HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Delta
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 20:11:03 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul28.161541.16680@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development) writes:
>...not really. The S-I stage was built out of Redstone and Jupiter structural
>parts (i.e. tanks), but propulsion, guidance and components to tie all this
>together were all new. 

Indeed, the main reason it used existing tankage was that its first
stage was originally funded as a ground demonstrator, not as part of an
operational launcher.  Funding was tight, and it looked like building
suitably-sized tanks would need enough new technology to cause budget
overruns.  So, as long as it wasn't meant to fly, why not just bundle
off-the-shelf tanks together?

When it started to look good enough that people started talking about
flying it, the bundled tankage was retained partly because the design
was already well advanced, and partly because there was some talk of
having to dismantle it for air transportation to a remote launch site.

Actually, Gary has overlooked some other heritage from other launchers --
the engines, for example, were further developments of the ones already
flying on the Thor and Jupiter -- but he's correct in saying that the
Saturn I/IB was a new launcher using some existing components, not just
a cluster of existing stages.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:53:33 GMT

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

>In article <LNweoB1w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> me@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Michael Ellis) writes:
>>
>>I wouldn't want to be too terribly near to a Shuttle launch either. Or a
>>smoking gas station attendant for that matter.
>>
>>No one is talking about dropping an anti-iron connonball onto a city. 
>>Nor would all this antimatter and matter be combined all at once. 
>>Payloads of men and equipment can only take so many G's. However, I 
>>suppose a launchpad explosion would be a particularly nasty thing.
>>
>>Can anyone say whether an antimatter fueled launch vehicle accident would 
>>be worse, the same, or perhaps less (no need to lift all that 
>>heavy fuel) than a conventionally fueled rocket? 

>	Given that one can mix the antimatter-reaction mass ratio to get
>the Vexhaust one wants, the dangers of standing in the vicinity of the
>exhaust of an antimatter powered ship could be *identical* to that of
>standing inthe vicinity of a conventional ship.

I don't know what type of antimatter powered launch vehicle you are 
talking about, but one idea I'd heard was to have a barrel-sized chunk
of tungsten.  Annihilate anitprotons in the middle of it (near the middle,
I should say).  All the radiation produced heats the tungsten (at least
I think it was tungsten) quite nicely, but barely any radiation reaches
the surface.  You pass propellant over the surface of the tungsten, and
voila!  expanding mass, to push your craft along.  The proposal I saw
envisioned this as being alot like an airplane.

"Wishing for something does not make it so."
			- Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
-- 
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous
Tom Nugent		e-mail: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiac
Date: 29 Jul 92 12:05:09 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
-Subject: Re: Calendar and Zodiak
-Date: 28 Jul 92 14:31:29 GMT
-Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

-The short answer is that the calendar year is based on what is called
-the "tropical year," i.e. the time from equinox to equinox.  So by
-definition the equinox will always occur around March 21.

So I got that part wrong. It's the sun and Earth, not the distant stars,
that define the year.

-The start of spring is actually a different question.  The
-traditional start was on the "quarter day" in early February, but in
-modern times the start has moved to the equinox.  The earlier
-definition made June 21 "mid-summer day" (thus the title of one of
-Shakespeare's plays), not the beginning of summer as now.

That's probably a reasonable change, given the thermal lag of the seasons
in the temperate regions.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Subject: Re: Whales (SETI)
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:10:39 GMT

Whales are _not_ intelligent in any significant sense of the word. If
they were, they could prove it in about 30 seconds, by any number of
means (e.g. whistle the prime numbers, *-* *-*-* *-*-*-*-* etc. - for
that matter just whistle the numbers from 1 to 10). In fact, if they
were intelligent, since they were physically quite a lot tougher than
the whaling ships of the 18th and 19th centuries, they could have
developed tactics to defeat them (e.g. several whales surround a whaling
ship and clobber it, rather than all the whales trying to dive, and the
ship gets one of them).

(As it happens, I am in favour of making whaling illegal, but not because
of any claims about their intelligence.)
--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie
From: rmartin@thor.Rational.COM (Bob Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antimatter (was propulsion questions)
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:00:37 GMT
Distribution: na

sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:

|In article <Brp9H4.3GM@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes...
|> 
|>Antimatter isn't a very efficient explosive.  If you dropped an anti-iron
|>cannonball, it would just sit there and sizzle.  (The radiation would make
|>the immediate neighborhood very unhealthy, mind you.)  The security needed
|>to prevent *accidentally* dropping stuff that is worth billions of dollars
|>a gram should mostly suffice as protection against simple forms of malice.
|>It is, in any case, not something you can put in your pocket, because it's
|>stable only inside a substantial piece of equipment.

|This doesn't sound right.  What makes you think that the energy release would
|be so slow?  The outer surface would be continuously annihilating with 
|air and whatever surface you drop it on.  It's not at all clear that
|things would be so nice as you describe.

I expect that the heat generated from the initial annihilations would
melt and then vaporize the cannonball fairly rapidly.  I think the
exposed surface area would rize at a geometric rate.  So, perhaps the
boom would be relatively quick.  



--
+---Robert C. Martin---+-RRR---CCC-M-----M-| R.C.M. Consulting         |
| rmartin@rational.com |-R--R-C----M-M-M-M-| C++/C/Unix Engineering    |
|     (Uncle Bob.)     |-RRR--C----M--M--M-| OOA/OOD/OOP Training      |
+----------------------+-R--R--CCC-M-----M-| Product Design & Devel.   |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Galileo Antenna. What's left to try? 
Keywords: Whales, whale killing
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:08:05 GMT


Perhaps I've missed some crucial posts (which is entrirely possible given
a quirky news server) but I haven't seen a lot of news regarding the
details of the Galileo Antenna. 

What is the confidence (of the NASA team, not some net-philosophers)
that thermal cycling will help? 

What else can be attempted?  Thruster bursts? Fast rotation?

What is the confidence that *some* technique will succeed?

What is the schedule for more dramatic attmempts at freeing the antenna?

Any tidbits would be read. Thanks.


-- 
"Oh please, Lord, break the curse on women's hearts that says we don't need 
our men.  Break that independence...Help men to rise up to take positions
of leadership and authority that we might submit to them."  -Toni Denver,
 operation rescue member, as she is quoted in Life Magazine, July 1992
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 17:03:00 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

If Soyuz-TM is used as an "lifeboat" for Freedom... doesn't this open up OTHER
possibilities beyond the normal budget/friendly/we-are-now-friends bit...

Assuming docking fittings on Freedom for Soyuz-style capsules, it gives us:

	A) Ability to send up crew on Soyuz on a contingency basis
	B) Ability to perform resupply and cargo return via Progress.

I realize there's the little matter of launch/orbit angles to work out, but 
could this be changed by launching Soyuz/Progress from someplace else
(Australia?). 

It would add a new spin on the phrase "international" space station, hm?


   Previous signature chastized by Canadian Grad Student who flayed the United
   States as a bully from his bastion of free speech in Pittsburgh, PA. 
                    Yes, fact IS stranger that fiction.     
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: andy@osea.demon.co.uk (Andrew Haveland-Robinson)
Subject: Antimatter (was propulsion questions) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Haveland-Robinson Associates
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:30:18 +0000


In article <Brp9H4.3GM@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu writes:

>>OK, now to play earths advocate, what kind of danger does releasing all that 
>>incandescent gas, etc. cause.
>
>None whatsoever.  It's hot hydrogen.  The Sun pumps out billions of tons
>of hot hydrogen every second.

But that's on the Sun, not in the Earth's atmosphere!

It's a bit like saying, global thermonuclear war is harmless as the Sun
releases that much energy every millisecond! :-)

I wouldn't like to be too near...

Andy
~~~~
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Haveland-Robinson Associates        | Email: andy@osea.demon.co.uk         |
| Pine Cottage, Osea Island, Essex    |        ahaveland@cix.compulink.co.uk |
| CM9 8UH England.  0621-88756        | Also:  081-800 1708  081-802 4502    |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Xref: sparky sci.space:10736 news.answers:2237
From: slb@suned1.nswses.navy.MIL (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NASA experiment could save lives, time and money [Release 92-115] (Forwarded)
Summary: S&R package on GPS?
Keywords: extra payload space, GPS
Date: 25 Jul 92 02:01:24 GMT
Reply-To: slb@suned1.UUCP (Shari L Brooks)
Organization: Naval Satellite Operations Center, Point Mugu, CA, USA

In article <7862@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> francis@cs.adelaide.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Jul20.174736.11820@news.arc.nasa.gov>, 
>yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:

>|> 	The satellite system, an international program known as COSPAS-
>|> SARSAT, has been responsible for saving more than 2,300 lives since it was
>|> started in 1982.  Principal partners in this program are Canada, France,
>|> Russia and the United States.

>|> 	When an aircraft or ship is in distress, an emergency signal normally
>|> will be transmitted.  The signal will be "heard" by one of the satellites,
>|> which relays the information to ground stations around the world.  Alert
>|> information, including identification and location, is forwarded by the
>|> ground stations to search and rescue forces, and rescue efforts are begun.

[...further description deleted...] 

>Something that has been bothering me for a while.  Why not add a
>GPS receiver to the beacon?  The beacon should then squark not only that
>it exists, but provide a pretty accurate position fix.  It also has the
>advantage that if the beacon fails (or sinks if the ship goes down) there
>is a very good, last heard from position to start looking form.

I am not sure of the current status of this proposal, but I was at a meeting
discussing a related topic about six months ago.  Apparently, there is about 
50lb of unused capacity on GPS (to rephrase, the satellite can afford to be 
50lb heavier, and there is space for 50 extra lb of payload).  In future 
designs perhaps a S&R package could be put on the satellite.

The people proposing this sounded very serious.  I personally would think
that this would add much more than 50 lbs of weight, in communications
capacity alone.  I wish I still had the reference materials.  Has anyone else
heard of this idea getting seriously entertained?

-- 
  Shari L Brooks                   |   slb%suned1.nswses.navy.mil@nosc.mil
  NAVSOC code NSOC323D             |   shari@caspar.nosc.mil
  NAWS Pt Mugu, CA 93042-5013      |   
--> All statements/opinions above are mine and mine only, not the US Navy's.
From: hagadorn@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Thomas Hagadorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: first man on moon date and time
Date: 28 Jul 92 19:19:32 GMT
Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity

In article <pgf.711774166@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
|meyers@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu writes:
|
|>Can someone E-mail me the following information.  I wouldlike to know
|>at what time the first man stepped on the moon and when it wass
|
|Everyone should know the date: July 20, 1969.
|
|Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
|Phone: 318/365-5418
|"There are still 201969 unread articles in 1278 groups" - nn message

and henry writes:
|2256 EDT 20 July 1969.  The TV coverage was live (well, subject to the
|speed-of-light lag...).

 Ok, I'll bite.  Is your .sig 201969 articles a reference to this, and
if so, what does the 1278 refer to, since henry's note implies that it
isn't the time?

--
Tom Hagadorn   hagadorn@brl.mil
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Subject: Re: Methods for meteor avoidance
Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 07:11:33 GMT

In <BrwIxr.5Bv@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <a6cf4fff@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> brendan.woithe@f820.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Brendan Woithe) writes:
>>After the meteor from last year passed withinn 4 minutes of the earth (the
>>large one), I was wondering if we have any system of avoiding these 
>>large beasts??!! ...
>>With a problem like this, surely there must be some defence!!!

>There has been discussion of this, both in the past and recently.  The big
>problem is detecting them far enough in advance.  Given adequate advance
>warning, one could use large nuclear bombs to destroy or deflect the incoming
>rock, in principle.  There is a practical problem in that the US currently
>has no launcher adequate to the job; there are some things for which there
>is no substitute for a Saturn V or equivalent.

Since it's a global problem, we can resort to global
resources. I'm sure that the Russians would not object to
some of their spare boosters being used to save their butt
too!

I believe that current capabilities would require very long
range detection so that the minor deflection which could be
imposed using a deliverable load would be significant enough
to prevent large particles entering the atmosphere. Major
unknowns are the velocity and mass of the threatening
meteor, so the kinetic energy required cannot be easily
determined.

If the blast could be "focused", then the size of the
explosion can be reduced, as the imposed velocity component
can be at the optimum direction to prevent collision with
the Earth, as well as avoiding dangerous proximity of large
meteors.

For very large meteors, it may actually be more practical to
subtly change our own orbit (not through nuclear explosions!),
though the environmental impact of doing this is mind-blowing.
In the event, it'll be a question of our survival in a
changed world vs. extinction and destruction of the planet.

How we change the orbit is left as an exercise for the student. :-)
-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Shuttle launch
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:19:48 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


I usually find that if a Shuttle or other spacecraft is to launch late in
the morning on a weekday, and I have to go to work, then it's almost
impossible to find out the status until late afternoon or early evening -
the major networks usually ignore it until the evening news, and radio
news stations are erratic. Therefore, for the benefit of those who haven't
heard yet and who receive this message quickly:

Apparently the Shuttle was successfully launched this morning. (I phoned
someone who was watching at his home.) No further details at present.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:13:14 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au

Original to: Pgf@Srl03.Cacs.Usl.Edu
  pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering), wrote:

 p> That's what bothers me about all the people griping about light
pollution
 p> from the SPS's. They probably won't be much brighter than Jupiter, and
 p> in most major cities, the light pollution will be so bad you'll be lucky
 p> to see the powersats to
 begin with.

 Well, will they? I have never seen anyone give an actual magnitude
 estimate. Several popular books have them "brighter then any star or
 planet" but that all.

 Regarding current light pollution: I live  in suburban Sydney
 Australia. A reasonably large city with no real light pollution
 controls. Yet a 40 minute drive  will get me to my astronomy club's
 observatory with good dark skys. Another 2-3 hours drive will get me to
 my friends country farm with *excellent* viewing. My fear is that
 the
 sky around all the inhabitated regions will be washed out.
 ta
 Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Delta
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:38:29 GMT

In article <9207261355.AA18061@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

>There have been proposals for a heavylift Delta, which as I gather is 
>essentially a whole batch of Delta rockets (complete with boosters)
>strapped together. 

The HL Delta is six Delta first stages connected together (like what was
done for the Saturn 1B) and three SRBs. No Delta boosters are used. The
second stage is simply another Delta first stage.

>Given the wide divergence of the flame, how are the
>flames of the multiple Deltas to be prevented from interfering with one
>another

Since the Delta boosters aren't used I don't think this is a problem.

>given the way the SRBs detach, how are the ones "inside" the cluster of
>deltas going to be assured clearance so that they avoid hitting the
>structure? (I have a mental image of a huge latticework like the dome of
>the Astrodome, imbedded with widely-spaced Deltas, rising up into the sky. :-)

The spearation systems are all off the shelf. The SRBs will use the same
system as with the Shuttle.

Your mental image of the design is incorrect (I think). Imagine two Delta
first stages (without boosters) bolted together. Call that a Delta cluster.
Now imagine three Delat Clusters connected together to form a triangle.
Then put a SRB at the place where the three clusters connect. That is the
first stage. The second stage is a Delta first stage which fits inside the
triangle made in the first stage.

I'm going out of town tonight but I have some postscript drawings I can
post if ther is interest when I get back.

>Are these considered solved problems, or is that what the proposed development
>funding would be for?

I believe these where all addressed in the phase I study. I have seen some
of the drawings and it looks like they got pretty far along.

>The flight commentary also mentioned that this launch was the last to use
>this specific configuration, which has a perfect operational record. Anybody
>know what configuration is to be used in the future? (Allen, I'm hoping
>you know something about this. :-)


Sorry, the only aerospace hardware I know of with a perfect operational
record is the HAL 9000 series computers. As of July 27, 1992 they have
never made a mistake or distorted information. :-)

   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?"                               |
+----------------------270 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: U.S. Black Programs
Date: 23 Jul 92 01:59:38 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.

On 22 Jul 92 10:33:07 GMT, PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR said:

JP> On 22 Jul 92 07:16:34 GMT Andrew Palfreyman asked:

>Please would you indicate the location of this "Antelope Valley"
>location?

JP> Antelope Valley, California, 34.45 N 118.20 W, next to Edwards A.F.B.

Lancaster, Palmdale, Littlerock, Pearblossom, Antelope Acres, Lake
Los Angeles, Rosamond. 

Air Force Plant 42 is in Palmdale--home of the X-15, SR-71, B-1, B-2,
Shuttle, and a number of other aircraft, including the L-1011.

--
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
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: sci.space