HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:53:50 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <steve.703396798@unidata.ucar.edu> steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:
>>>Even Saddam and Khadhafi have exhibited self-restraint when the
>>>alternative was suicide.
>>Uh, say what?  Just when did Saddam exhibit visible restraint?
>
>He didn't use the chemical weapons that he could have...

Last I heard, the consensus was that his chemical-missile-warhead
capabilities had simply been overestimated, and he just wasn't quite
ready to do that.  He had every reason to throw everything he had
at Israel in particular.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 12 Apr 92 13:28:51 GMT
Organization: Express Access, Greenbelt, Maryland USA

In article <ewright.702776004@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>
>
>No, somebody has to broadcast the code to plug it in.  
>

No during a failure, it is concievable that a weapon could self arm.
Satellites in geo-sync have hard kill relays so when they
get turned off there is no chance a computer failure could
restart the comm links....

>
>This is just plain silly.  Electronic authorization codes have prevented
>the accidental launch of an ICBM for more than 30 years.  No one has ever
>had to drop a grenade to prevent one from being launched, and dropping a
>hand grenade on an ICBM silo designed to survive a near miss by a thermo-
>nuclear warhead wouldn't do anything but qualify you for a psychiatric
>discharge, anyway. 
>

Wrongo.

there was an incident about 12 years back where for reasons not released
a titan missile started it's launch sequence.  the silo commander
was decorated for driving a truck on top of the sile doors
	so if the doors opened it would crush the missile.

besides if you wanted to disable a missile, youd have to wait until the
hatch opened.  course doing this may be personally unhealthy
but it would certainly disable the bird...

something like a patriot or a hawk though has   no blast
shelter and could be disabled with a few dozen rounds of fire.

>
>The moral is that it's pretty easy to package political propaganda
>up as safety concerns.  The fact that we've never had an accidental 
>ICBM launch after more than 30 years shows the safeguards are adequate.
>If they're adequate to prevent an accidental launch of a nuclear warhead
>that could kill millions, they're adequate to prevent the launch of an
>interceptor that could destroy a single Shuttle.  Gosh-wow statements
>meant to frighten and pander -- "whizzing around 100+miles up" -- not 
>withstanding.
>  
>


The moral is that the physical controls have worked.  this does not mean that
they will work in the future or that they are now unneccessary.

you sound like mollay and truly.  well if the SRBs have been successful
for 24 missions, then they should be for ever.....
Xref: sparky sci.space:7509 sci.physics:6769
From: f85-tno@nada.kth.se (Tommy Nordgren)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Moon Market Survey
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:33:47 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <10392@inews.intel.com>, bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
|> In article <LDZ1iB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
|> >How much would you be willing to pay for a small amount of moon dust?
|> >Say, a fraction of a gram.
|> 
|> Not with my life, or even a fraction of it.
|> 
|> All items brought back from the moon, even a speck of
|> moon dust, are Property of the US Government, and if
|> anyone possesses them privately they are breaking
|> Federal Law.
|> 
|> 				--Blair
|> 				  "Spit it out."
|> 				  -my favorite part of COPS!
NO-ONE neither the government or anyone else should try to stop anyone from
launching a spacecraft to get some moon rocks for himself.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: zeke@wdl50.wdl.loral.com (Solly Ezekiel)
Subject: Gravity Probe B
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:00:02 GMT

Lately, I have been hearing of a spacecraft called "gravity probe B".
Some of the tidbits of information I've been hearing about this
spacecraft are truly amazing- dozens of PhD's having been awarded
for designing/building parts for it, superconducting niobium gyros that
are the most nearly perfect spheres ever fabricated, etc. etc.

Can anyone fill me in on what this spacecraft is meant to investigate,
and when it is to be/was launched?

  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+
  | "Asps!!  Very dangerous. |               | My opinions are not those |
  |     ...You go first."    |  Sol Ezekiel  |      of my employer,      |
  |          -- Sallah       |               |    Space Systems/Loral    |
  +--------------------------+---------------+---------------------------+
From: dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Large Astronomical Project Listing (long)
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:09:17 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institut fuer Radioastronomie

In <1992Apr4.010250.28912@news.arc.nasa.gov> rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge) writes:
     
>* Very Large Telescope (VLT), an array of four 8-meter mirrors that
>will be able to work as interferometer.  Thin meniscus mirrors with
>active support much like the NTT are being cast by Schott Glassworks
>in Mainz.  First 8.4-meter diameter, 30cm thick blank cast, currently
>being smoothed and edged to have a 8.2-meter diameter, 17.5cm
>thickness, before going into the annealing oven for six months.  

An undetermined number of these mirrors have been cast within the past 15
months or so, but several of them (rumors: 2-3, officially it's a secret)
have cracked during the initial cooling. One of these was the mirror which
was cast publicly in March, 1991. But as of early April, 1992, four mirror
blanks have survived the most difficult cooling phases now, and one of
these has already been cut to the final size. These days it will be
ceramized through a thermal treatment which will turn part of the glass into
crystalline phase; this process (which doesn't carry great risks) will last
approx. 8 months. Schott expects to deliver this mirror (a picture of it can
be found on the cover of the latest ESO MESSENGER) to the French company
REOSC for polishing in mid-1992. They say that they're still on time and that
the number of lost mirrors was as expected: they cast 14 of them, with only 6
being expected to get into telescopes in the end. (Which leaves the question:
if the VLT gets 4 - who'll get the other two?)

>* The 'Deutsches Grossteleskop,' or German Large Telescope.  A
>12-meter reflector consisting of a central single 8-meter mirror and
>several 2-meter sectorial segments.  To include both active and
>adaptive optics.  Cassegrain focus will be primary data collection
>point (unlike most other projects which also have a Nasmyth focus). 
>Location and date of first light unknown. Construction time of 5-6
>years.       ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^

Most of all, the *funding* is completely unknown! Except for a few optical
astronomers here, noone really believes in this project - esp. since the
German unification eats up the science budget as well.

>* Planetary Telescope Mission.  One meter telescope which was
>initiated as US-German project but has turned into a ESA study.

No, it has not! It was one of the candidates for ESA's next medium-size
science spacecraft, but it didn't survive even the first selection round.

But otherwise the list is just great - congratulations!

+ dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de - Daniel  Fischer - p515dfi@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de +
| Max-Planck-Institut f. Radioastronomie, Auf dem Huegel 69, W-5300 Bonn 1,FRG |
+----- Enjoy the Universe - it's the only one you're likely to experience -----+
From: higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: HGA news from JPL (was Re: Gallileo Antenna)
Date: 11 Apr 92 08:21:31 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Dave, you have run off the edge of my expertise.

In article <10174@inews.intel.com>, dpeterso@mipos2.intel.com (David Peterson) writes:
> In article <1992Mar31.190834.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>partly unfolded "umbrella," so the other ribs, which have opened
>>correctly, are pulling on the three stuck ribs through the mesh
>                 -------                         ----------------
>>(corresponding to the fabric of the umbrella) which connects them all.
>>
> 	Ouch!!!! This won't damage the shape of the HGA?

All I can say is, "Let's hope not."

(JPL seems to think not.)

During the first and second stage         Bill Higgins   
flights of the vehicle, if a serious      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
irretrievable fault should occur and      HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
the deviation of the flight attitude of   HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined       SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS 
value, the attitude self-destruction
system will make the vehicle
self-destroyed. 
     --Long March 3 User's Manual
     Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985)
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:27:14 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <RHL.92Apr15081746@d62wdf.mitre.org> rhl@d62wdf.mitre.org (Roger H. Lincoln) writes:
>
>I seem to recall an episode of Nova in 1989 about the first moon
>landing where they told how the on-board computer was overloaded by
>all the incoming data and flatlined seconds before landing so that the
>pilot had to land manually.

The computer was running about 2 seconds behind and the pilot
astronaut had to take manual control to avoid landing in a
boulder field. It wasn't the computer overload per se that
required manual intervention, it was the last second determination
that the landing site wasn't suitable. If the lander had been
teleoperated, it would have crashed.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 04/09/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:11:40 GMT

In article <11356@mindlink.bc.ca>, David_Woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca (David Woodsworth) writes...
>> Ron Baalke writes:
>> 
>> UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:
>> 
>> 1.  The High Gain Antenna (HGA) motor turn-on mini-sequence was approved for
>> generation by the Project on April 9, 1992.  The HGA motor is scheduled to be
>> turned on April 29 for a duration of two seconds.
> 
>Is this actually expected to succeed in opening the antenna, or have
>controllers given up on the cooling-turns?  I thought they wouldn't even try
>using the motor for another year or two.  Is there any risk (could starting the
>moter cause it to jam again)?
> 

Turning on the motors may free the antenna, if not then at least it still
return data to better characterize the state of the stuck ribs.  The 
cooling/warming turn  campaign will still go on for several more months, if 
necessary.  The antenna release plan always included turning on the deployment 
motors a second time, and it has been determined that now is the time to do it.
The motors can be turned on and stalled for 15 minutes before any harm will 
be done, so turning them on for 2 seconds will not cause any damage to the
spacecarft or to the antenna.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | People will believe
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | anything if you whisper it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Xref: sparky sci.space:7331 sci.astro:4843
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov, Science fact and fiction writer
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:28:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T

I suppose an asteroid could be named after him, in his honor.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Art. Grav. and Space Medical Problems
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:37:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr14.134554.6343@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>What ever happened to spinning the vehicle around 2001-style?
> ...
>Wouldn't it work, though?  Why is artificial gravity never discussed?

It gets discussed a fair bit; you just haven't been paying attention. :-)

There is little need for artificial gravity in Earth orbit, except for
gravity-related research work.  Free-fall effects on humans are manageable
over periods of 6-12 months, which is about all you would want for a tour
of duty on a space station anyway, and free fall is convenient for a
number of things (notably, a lot of experiments need it).

Proposals for long-term deep-space missions, e.g. Mars missions using
low-performance propulsion, often include provisions for tying multiple
ships together and spinning the combination for artificial gravity.
Little is known about free-fall effects when spans of several years
are involved.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:47:05 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <steve.703216904@unidata.ucar.edu> steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:
>>...  So long as even the most advanced countries
>>remain defenceless against ballistic missiles, however, they will remain
>>an attractive delivery method:
>
>Even Saddam and Khadhafi have exhibited self-restraint when the
>alternative was suicide.

Uh, say what?  Just when did Saddam exhibit visible restraint?  Certainly
not when he was bombarding Israel.  The fact is, we *don't* have a credible
deterrent against such things, given the reluctance to use nuclear weapons
in response to non-nuclear attacks.

Whether a "thin" missile-defence system has to have a space-based component
is a separate question, mind you.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Cost of lunar base
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 01:56:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.162108.3498@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>It takes 372 pounds of water to make one pound of cotton, not to mention
>nitrates, phosphates, etc.

Doesn't that assume no water recycling, though?
--
This is a newer version of the memetic .signature infection.  Now that's an
idea.  Copy it into your .signature today!

Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
     INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Xref: sparky sci.space:7585 sci.space.shuttle:1193
From: lmm@cci632.cci.com (Lance Michel)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Patch collection NOT for sale
Keywords: Apollo Gemini Mercury Collection
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:36:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Consoles Incorporated



I recently purchased a complete set of NASA mission patches from 
a person who was collecting them as a hobby.  As the person and I
sat down to haggle a price, we realized that neither of us knew
what the real value of such a collection was.  Well, I guess it must
be worth what I was willing to pay, because the guy eventually agreed
on a price and sold me the set.  But now, I am left wondering what the
collection might be worth to the mass majority (maybe nothing?).

The question is: What do you feel a set of 121 patches is worth?

The set includes:

-  Every Mercury manned mission
-  Every Gemini manned mission
-  Every Apollo mission
-  1 of Each style of Apollo-Soyuz
-  Every Skylab
-  Every STS up to and including 51L
-  Several patches which were from canceled missions
-  A few patches of Apollo backup crews.  
-  One patch for each NASA center
-  One generic patch for the introduction of each program, 
   Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle.
-  A few unmanned mission patches.  Viking, Ranger? etc..
-  A few oddballs; patches which depicted names of crew members before
   they were pulled from their mission. 
And lastly, in cases where two sizes of patch were made, the set includes
a patch from each size.

Are these patches still made?
How can I get patches to bring the set up to date?
Is there some collector's reference which I can use to verify that all
patches are authentic?
I'll try not to keep you in suspense too long.  As soon as I get a few 
responses, and a feel for what the collection is worth, I'll post
the actual price I paid if you're interested.

Thanx,
 ___________________________________________________________________________
|   "Storms have come, rains wash the Earth away.        |  Lance Michel    |
|    Dark skys fall now, into another day."              |  lmm@cci632.UUCP |
|________________________________________________enya____|__________________|
          (Song stuck in my head at the moment)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.military
From: higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Subject: Post-Soviet Space: Chicago Lecture Friday
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:40:22 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Summary: D. Newkirk speaks at Wright College 10 Apr at 7 PM, room 106.
Keywords: Soviet space Mir Soyuz Energia Chicago


From higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)



[mod.note:  Followups to sci.space. - Bill ]

            The Chicago Space Frontier Society
            together with Wilbur Wright College
                         presents

                Russia's New Space Program

                      Dennis Newkirk


One of the Soviet Union's proudest achievements was its
vigorous program of space utilization and exploration.  The
future of these efforts, like so much else in the
ex-Communist world, is highly uncertain.  Dennis Newkirk,
author of the *Almanac of Soviet Manned Space Flight* (Gulf,
1990), will examine the past and future leadership and
infrastructure of the Commonwealth of Independent States. 
His topics will include:

        Secret programs of the past
        Former Soviet management and industry
        Recent changes and future projects
        Outlook for international cooperation


                   Friday, 10 April 1992
                          7:00 PM

                   Wilbur Wright College
                    3400 N. Austin Ave.
                     Chicago, Illinois

The Chicago Space Frontier Society, a chapter of the
National Space Society, is dedicated to the opening of the
space frontier.  For more information, contact Bill Higgins
at (708)293-1050 or higgins@fnal.fnal.gov.
From: steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:10:03 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>...  But those systems did work well ...

I'm afraid the independent jury's still out on Patriot.
--

Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve
From: masticol@cadenza.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:29:51 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

rhl@d62wdf.mitre.org (Roger H. Lincoln) writes:

>I seem to recall an episode of Nova in 1989 about the first moon
>landing where they told how the on-board computer was overloaded by
>all the incoming data and flatlined seconds before landing so that the
>pilot had to land manually.

The way I remember it, the on-board computer ("Luminary"?) was about
to steer the LM into a boulder, and Armstrong overrode it and landed
manually. Not the computer's fault, since it wasn't designed to avoid
collisions with big rocks.

- Steve (masticol@cs.rutgers.edu).
From: BEAUFAIT@CEBAF.GOV
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V14 #1032
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:32:00 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Wait,,, If the red shift occurs(sp) in one direction and blue in the other
and this is a product of the universe expanding in time ,that would sound like
time has a "direction". This is a little far for me to go.
From: steve@unidata.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:01:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR)

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>...  So long as even the most advanced countries
>remain defenceless against ballistic missiles, however, they will remain
>an attractive delivery method:

From the vantage point of history, it seems that MAD has been a very
good deterrent against this, otherwise, "attractive delivery method".

Even Saddam and Khadhafi have exhibited self-restraint when the
alternative was suicide.

I afraid I must agree with an earlier poster who opined that SDI/BP was
a waste of money.
--

Steve Emmerson        steve@unidata.ucar.edu        ...!ncar!unidata!steve
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hoenig@m2.dseg.ti.com (Mike Hoenig)
Subject: Re: U.S. black programs
Organization: Texas Instruments DCS, Plano, TX
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:07:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.163747.22616@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.002904.7995@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.235144.23009@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>>Of course teh A-12 which was black threw away a few billion
>>>dollars and never produced.  The A-11/SR-71 like the U-2
>>>were successes because of the people involved not the classification.
>>
>>Uh, A-12?  The original Blackbird *was* the A-12; "A-11" was another one

...au contraire...   The YF-12 and the RS-71 were two *different* versions of
the same airframe, but definitely *not* the same bird.  The YF was specifically
outfitted to carry weaponry, and the RS for Reconnaisance and Surveillance
equipment.  (Remember...the "Y" designator indicates prototYpe.)  The YF-12
never went into production, and LBJ called the RS-71 "SR-71" in error.  The
SR-71 (sic) was never meant to be an "A"-designated aircraft (A = Attack)...
it had no room for weapons stores.

There are several very good books available to verify my statements above.  I
leave the research of this matter as an exercise for the astute students among
you.

Regards from an ex-Air Force member, and admirer of "Habu"!

Mike