HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:03:29 GMT

In article <ewright.726514832@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>
>>It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them
>>quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine. 
>
>Microsats are incapable of replacing photorecon satellites.  The
>laws of physics prevent it.  To get adequate resolution, you need
>a large mirror (or large radar).  Black programs use the same laws
>of physics as everybody else.

Yes they do, and synthetic aperture arrays at optical frequencies
are discussed in the open literature. Electro-optics is one of the
most sensitive technologies that the US government regulates. A
technique has to be fairly old hat before researchers can talk
about it openly. One way of generating a synthetic aperture is
to rapidly move a single sensor. LEO satellites come ready made
for this technique, and the computer power to put the image 
together is getting cheaper and cheaper.

>>Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons
>>against allied forces in Desert Storm? 
>
>Not because he was afraid someone would say something bad about
>him at a UN cocktail party.
>
>Hint: the people who planned the initial airstrikes were not
>complete idiots.

In fact they were very good, but they still couldn't silence the
SCUD launchers, and large stocks of chemical weapons were discovered
and ordered destroyed by UN teams *after* the war. I think Saddam
would have used gas if he thought he could get away with it. After
all, he used it against the Kurds. I think he didn't use gas for the
same reason no nation would voluntarily escalate to nuclear warfare
against a nuclear armed foe. If he'd used gas on Israel, Israel would 
have used some of her atomic weapons on Iraq. Using gas on US troops
would have been slightly less risky, since the US probably wouldn't
have answered with gas or nukes, but the US had enough conventional
firepower to level Iraq without resorting to those weapons, and could
have done so if sufficiently provoked. Saddam was reduced to using 
the gas as a bluff that failed when it was called.

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,misc.education
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: Justification
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:23:50 GMT

In article <Bzvn8D.JB4.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>Has anyone had personal experience with magnet schools? I'm curious about 
>whether they provide any benefit.


	I taught in a magnet school (MCSM) in NYC.  Compared to what many
	kids in the city have in the way of a school environment, magnet
	schools are idyllic.  At least the kids learn something.  What's
	more, it is easier to maintain discipline because you can always
	threaten the misbehaved with expulsion.  Most kids will take this
	seriously because they WANT to be there.  Once you get a kid into
	a decent place to learn, most don't want to go back to a hell hole.

	MCSM had passable education... maybe even pretty good, by normal
	standards, so I'd have to say that in the inner city environment,
	magnet schools are definitely of benefit for those students that
	are able to attend.

	-Andy V.

PS MCSM == Manhattan Center for Science and Mathematics.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mike@rahul.net (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Contacting Pete Conrad 
Organization: a2i network
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:52:10 GMT

[]

Does anyone know how I could get in contact with Pete Conrad? I have
a couple of questions regarding Apollo 12 I need to get answered.

mike

-- 
This message brought to you by the Happy Fun Ball! It's Happy! It's
fun!! It's the HAPPY FUN BALL!!! (Still legal in 16 states)
*** Mike Smithwick - mike@rahul.net 
*** No disclaimer is necessary since I only work for myself, HA! HA! HA! HA!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:23:49 GMT

In article <ewright.725647824@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec25.002926.4218@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Nonsense. The Russians have built no space stations and are having
>>trouble raising the funds to operate the one they inherited from 
>>the Soviet Union. Comparing what was done by a command economy using
>>what amounts to slave labor to what's done in an open society where
>>people expect to get paid fairly for their work is meaningless accounting.
>
>Well, Gary, some of us have the theory that free societies are 
>more efficient than "command economies."

Then our launchers should be cheaper than theirs. And what I'm saying
above is that indeed I think they are when all their hidden costs are
properly assigned.

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: ssi!lfa@uunet.UU.NET ("Louis F. Adornato")
Subject: Re: Railgun in Southwest US
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:47:16 GMT

uunet!eros.calpoly.edu!jgreen writes:
> I've heard a rumor that some organization (SSI?) has actually
                                             ^^^^<--- (see signature line)
> built a large railgun somewhere in the SW USA.  It's apparently
> supposed to be big enough to put small payloads (>5 kg) into
> orbit, though I don't know if they've done that yet.
>
> Is this a rumor or is there some truth to it?

I can state with some certainty that it wasn't us.

Seriously, I saw a public demonstration of a rail gun on the tube a few
years back, but it was intended as an onorbit weapon for SDIO (this
whas when they where fighting their "No, we're really not a pipe dream"
funding battle).  I think this was in So. California, which is
certainly SW USA.  As I recall, it fired something about the size and
shape of a hockey puck (there's that Canadian influence again, eh
Henry?).  I haven't heard anything about a ground based version.

Personally, I don't know that a railgun is going to be worth much for
anything other than ASAT and ABM applications.  The problem is that a
ground launched body can't attain orbit (at least, not an orbit that
doesn't intersect the surface) without a circularizing burn at
periapsis.  This means that you have to carry propulsion (motor and
fuel), GNC hardware (star trackers or a gyro/accelerometer platform,
momentum wheels or an RCS, guidance computer and control hardware),
power and cooling, a shroud capable of protecting the whole shebang
when it exits the launcher in sea level air at better than 17,000 mph
(orbital velocity at 150 mi), aerosurfaces to prevent tumbling, and
probably active control of same, and still retain enough mass
capability for a payload.

On the other hand, if all you want to do is intercept incomming
missiles, you can scrap most of this except the shroud and the
aerosurfaces.  Approriate sensor technology in the nose and a
"bang-bang" control system for terminal homing, and you have enough
payload space for a fuze and some plastique (although the entire
vehicle becomes a warhead at the kind of intercept speeds involved).
Of course, a rail launcher certainly wouldn't be portable, and the
power generating equipment (if not the rail itself) would be pretty
noticeable from orbit.  Might as well put up a big sign that reads
"Please Nuke Me".

Seems to me that something like Pegasus is a better investment for both
types of applications in this payload mass category.

Lou Adornato                 |    "Sure, the cow may have jumped over the
Supercomputer Systems, Inc   |      moon, but she burned up on reentry"
Eau Claire, WI               | The secretary (and the rest of the company)
uunet!ssi!lfa or lfa@ssi.com | have disavowed any knowledge of my actions.
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Media coverage of space
Date: 4 Jan 93 12:39:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0Bxut.8w1.1
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


-From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
-Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
-Date: 2 Jan 93 04:54:16 GMT
-Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

-Concerning public opinion about the space program, IHMO those opinions can
-and are greatly influenced by the media's depiction of space exploration.
-Next time watch news coverage of a shuttle flight.  Invariably some reference
-is made to the cost of that particular mission, plus any important technical
-information is either watered down or omitted.

-I've had people tell me that the media doesn't cover the space program very
-much because people aren't interested.

-But here's somethin to think about: did people lose interest and the media
-reduced it's coverage in response, or did the media cut back coverage and then
--convince people that they weren't interested in it?

It's true that there's not as much "big three" network coverage as there
used to be (other than occasional specials), but with the explosion of the
number of channels available on satellite and cable, there's a tremendous
amount of material being shown. Even not counting NASA Select (which every
space enthusiast should get if at all possible), there's  "Inside Space"
and "The Science Show" on the Sci-Fi Channel, space shows on the Discovery
Channel and the Learning Channel, PBS programming, a weekly science update
on CNN, etc. CNN Headline News had very good regular coverage of the Dante
mission (complete with video), until the fiber optic cable broke and the
mission was discontinued. (Incidentally, one of the NASA Select commentators
claimed that the purple color was chosen for Dante because it didn't frighten
the penguins, then admitted that was just a joke. The newspapers picked that
up and reported it as being the color penguins prefer. (Not many penguins
inside the volcano.))

The Washington Post gives very good coverage of space missions.

John Roberts              |       Portmeirion Village 
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov |       Penrhyndeudraeth
                          |       Gwynedd LL48 6ER
                          |       WALES
                          |       (a vacation resort, the real address of
                          |       "the Village" from "The Prisoner")
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:20:30 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 <1993Jan4.015312.6224@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>If I build a custom laser in my lab, and then operate it purely 
>as a tool to support my research program, I think I am still doing 
>research.  Likewise, when NASA is using the shuttle to fly Spacelab, 
>TSS, Hubble, etc, it's doing research.  

If you pay Air France to fly your laser to the research site,
does that mean the Airbus is a research vehicle?

>Even a TDRS launch is part of the research effort, since the
>constellation is used to support various birds doing research
>missions.  

If you call someone in New York to discuss your research, the
call goes via Intelsat or undersea cable.  Does that make the
Intelsat or the cable a research venture?




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jerry@iat.holonet.net (Jerry Bowman)
Subject: Re: New Cosmic Background Explorer photos released [NTE 93-1] (Forwarded)
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 06:22:25 GMT

yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov (Peter Yee) writes:
: 
: EDITORS NOTE:  93-1
: 
: NEW COSMIC BACKGROUND EXPLORER PHOTOS RELEASED
: 
: 
:      Four new images from NASA's Cosmic Background Explorer are 
: available to media representatives through the Broadcast and 
: Imaging Branch, 202/358-1741.  Today, these images are being 
: presented at the 181st Meeting of the American Astronomical 
: Society in Phoenix, Ariz.
: 

Are these going to be available somewhere on Internet for FTP?

Thanks,
Jerry Bowman
Internet: jerry@holonet.net
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Bowman
Internet: jerry@holonet.net
Compuserve: 71174,1201
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: best food for space?
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: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:42:16 GMT


-From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
-Subject: best food for space?
-Date: 12 Jan 93 21:56:10 GMT
-Organization: ucsd

-I watched Robinson Crusoe on Mars the other day and got the idea to
-put my food in toothpaste tubes.  I squezed out all the paste into
-jars and used the blender to turn various foods into paste.  I'm
-having some problems getting the paste in the tubes, however.  Does
-anyone have suggestions?

-When that problem is solved, I am going to need to get more tubes.

Backpacking outfitter stores often sell (or at least used to sell) 
reusable transparent plastic toothpaste-type tubes for carrying things
like peanut butter, jelly, honey, etc. on a backpacking trip. The back
end of the tube (the end opposite the screw cap) is completely open, and
you dump your food in there, then take a little clip and use it to clamp
the back end shut. On the camping trip, you squeeze the food out the end
with the screw cap. When you get home, you take off the clip, wash out the
tube, and you're ready to fill it again. If you put perishable foods in
the tube and don't have refrigeration, watch out for food poisoning.

You sound like the perfect person to contact Pilsbury and get their recipe
for Food Sticks (a snack item that was sold in the late 1960s or early
1970s, I believe) to post to sci.space, or perhaps you could even talk them 
into starting up manufacture again. I liked the chocolate ones the best -
a perfect "astronaut food". (They may even have been called Space Food Sticks
for a while.)

And while you're thinking about foods for space, don't forget Tang. I don't
know whether it was developed specifically for the space program (anybody
know?), but it was selected for the space program as an orange juice 
substitute, because it's essentially nonperishable, and it can be shipped
up dry and reconstituted with water (which is available as a by-product of
onboard power generation). Reports from the early days of the space program
indicate that dried orange juice doesn't reconstitute very well, which is why
a substitute was selected.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: marc@r-node.pci.on.ca (Marc G Fournier)
Subject: Re: Supporting private space activities
Organization: R-node Public Access Unix - 1 416 249 5366
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 15:14:46 GMT

In article <C0M93s.9u7@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>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.

	I'm confused.  Is the US the only country that has the 'environment' to
set up a launch site?  My understanding about why it is all done from Florida
is that it has to do with weather and easy of escaping Earth's atmosphere (lower
gravity?)

	Now, I know that the USSR(don't know which part has it now) has a space
 program, and that there are a few other countrys that also have their own
space programs.

	If the private sector was willing to/were to be convinced to fund a private
space program...why is the US the only place to do it?  Where their rules/laws/whims
are followed?

Marc
-- 
Marc G. Fournier      | R-node Public Access Unix running Linux 0.99p1
Etobicoke, Ontario    | 416-249-5366   24hrs 7 days/week   network email
voice: 249-4230       | shell accounts available  2500+ newsgroups  FREE
marc@r-node.pci.on.ca | Telebit WorldBlazer/SupraModem2400/Cardinal 2400 
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: polar meteorites
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:19:35 GMT

Re. finding meteorites...

>>
>>Why has no one looked in Greenland?
> 
> Over 100 feet of ice pack has formed since 1944 in Greenland. The P-38s
> recently recovered there were buried under 100 feet of ice. Anything
> that falls there quickly becomes buried deeply in the ice. In Antarctica, 
> there are large areas where the annual snowfall is measured in fractional
> inches. So meteorites that fall there are easier to find without extensive
> drilling.
> 
> Gary
> 
> -- 
> Gary Coffman KE4ZV  

Seems to me I remember a childhood reference which stated that Peary found 
a rather large meteorite (multiton) that had been mined by the local residents
for some time (decades/centuries/millenia???).  In any case, I think he took it 
back to the US.  The picture still in my mind (or maybe imagination) is of 
a rocky barrens.  In such a place, the same logic as Antarctica would 
apply, I suppose.

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: HST Discovers Double Nucleus in Core of Active Galaxy
Keywords: HST
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 01:16:51 GMT

In article <7JAN199317121606@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>     "The galaxy's active core presumably harbors a black 
>hole which has been re-fueled by the galactic collision," 
>said Dr. Jack MacKenty, Assistant Scientist at the Space 
>Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.

	I presume that what happens to a black hole in a galactic
center is that it eats up all the stars on nearly radial orbits and
tends to deprive itself of stars to consume, with new stars for it
only arriving by their orbit parameters diffusing slowly to suitable
parameters.

	An incoming galaxy would not suffer this depletion of suitable
stars, and would presumably have some stars going head-on into the
hole, with many more to come.

	Did I get it right?
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: DHAMBRIC%NAS.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU (David Hambric)
Subject: Conservation of mass
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:17:37 GMT

I must say that my knowledge of physics is not as thorough as I would like it
to be, and, perhaps, this topic has already been addressed in physics
lectures the world over.  Nevertheless, here it goes.

According to the law of conservation of mass/energy, all mass/energy that
exists has always existed and will always exist, no?  Well, I was thinking
about the open/closed universe argument and the theory of the Big Bang in
light of the law of conservation of mass/energy (CM/E).  If the Big Bang is a
fact, then according to the law of CM/E the universe has to be closed, and any
theory allowing for the concurrent existence of the Big Bang and an open
universe is incorrect, or the law of CM/E is incorrect, or at least missing
some components, as far as I understand it (which isn't saying much).

Are there any arguments/theories providing for the existence of a Big Bang and
an open universe?

Thank you for your indulgence.

David Hambric <dhambric@nas.bitnet>
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 16:24:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.134508.15155@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.220739.9367@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>
>>>So what is so special about human space flight?
>
>>The market, for one thing.  Spin off shuttle to the private sector, and
>>you're likely to get at most one provider, and one buyer (NASA).  
>
>Nonsense. Run KSC like an airport and Shuttle like an airliner. There is
>no reason that several companies couldn't buy Shuttles and lease the
>hanger facilities like any other airport.
>
>The market is small because NASA keeps it small.

The market is small because there's little industrial demand outside
of comsats for access to space. No product other than communications
has shown itself economic in the face of the high up front costs of
entry. Commercial launcher providers are cheaper than NASA, as you are
fond of noting, and NASA has been restricted in competing for commercial
launch business. So NASA isn't keeping the space market small. The lack
of a way to turn a buck is keeping the market small.

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