HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: afwendy@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo Video Clips
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:29:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug26.235151.7776@news.acns.nwu.edu>, fred@iapetus.earth.nwu.edu (Fred Marton) writes...
>In article <17h3qoINNloo@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>>The famous feather and hammer trick is on the PBS special "For All Mankind".
> 
>Incidentally, if anyone knows where the video of this can be found, I'd
>love to know.  I saw it two(?) years ago when it was in theatrical
>release and I thought it was way boffo cool.

pardon my ignorance...what ARE we talking about?

			wendy
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Slowdrugs(was Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?)
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:00:28 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Aug25.035558.7449@samba.oit.unc.edu>, cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes:
> In article <1992Aug24.175759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
> [...stuff re manned vs unmanned exploration modes...]
>>Cecil may want to hear a discussion of this, but I think I've heard it
>>often enough before.
> Hey, at least we're not talking about Soyuz any more!

I thought the Soyuz discussion hit some nice engineering points; I learned a
lot and it got me to think.  (Maybe it *did* drag on too long.)

> Maybe teleoperators need 
> mind-altering substances to slow time perception to the point where they are 
> willing to take 10x longer to do something (complementary personalities to air 
> traffic controllers?)  

This is a novel suggestion... might at least make a good SF story.  It
would be cruel and vicious of me to suggest hiring postal employees
(some of my best friends are postal employees).

> Maybe we *all* need these, as we sit through the ponderous 
> assembly of SSF -- strut by strut, Shuttle by Shuttle -- while NASA projects
> a sense of mission during the 90's.  

But, Gerald, that's how we Buck Rogers fans spent the Seventies and
Eighties, often without benefit of any drugs at all!

     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: phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew)
Subject: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Keywords: SSTO Energy
Organization: University Computer Club --- Perth, Western Australia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 09:06:40 GMT

This is probably a FAQ, but I couldn't find it, so here goes...

My basic understanding of rockets (developed back when I couldn't
reach the top of the fridge :-) ), was that they were broken up into
stages so that they would be able to get into orbit with a useful
payload, instad of wasting all the propellant on boosting the tanks
and engines.

All the mentions to Single Stage To Orbit now make me wonder what
is different. My understanding was that a kilogram of fuel didn't
have enough chemical energy to get itself into orbit, let alone
anything else, but lacking the chemistry I can't verify this.

I realize that there are many other possible solutions, such as better
fuels and fuel combustion, nuclear engines, ramjets which convert
to closed rockets etc. What method/s have been adopted for the SSTO
now under development, or on other similar projects?

"Take pity on an innocent engineer" :-)

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia
From: afwendy@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:41:00 GMT
Distribution: sci.space
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center

In article <BRUGGINK.92Aug25161756@neep.engr.wisc.edu>, bruggink@neep.engr.wisc.edu (Dennis Bruggink) writes...
>Maybe someone can save me some hunting:  I've checked a number of sites
>w/ GIFs for an image of the shuttle landing; I've found one in the Hubble
>series (hubble24.gif) which is exactly the view I'm after, but it's not
>very sharp.  Basically the shuttle has just touched down, and is seen
>as from a side view.

and on this subject...

wouldn't it be cool if NASA or the Air Force or someone would send up some 
sort of high altitude/space chase plane for cool space shots.  Yeah, I know 
there is no feasable reason for this, but I am mighty tired of artists' 
renditions.  Also, that way we could watch the shuttle go all of the way up
  Can't satellites watch (disregarding the cost factor)?

		just a random thought'
	
			wendy
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 00:43:59 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <BtJutG.CA3@news.cso.uiuc.edu>    (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>>I think Nick is right
>>in saying that HLVs have no commercial relevance in this decade.

>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for 
>HLVs this decade.

>  Allen

How do you figure?  I'm defining an HLV as having a larger payload than a 
shuttle or Titan IV.  That would put the number of construction launches around
a dozen.  By itself, this doesn't look like a big enough market to spur 
development of a new vehicle, and there isn't another market in sight.  Add to
this the fact that shuttle will be going to Freedom anyway because people need
to be there and you cut the number of HLV launches down further.

Supply might be a market, but the astronauts are going to have to drink a lot 
of tang to make this a big enough market to support an HLV
-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
From: thierry@curlie.UUCP (Thierry Lach   )
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:18:16 GMT
Organization: Not An Organization

baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:

> In article <rabjab.39.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) w
> >Is the Pioneer Venus orbiter still functioning?  
> 
> Yup, but it is running out of propellent and is due to burn up in the
> atmosphere of Venus this December.
> 
> >Besides Magellan,
> >what other spacecraft (Russian?) may be still functional?
> 
> Here's a list of deep space spacecraft that are still operating.
> 

Will magellan be in any position to gather data from the burn-up?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 10706747@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (ANDREW BENNETT)
Subject: Australian space industries....
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:48:45 GMT

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone knew of any Australian space societies, companies,
organisations etc that I could write to ( e-mail(?) ) and/or join.

I am particularly interested in any that are around the Melbourne area.

Please e-mail me at one of the addresses below.

Thanx in advance.

Andrew Bennett.


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  I can be contacted at the following  |  Reality is what people       |
|  addresses...                         |  perceive it to be.           |
|  The opinions expressed are entirely  |                               |
|  my own.                              |  Sanity is what the majority  |
|  e-mail me at:                        |  of people call Reallity.     |
|  kryndal@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au        |                               |
|  roabennett@halls1.cc.monash.edu au   | Insanity is what a Minority   |
|  10706747@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au      | view as the Truth.            |
|                                       |                    Anonymous  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Magnetic Sail
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:11:35 GMT

In article <QebfaQK00awS0AiVIq@andrew.cmu.edu> ep1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric Eimal Paulsen) writes:

> Maybe you've already heard of this, but I just read an article in the
> May or July '92 Asimov Sci-Fi magazine about a magnetic sail idea. It
> started from a ram scoop and was turned into a superconduction loop held
> from the center by lines. It works on the premise of skipping around in
> LEO by working against the Earths magnetic field until it gets into the
> solar wind and can deflect it, gaining something like .02 g, much better
> than Ion Drive. Really good for interplanetary travel. Possible
> application as brake in interstellar flight, eliminating half of fuel
> load. The article (about ten pages long) has a lot of mathmatics to back
> it up, way over my head.  Fascinating implications!

Unfortunately, I get the impression they badly miscalculated the
tension on the loop, which renders the whole idea much less interesting,
as the loop would have to be much more massive.

(It was Analog, not IASFM.)

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	Great moments in humanitarianism:

	"How can we help a foreign country to escape overpopulation?
	 Clearly the worst thing we can do is send food . . . .
	 Atomic bombs would be kinder.  For a few moments the misery
	 would be acute, but it would soon come to an end for most of
	 the people, leaving a few survivors to suffer thereafter."

		Garrett Hardin, 1969.
From: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Laser distance record?
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:23:59 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: na
Reply-To: sichase@csa1.lbl.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   

In article <rabjab.77.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes...
>To date, what is the farthest that a laser has been seen from?
> 
>I recall a successful experiment sending a laser beam from the
>Earth to a Surveyor lander on the Moon in the sixties.  That would
>make the current record approx. 384,400 km?

If you allow masers, then the answer is best measured in parsecs.  Oh... you
want man-made lasers.  Never mind.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver
Xref: sparky sci.space:12392 news.answers:2755
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Nugent       )
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Size,Mass,and velocity....
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:08:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.BtpE9I.3D0
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:

> isn't the net supposed to be a research tool?

Um, well, I honestly don't know.  What is the net intended for?  I got the
impression that it was for the discussion of the various topics (dependent
on the newsgroup), and perhaps for the dissemination of specialzed knowledge
that one particular reader might know to share with others.

I should point out that in my previous post, I was tired at the time.  I
didn't mean to complain about bandwidth, more on the various requests that
come up where people ask for information that they should easily be able
to find themselves.  Maybe.

I apologize for any waste of bandwidth I create myself.


-- 
Tom Nugent	voice:(217)328-0994	e-mail:tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
From: frankt@cwi.nl (Frank Teusink)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: (Big) Bang in The Netherlands
Date: 4 Sep 92 10:06:07 GMT

Hello,

There was a thread in this newsgroup on the `bang' that occured a few
days (weeks?) ago down here in the Netherlands (Friesland). Although
the official explanation they give now is that some super-secret plane
went throuh the sound-wall (as suggested in this newsgroup), there was
yesterday an item on television in which a geologist gave the following
explanation:

We're pumping up gas in this region, and this causes leakage of water
to layers of chalk down below. Its starts a reaction with the chalk that
transforms it  into plaster (selenite?) (it would be much easier if you
called it 'gips' just like we do :-). This plaster has a higher volume
than chalk. Therefore, there is a build-up of tension in these layers,
that sometimes causes shock-waves.

It seems that there was another 'bang' a number (10?) of years ago. That
one was explaned by a concorde going through the sound-wall (this 
explanation is disputed by the geologist). It seems that the explanation
of this geologist is backed by the Geology department of the University
of Utrecht. I don't know how these shock-waves explain the fact that the
'bang' was somewhere in the air (supersonic). 

I hope this interests you,

Frank Teusink
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: LDO shuttle and pilot readiness
Keywords: long duration shuttle Freedom pilot
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:32:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.162920.24117@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> grasso@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A) writes:
>After being on orbit for 2 months, how realistic is it for a shuttle pilot
>	to be capable of performing a reentry and landing? Seating in the
>        shuttle is upright, airliner-style, while seating in a capsule is
>        reclined to horizontal.

I believe this is being looked at by NASA.  The re-entry part should not be
too different than normal, but the landing part is a concern.  NASA has devel-
oped an "Autoland" capability for the flight control system (?) that will take
over the trickier aspects of the landing operations.  I don't know much about`
the particulars, but it is scheduled for testing on STS-53 this November.

>	If the extended stay in microgravity damages the shuttle pilots'
>	ability to bring the spacecraft back for a landing, doesn't this
>	mandate a separate ACRV if shuttle is to be used for resupply and
>	crew rotation?

It would only mandate a different approach be taken.  It may very well be
possible (and cost effective) to adapt the current approach to the new require-
ments than to develop a second one.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DCX??
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 14:37:18 GMT

In article <78740@ut-emx.uucp> wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester) writes:

>Pardon me for seeming clueless, but what is the dcx?

DCX is a 1/3 scale prototype of a Single Stage to Orbit vehicle. It will 
be used for suborbital testing next summer. If all goes well another
agency will pick up development and develop a full scale vehicle which
can achieve orbit. If it works, it will reduce the cost to orbit by one
to two orders of magnitude. 

We have a document called '20 questions on SSTO which I will post in a
bit. It should answer most of your questions. If you want to help make
this happen, contact me.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------234 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: soviet rovers on mars
Date: 4 Sep 92 08:11:04 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Distribution: sci
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)

In article <118@newave.mn.org>, john@newave (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>I have also heard a rumor that Gagarin's flight did not complete an entire
>orbit, and the Soviets supposedly airlifted his capsule a few hundred miles
>to the east to make it appear that they completed a full orbit.  Has anyone
>else heard this?

I hadn't heard this, though it wouldn't surprise me that someone made the
claim.  Maybe it even happened, though that wouldn't, in my eyes, detract from
the accomplishment of the flight.  (I have read that his capsule was
substantially damaged on landing.)  The basis for the claim that Gagarin didn't
complete a full revolution could also be that Vostok 1 was in orbit for less
than one full revolution.  I don't think there's any question that Gagarin was
put into orbit, and only firing the retrorocket brought Vostok down when it
did.  The first two Mercury flights, in contrast, were suborbital all the
way--although their retrorockets were fired, the capsules were going to come
right down without the retrofire.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:19:55 GMT

>   As an aside, I will point out that most of those starving in Africa
> are doing so because their family and countrymen think it more
> important to kill each other than feed each other. Against a climate
> such as this, it is difficult to see how diverting finance from space
> into Africa is going to be of any lasting benefit.
> 


... not to mention farmers in the "West" who profit by screaming loud
enough (or are sufficiently violent, like the french farmers) to get
paid for keeping food prices high and production down... 


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kdawson@AFIT.AF.MIL (KEVIN D. DAWSON)
Subject: Re: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Organization: Air Force Institue of Technology, WPAFB OH
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:29:43 GMT

In article <BtpDL6.DE@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
>Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:53:29 GMT

>As currently planned, SSTO will use very ordinary engine technology,
>except that it will probably use either a "plug nozzle" (which puts the
>entire base area of the rocket to work as the nozzle) or telescoping
>nozzles that can be made longer in flight.  Both of these basically just
>optimizes the nozzle design to match changing outside pressure; neither
>has flown, although both look workable.  Last I heard, the feeling was
>that telescoping nozzles looked less risky.

I Take it the Telescoping nozzle on the Peacekeepers upper stage doesn't 
count because it only telescopes for storage?
-Kevin-
From: wizard@r-node.gts.org (Miroslaw Kuc)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Trip to KSC
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:37:54 GMT
Organization: Public Access UNIX Information System

sci.space, 

Next week I am planning to go to Orlando, Florida and while there take 
an excursion to KSC, go on the tour and perhaps see the Sept 11 launch.

Is there anything I should look at in advance, like reservations for the
tour of KSC?  If I were to go see the space launch, where should I go?

Does anyone have any other suggestions?

Please reply by e-mail.  If there is enough interest I'll summarize and
post or is there already something out there I can refer to?

Thanks to all!

Miro
-- 
wizard@r-node.gts.org
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: TOPEX, demise of SEASAT & nuclear sub wakes
Keywords: TOPEX
Date: 29 Aug 92 13:36:59 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill

How do the altimeter & SAR resolutions on TOPEX compare with those that were 
on SEASAT?  I recall comments at the time of the premature demise of SEASAT 
that it had detected ``wakes'' from submerged USN nuclear subs on patrol, and 
that more rabid elements had suggested that the DOD had pulled the plug (I 
think that the accepted explanation of its failure after only a few weeks was 
a chip burnout, remarkable that there was no redundancy.) Have sub props been 
modified?  Does anyone have further details on the demise of SEASAT?
-- 
Gerald Cecil  cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169
Physics & Astronomy, U North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
   If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure. -- Chairman of US Space
	Council.    ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Re: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't
Reply-To: cecil@physics.unc.edu
Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:36:51 GMT

In article 715246928@prles6b, munk@prl.philips.nl (Harm Munk) writes:
>On wednesday, August 19, seismic stations located in the northwestern part
>of the Netherlands registered an atmospheric shock wave, which, apparantly,
>was not related to any seismic activity .. but some kind
>of supersonic, military airplane breaking the sound barrier some ten miles west
>of the island of Texel. According to the KNMI, this is the only explanation left
>allthough it is an unsatisfactory one. ...
>The supposed sighting in the Netherlands was accompanied not only by sonic 
>booms (energetic enough to crack the front of a house somewhere in the province of
>Friesland) but some people reported seeing a flash of light as well. Was this
>also the case with the sightings in the US?
They probably saw a low-flying military aircraft with its afterburners on.  Maybe
it punched through a low-lying cloud deck on its way out.

>Rumours in the newspapers suggested that it was that highly
>secretive airplane that Lockeed is developing for the DoD: the two stage get
>to orbit plane (like DynaSoar and Saenger ?). Now, this plane has been sighted
>in the US a few times. ...
According to Aviation Week & Space Technology (aka AvLeak) in issues prior to
Aug. 24, this aircraft is an
SR 71 replacement developed by Lockheed Skunkworks.  Speeds estimated at 3500+ mph.
*Not* a 2 stage to orbit plane. It has only been seen near the ground
dimly at night, and was described as `bat-like'' similar to the B2 airfoil. People
report a low frequency, growling noise of tremendous power at takeoff.  Daytime 
photos of peculiar corkscrew contrails that have been attributed to this aircraft
suggest an ``explosive'' or pulsed propulsion system, but the observers did not have
binoculars to see the plane itself (flying at high altitudes). AvLeak reports an
increasing number of daytime sightings like this, suggesting that the program is 
emerging from the so-called Black (i.e. non-itemized) DoD budget into full
Congressional scrutiny, presumably because the DoD has now sunk so much money into
it and distributed its contractors into so many Congressional districts that the
program is unkillable. Yet another multi-billion dollar aerospace program to
protect US airspace from the Bosnian airforce.

>And why was someone from Lockeed Space and Missiles Systems asking questions
>on the net about this event (;-)?
S/he was probably searching for a new job.
---
Gerald Cecil cecil@wrath.physics.unc.edu  919-962-7169 
Physics & Astronomy, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA