to Viking?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 01:28:44 GMT

eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya) writes:

>In article <1992Aug20.233734.691@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>burris@ennex1.eng.utsa.edu (John Burris) writes:
>>What happened the Viking spacecraft?  

>Both lands and orbiters were shut down for lack of funds and the need to use
>the antenna resources for other projects (Galileo, Magellan, power
>distribution experiments, SETI, etc.)

	Wait a minute.  Neither Gallileo nor Magellan were major customers of
the Deep Space Network ten years ago.  According to "Quest For Space," lander
1 stopped transmitting on 19 Nov, 1982, orbiter 1 on 7 Aug, 1980.  Lander 2 
stopped in April of 1980 and orbiter 2 on 7 July 1981.  I'm quite certain all
of these were spacecraft failures, not shutdowns and the fact that the dates
are spread over more than 2 years supports that.  The landers weren't 
transmitting anything but meteorological data by the time they died, so they 
wouldn't have been using much antenna time or money. 


-- 
	Josh Hopkins       j-hopkins@uiuc.edu, or jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

		"A goal is a dream taken seriously."	-Uncle Walt.
From: moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: beanstalk in Nevada
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:36:46 GMT
Distribution: sci.space
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: turing.think.com

In article <16btouINNqhh@early-bird.think.com>, moravec@Think.COM (Hans Moravec) writes:
|> In article <STILES.92Aug12133223@quik.clearpoint.com>, stiles@quik.clearpoint.com writes:
|> |> Wouldn't it be possible to have a beanstalk terminus in Nevada just as 

I wrote:
|> It shouldn't be necessary to balance a non-equatorial synchronous beanstalk
|> The beanstalk won't fall, it will just begin to LEAN equatorward, following
|> gradient lines that can be imagined as vector sums of gravity pulling
|> to earth center, and centrifugal force pulling perpendicular to earth's
|> rotation axis (rather than center).  Something like a catenary.

Oops, I neglected the forces in the cable.  A curved cable in tension
creates a force at right angles to the cable direction: that's the
main issue in a catenary.  So  the direction analysis is more complicated
than I suggested.  But the general shape suggested was right.

				-- Hans Moravec