HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.history
Subject: Re: V-2 anniversary
Date: 7 Oct 92 19:43:56 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <28165@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM+ wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
+Trivia question: Which city was targeted and hit by the most number
+of V-2s?
+
The title should have read 'A-4 anniversary' It didn't become the V-2 
until much later.

Jeff Hagen had the correct answer.

Successful V-2 combat launches (From 'The Rocket Team', Ordway and Sharpe, 1979)

UK
   London     1359
   Ipswich       1
   Norwich      43

Belgium
   Antwerp    1610
   Liege        86
   Brussels   (See Other) 

France
   Paris        19

Other
   Continental 137 (including 11 at Remagen, the town whose bridge was
                    captured before it could be blown up, Tournai, Hasselt
                    Maastricht (been in the news lately), Lille, Arras, Mons,
                    Cambrai, St. Quentin, and Tourning.)

Total         3225

I hear, so often, London associated with the V-2 (or I hear London and 
other cities). I make this association, too and have to remind myself
of the above numbers. I wonder why this is. Is it all the films we've
seen about WWII? We get the idea that it was the RAF and Patton who
single handedly won the war in Europe. We forget that the Russians
were taking the brunt of it all from the summer of 1941 until after
the invasion of France in the summer of 1944.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: SETI positive?
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:45:37 GMT


Dan>    I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that 
Dan> our lackwit bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a
Dan> potential hit on a SETI search and a multi-telescope confimation
Dan> is planned Oct 12-???

Dan>    Any information?

Yes.  The message was "Send more Chuck Berry!"

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Math progs with arbitrary precicion, for UNIX...
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:27:16 GMT


In article <seal.719016011@leonardo>
seal@leonardo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Seal) writes:

>  other mac programs or ways of computing pi?

>It's no wonder Mathematica is rapidly emerging as the standard, at
>least in academia. Not only was I able to redo all the math I had in
>all of high school, college, and grad school in an afternoon (my
>favorite command is still InverseLaplaceTransform[expr, s, t]), but
>it's also frighteningly easy to use. Pricey, but well worth it, and no,
>Steven Wolfram didn't pay me to write this. (Perhaps he should...)

I'm not saying it's as good as Mathematica, but a somewhat good
PD prog for unix is calc.el, which runs under emacs. There are also
several other "real" lisp math packages out there...

>E-mail me if you're interested in 10,000 or more places,
>fred.ringwald@dartmouth.edu

You mean you're not going to gratuitously post them?

-- 
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
---------------------
Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this
message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread
disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a
state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes.
From: al192191@next00.mty.itesm.mx
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: sub Juan Carlos Vazquez
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:57:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bw6nqt.H95.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

SUB  Juan Carlos Vazquez
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Roswell
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <140532.2AD87F0D@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes:
>The recent exchange about Roswell was interesting.  Below is a reprint of an article which appeared in a "science" magazine about the crash recovery investigation being conducted by a retired Air Force Intelligence officer. Although there is *no* hard evidence that the vehicle recovered was an extraterrestrial spacecraft, the testimony collected by Randle and Schmitt does provide some compelling circumstance that it was very foreign.
>
>This is only the tip of the iceberg on information that R&S have collected. If you want more, let me know.
>
>This  article was taken from Air&Space magazine  October/November
>1992.
>Reprinted without permission.  Prepared by Michael Keithly.
>
>
>In  a response to a letter of authenticity of the Roswell  events
>Kevin Randle replied.
>
>The events that took place near Roswell, New Mexico in July  1947
>are  well  documented.  The question is no  longer  if  something
>happened, but what happened, and why it is still being hidden  45
>years later.  Colonel (later Brigadier General) Thomas J.  Dubose
>was  the chief of staff of the Eighth Air Force, the parent  unit
>of  the  509th  Bomb  Group, at Roswell in  July  1947.   He  has
>repeatedly, on audio and video tape, that the balloon explanation
>was  designed to "get the reporters of Ramey's  back"  (Brigadier
>Roger  Ramey,  Commanding Officer of the Eighth Air  Force).   In
>other words, one of the officers who was there has said that  the
>balloon explanation was nothing more than a cover story.

If I remember correctly, the 509th was the unit responsible for
carrying and dropping the A bombs that ended WWII. They ran hundreds
and hundreds of practice missions perfecting fuzing mechanisms and
bombing techniques for A bomb delivery. Considering the time, and
the sensitive nature of their payloads, I wouldn't be surprised
if security were very tight in an accident, nor that cover stories
would be released. Any payload they lost could very well glow in
the dark.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: UFO? REALLY?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:21:27 GMT

gdavis@griffin.uvm.edu (Gary Davis) writes:

> I've always been fascinated with the hypothesis that other civilizations
>have visted Earth via a worm hole or other cosmic anomoly,but has anyone
>ever with true open mind investigated the evidence? 

I'm always skeptical of lines like this, for two reasons.  The first being that
the people who say it usually mean "someone with a mind leaning towards what
I want to be true" and the second being that no one can approach this issue
without some kind of bias.

>I wonder if anyone has information concerning the rather strange event
>in New Mexico circ 1988. I think it involved a group of loggers with
>one man disappearing for a week and then relating an abduction tale.
>His companions,I believe were cleared on a polygraph and he later,taking
>same showed ambiguous results. The first try was a flunk and second tries
>passed. (Perhaps he was just nervous).

The trouble with stories like this is twofold.  The first being that lie 
detector tests aren't very reliable, the second being that you can only study  
what someone thinks happened, not the actual event.  

>In any event,there most be some intermediate ground between the Amazing
>Randy specticisms and the Inquirer tom foolery?

Certainly.  There are numerous events in science we just don't have enough
data to understand or confirm.  You just have to leave them open or ingore
them until you have enough data to confirm them or deny them.  I'm sure there
are some UFO stories that are in the unkown catagory, but the vast majority 
are easy to debunk, and there are none in the "confirmed" catagory.


>--
>                     Gary E. Davis WQ1F (On AO13)
>        University of Vermont  Land Liner's dial 802-656-1916
> References " The Joys of Rumination Without The Cud", Elsie circa 1965
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
	 The views expresed above do not necessarily reflect those of
ISDS, UIUC, NSS, IBM FSC, NCSA, NMSU, AIAA or the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Acronymphomaniacs
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 12:04:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.014257.7624@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>>You provided an estimate of the cost which
>>was totally based on unrealisticly high launch costs. 

>This completely cracks me up.   Actual commercial launch costs
>is "unrealistically high".  What Allen wishes launch costs were
>is quite real, by comparison.  :-) :-)

Well I would have thought you would understand the point but aparently not.
I'll explain it to you in greater detail and maybe then you will understand
where you made your mistake.

Now in general, when markets get larger costs tend to come down. This is
because development costs are amortized over a larger market and the
larger lot sizes allow greater investment in automation which greatly
increases productivity.

Launchers are no different. With today's launchers manufacturers have
often said that if launchers where bought 20 at a time or so prices
would drop by over 1/2. To date the market just isn't big enough to
justify that.

Now with the effort being proposed, the market for launches will grow
by leaps and bounds. Competition for this market will inevitabally
reduce existing luanchers and cause new, far cheaper, launchers to
be developed to service this market.

ANY estimate of cost must consider this factor in its estimates.

>You are also still completely missing the point that lower
>launch costs benefit every kind of space project, 

But not equally. You often point out that it takes more energy to get
to the moon. Therefore Lunar approaches will see greater cost reductions
than Asteriod approaches.

>and do
>not change the comparison of lunar mining vs. alternatives.

Also correct. However the advantage of the moon isn't cost, is't time.

Eventually we will make extensive use of asteroids and comets. But first
we will use the advantage of close Lunar material because it's faster
and provides easier access to the people needed to operate and debug
the facility.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------197 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Math progs with arbitrary precicion, for UNIX...
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:07:20 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <Bw499F.14s.1@cs.cmu.edu>
pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

> You mean you're not going to gratuitously post them?

Any more aggravation of this kind, and I'll post the calculation to
50,000 places that just finished, all 130K of it!   ;-)

It took about 2.5 hours. As I was saying, it isn't the fastest machine
in town. By the way, there are versions of Mathematica that run under
UNIX, and most other common operating systems.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: von_Brown_
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:08:53 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1469100021@igc.apc.org>, pstc@igc.apc.org (Public Service Telecommunications Consortium) writes:
> 
> I'll have to ht some books on Von Braun's Gestapo role and title,

The last claim we saw on the Net was that he was in the SS, which is
not true.

> but I do remember, years ago, one of his sidekicks, in an 
> interview in the old (long-gone) Herald Tribune in New York,
> stating that "Dr. von Braun was a major in the Gestapo, but,
> of course, the title was strictly honorary."  

I doubt this very much.  I believe he *did* hold a nominal military
rank of some kind.  Almost certainly not in the Gestapo.

Of course, memory dims with time, and who knows what *my* sidekicks
would say about me?

Engineer of Hijacked Train:      Bill Higgins
"Is this a holdup?"                 
                                 Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Masked Gunman:                      
(Hesitates, looks at partner,    Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
looks at engineer again)         SPAN/Hepnet/Physnet: 43011::HIGGINS
"It's a science experiment!"     Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 10/09/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Mars Observer, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:40:34 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

                  MARS OBSERVER MISSION STATUS
                         October 9, 1992

     The Mars Observer spacecraft is scheduled to fire two of its
four main rocket thrusters tomorrow in the first trajectory
correction maneuver to occur since the spacecraft was launched on
Sept. 25, 1992.

     The trajectory correction maneuver (TCM-1), considered one
of the more crucial cruise maneuvers, will involve firing two of
the spacecraft's large (490-Newton) thrusters.  TCM-1 will
provide a velocity change of 50 meters per second (164 feet per
second) to the spacecraft's trajectory, thereby adjusting
slightly its path to Mars.  TCM-1 will occur at 3 p.m. Pacific
Daylight Time and will take about two minutes.  During this first
TCM, the spacecraft will be close enough to Earth to send 2-
kilobyte (2,000 bytes per second) engineering data in near real
time.  Currently one-way light time from Earth to the spacecraft
is about 15 seconds. 

     The next TCM is scheduled for Jan. 8, 1993. 

     Flight controllers tried for the third time on Oct. 7 to
play back tape-recorded data of the Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS)
burn shortly after launch and were successful in receiving TOS
data.  TOS flight operations staff will analyze the data to
evaluate TOS performance during the launch phase.  

     All spacecraft systems are operating as expected and teams
are working to optimize spacecraft and ground systems for
Saturday's events. 

     Today Mars Observer is about 4.5 million kilometers (2.6
million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 10,800
kilometers (7,600 miles per hour) with respect to Earth.  The
spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
119,000 kilometers per hour (74,000 miles per hour).

                             ##### 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Einstein's brain is stored
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in a mason jar in a lab
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | in Wichita, Kansas.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnk@cs.mu.OZ.AU (David Kinny)
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 04:27:35 GMT

sma@waikato.ac.nz (Stephen Anderson) writes:

>Nick Haines writes:
 [...]
>> This is only one problem. The real reasons why we shouldn't `dispose'
>> of nuclear waste by sending it into space are:
>> 
>> (1) it's far too expensive to do (even if we just want to leave it in
>> 	a parking orbit somewhere, the launch costs are absurd),
>> (2) we may well want the waste again in the future, and it's cheaper
>> 	to get to if it's on Earth,
>> (3) crazy politicians will scream blue murder because they think it'll
>> 	fall on their heads. It's not worth the trouble.
>Finally, some decent reasons.  Especially that first one.  But roll on fusion
>so we don't have to worry about what to do with waste.

Why on earth do you think that fusion doesn't produce waste?
Read up on the effects of neutron bombardment.  Commercial fusion
reactors will produce substantial amounts of waste, but it won't
be in the form of spent fuel rods.

>Stephen..

..David
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Luna III images of the moon's farside
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:20:24 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

> They were pretty poor. Luna III took a b/w photo and then scanned it
> with a slow TV like process of 1000 lines/inch and transmitted to earth.

All were proudly published in a book called *Atlas of the Moon's Far Side*,
which I found in a bookstore in Miami.

     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: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What use is Freedom?
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:08:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvtEnB.LGH.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> As far as replacing SSF with the current Mir, it must be noted that 

> that since Mir is nearing the end of its design lifetime, the  
current 2 

> person crew spends 3/4's of its time doing maintenance, or 1.5 

> equivalent crew members (ECM).  This leaves 0.5 ECM for research.   
SSF's 

> maintenance will also take 1.5 ECM, leaving 2.5 ECM available  
(ref.: 

> Gary Oleson [SSF Engineering Integration Office], *Spacefaring  
Gazette*, 

> December 1991, p. 2)
> 


I know Gary extremely well. We had quite a go around on some of this  
issue the last time I visited him.

I'd point out from your numbers that:

	a) The Mir option is available in mid 1990's, versus
	   turn of the century for PMC.
	b) Your numbers for MIR are 2-6.

Now the .5 ECM occurs in the current case for MIR, and for the worst  
case in the future MIR. In the current case that is .5 ECM more than  
Fred since it is currently ground based; in the future case, it is .5  
ECM - 4.5 ECM more than Fred up to the end of the decade.

Another way of putting it: if we assume that phase II is available in  
1996, then the man-years of on orbit research time are (not including  
the years that MIR has already been churning out .5 MY/Y of  
research):

	93-96 98-99 00
MIR	2 MY  9 MY  9MY
Fred	0 MY  1 MY? 3.5MY

Even if you assume a more conservative manning of MIR and a later  
upgrade date, they've still got Fred beat for quite some time to  
come.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rbatra@uceng.UC.EDU (Rajesh Batra)
Subject: Transportation on the Moon.
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Cincinnati
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:42:25 GMT

Hi,

	I'm an undergraduate in Aerospace Engineering at the University of 
Cincinnati. We have been given a Senior Design Project based on a fictious
premise that ice has been found at the North Pole of the Moon.  Our moon base
(it's the year 2016, by the way) is located at the equator. Our Mission is
to bring back this ice from the North Pole to our production facility plants
(located at the equator as well) for extraction of Hydrogen and Oxygen. 
The extraction facility will be handled by the Chemical/Civil Engineers.

	We are looking for any feasible transportation ideas that could 
accomplish this task. We have come up with several ideas including Pipelines, 
Rockets, and Rail Guns. We are delivering about 2 tons of rock (containing ice)
a day.

If anyone can direct me to abstracts that have been written concerning
Rail Guns please do not hesitate to email me. 

Any ideas would be greatly appreciated!

						Thank you for your time,

						Rajesh Batra
						rbatra@uceng.uc.edu
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: HRMS
Date: 10 Oct 92 15:49:26 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Oct7.023747.18705@ils.nwu.edu> eric@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Goldstein) writes:
>I guess I really wanted to know:  Over what range of frequencies do we
>significantly leak, and are those frequencies capable of being detected
>by HRMS?  The HRMS press kit that Ron Baalke posted (thanks Ron!)
>said that the targeted search would search at 1,000 to 3,000 MHz.  I
>know we leak significantly on the TV bands, but TV is around 10 MHz,
>right?  So, I was wondering if we also leak at detectable levels at
>1,000 to 3,000 MHz.  And if we do, what is the source of the leakage?
>If I've displayed a real misunderstanding, please go easy on me -- this
>isn't my field --  and I'd genuinely appreciate any explanations.

TV broadcasting is in the 60-170 MHz range for VHF and 500-800 MHz
range for UHF. VHF television output power peaks at 316,000 watts
ERP on the upper VHF channels. UHF power peaks at 5,000,000 watts
ERP. In addition, military radars, like Pave Paws, operate in the
UHF range below UHF TV, 400-450 MHz at peak powers of 50 to 200
million watts ERP. In the 1 GHz to 3 GHz range, most of the emitters
are low power point to point telco links with a few aircraft and
anti-aircraft targeting radars also in use from time to time,
Desert Storm comes to mind. These aren't nearly as powerful as
systems like Pave Paws because the antennas are much smaller and
the power supplies are much smaller. Weather radars operate at
higher frequencies, 7 GHz and 10 GHz, so they are outside the
range of interest, ERPs run around 250,000 watts. 

It seems they concentrated their search in the part of the spectrum
with the *least* high power terrestrial sources. That makes sense,
otherwise they'd be getting interference from those sources. But
if the postulated ETs are like us, they won't be using high power
sources on those frequencies either, so our chances of detecting
them is much less. Reminds me of the drunk searching for his car
keys under the street lamp even though he dropped them on the 
other side of the street. His reason, because the light is better
under the street lamp.

Gary