HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: glp7584@tamuts.tamu.edu (Gordon Lee Powell Jr)
Subject: Re: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Space Shuttle
Keywords: get serious
Organization: ~/lib/organization
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:59:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.233223.14870@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.193327.1433@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>>               NASA should build an experimental space shuttle based on 
>>	  U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [...] "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
>>	  GENERATING A SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to
>>	  inventor Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971.

>Why NASA?  Why a Shuttle?  If this idea works as advertised, flying in
>the face of all experimental evidence so far, why not put in on
                      . . .
>Oh, angst.  Why do fruitcakes always try out their nutty ideas on NASA?

>My already-low opinion of the B.S. degree in physics has just ratcheted
>down another notch.

It looked sarcastic, or tongue-in-cheek to me.
I'm not saying UWEC is the most renowned undergraduate physics program
in the world, but I think you could cut the guy some slack.

Gordon L. Powell, Jr. '89            glp7584@zeus.tamu.edu (VMS on VAX 9000)
Aero Engr  Texas A&M Univ.           gordon@aero.tamu.edu (D. U. on S. C.)
Oh well, some people can flame in a nitrogen environment.--Les Earnest

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Ballast on Shuttle? (was Re: SRB & Mac Portable...)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:04:24 GMT

Bill Higgins writes:
#Can NASA be persuaded
#to fly, say, my teddy bear as contingency ballast?

How massive is your teaddy bear? :^)

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us (Jay Denebeim)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Space Shuttle
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:10:22 GMT
Organization: The Software Distillery
X-Newsreader: Arn V1.00 beta rel2

In article <1992Sep29.193327.1433@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> 
>                                         Robert E. McElwaine
>                                         B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

Two funny articles in one day.  Thanks Robert, I haven't laughed so hard
in weeks.

--

 |_o_o|\\
 |. o.| || The           Jay Denebeim
 | .  | ||  Software
 | o  | ||   Distillery
 |    |//        Address: UUCP:     duke!wolves!deepthot!jay
 ======                   Internet: jay@deepthot.cary.nc.us
                 BBS:(919)-460-7430      VOICE:(919)-460-6934
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Specs needed for Rocketdyne RS-27 engine (Delta launcher)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 10:52:27 GMT

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
 >I have spent a somewhat frustrating session in the library trying to
 >get information on the Rocketdyne RS-27 engine used in the core stage of the
 >Delta II launch vehicle.  So far I know:
 >
 >Propellant:        LOX/kerosene
 >Thrust:            912 kN  (unclear whether sea level or vacuum)
 >Expansion Ratio:   12:1  (up from the 8:1 of an earlier version)

The 12:1 ratio is for the RS-27A model.  8:1 is the RS-27.

 >Does anyone have a Rocketdyne brochure or other source listing:
 >Sea Level Specific Impulse
RS-27:  263 sec  
RS-27A: 255 sec  

 >Sea Level Thrust
RS-27:  207,000 lb
RS-27A: 200,000 lb  

 >Vacuum Specific Impulse
RS-27:  295 sec
RS-27A: 302 sec

 >Vacuum Thrust
RS-27:  231,700 lb
RS-27A: 237,000 lb

 >Mass
RS-27:  2,290 lb
RS-27A: 2,444 lb

 >Dimensions
RS-27:  142 / 76 in.
RS-27A: 149 / 76 in.


 >Chamber Pressure
RS-27:  700 psia
RS-27A: 700 psia

Enjoy!

-{ Dean Adams }-
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Australian space industries....
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:22:04 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au

Original to: 10706747@Eng2.Eng.Monash.Edu.Au
 1> 10706747@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (ANDREW BENNETT), via Kralizec 3:713/602

 1> Hi everyone,

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

 The National Space Society of Australia has a chapter in Melbourne.
 address: PO Box 486
          Camberwell
          Vic 3114

Ta
Ralph

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: overpopulation
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:36:30 GMT

Dani Eder writes:
"If housing construction costs drop dramatically, then what cost children."

Ahem, it's not the cost of construction (well, maybe in blessed areas
like Texas :-). Here in Germany the cost of the land (read: Lebensraum)
dominates. If the population density became greater, personal space
would become Japanese-like. Germans wouldn't accept that any better than
Americans. By the way, remember that the almost visceral desire of
German immigrants to the US was land of their own, knowing they had no
chance to get it here (mostly land-poor peasants came).

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:16:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.152152.8749@di.unipi.it> campo@sunthpi3.difi.unipi.it writes:
>Well, one of the main purposes of the Rome Treaty was to make European
>countries economies so inter-related to make war in Europe impossible.
>A union will be even better (remember that Virginia and Mariland were
>very close to war in the colonial period...)

Actually, the only thing Virginia and Maryland ever came close to was a
_trade_ war (e.g. heavily taxing each other's exports...)

                                                         Frank Crary
                                                         CU Boulder
From: tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Editorial Cartoon
Date: 3 Oct 92 16:10:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: world.BvJzL3.F1H
Distribution: usa
Organization: Me, at The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA

In article <1681@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>Who else saw the Endeavor cartoon in the 22 Sep issue of Newsweek?
>
>It was good for a laugh if nought else.

I saw.  Reminded me of the Killer Tomato jokes after the tomato seeds
were bnrought back from orbit.  I think recently SNL's Weekend Update
mentioned the same tadpoles ("..showing continued growth...") while
running Godzilla footage.

D'ya think this heightens the public's interest in space?

Tom Baker
From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Clinto and Space Funding
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:00:06 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: sci

In article <BvEMCo.2Kw.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk  
writes:
> Strange, I was under the impression that GATT broke down because  
there was a  
> refusal to end subsidies on the part of the EC. I agree that US  
could hardly do  
> better for itself than to totally end ALL farm subsidies for all  
purposes. There'd  
> be cheaper and more food for the third world. Not to mention the  
knock on effects  
> because the government:
> 	a) subsidizes farms, keeping them below market efficiency
> 	b) pays to keep food prices up and production down
> 	c) pays the poor so they can afford food at the prices caused by  
a and b
> 	d) and the taxpayer gets to pay for a - c PLUS paying more for  
groceries
> 

This is getting way off topic, but... The government these days
usually messes up farm subsidies, and many of them are
unneeded.  However, it's not as simple as "farm subsidies are
all bad and keep prices high."  This is wrong and very
short sighted.  They may keep prices high over a single year,
but the INTENT, at least, (or the original stated intent, though
I bet many Congressmen don't know this) is to stabilize the 
market long term, and thus over the long term keep the US farm
system healthy and prices reasonable.  If we ended farm
subsidies, I have no doubt prices would go down a bit in 
the short term, but we'd pay for it 10-20 years from now.  (On the
other hand, I'd agree that we should look at what farm
subsidies we are paying, since I'd bet we COULD drop a
substantial number of them.)

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:17:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Oct05.171753.21017
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

Are there any studies floating around as to how much and what kind of hardware
you'd need to deliver to the moon to establish a rudementary lunar base? It
seems like there are a lot of parts and pieces of studies, but nothing which
is packaged together, unless it's a think-tank study for "Beyond FLO."

Off the top of my head, any initial builds for a lunar base would require
the following:

	o	"construction shack" & living quarters space
	o	Caterpiller 2000+ Lunar Bulldozer (:-)
	o	Processing plant to extract O2 from lunar soil
	o	Solar furnace to melt soil for glass & construction material
	o	Power. Preferably two different means of juice for
		redudancy; solar & fuel cells if you want to be GreenPeace
		happy, nuclear otherwise. 
	o	Some food production facility.
	
After you've established and run this infrastructure for a while (year to 18
months), you could consider plans for:

	o	A smelting (?) facility to process iron and/or titanium
	o	A factory to produce solar cells on-site + antennas
		for exportable power to Earth (possibly) and for LEO/GEO
		projects (more likely?) 
	o	Mass driver (which gets its power from the solar cells built
		on-site :) to "export" processed materials.

Main problem is the initial price-tag on building and delivering hardware
on site.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: billh@orion.oscs.montana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both?
Date: 5 Oct 92 19:28:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: coe.1992Oct5.192844.6175
Organization: Physics Dept. MSU, Bozeman MT 59717


	Von Braun is clearly an interesting and key historical
figure in space flight. Has a decent biography ever been
written? (in English?)

***************************************************************
**  Bill Hiscock	billh@orion.oscs.montana.edu         **
**  Director                         (406)-994-4223          **                     **
**  Montana Space Grant Consortium   (406)-994-4452 (FAX)    **                        **
**  AJM Johnson Hall                                         **
**  Montana State University	                             **
**  Bozeman, MT 59717 U.S.A.			             **
***************************************************************
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:04:28 GMT
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering

Re: the Apollo lunar instruments  

Henry suggests that monitoring and recording the downlink from the
ALSEP transmiiters would have been barely within the capabilities
of a team of amateurs or, I suppose, university researchers.  As
opposed to a NASA/JPL/GSC type of organization.

Can anyone provide us with the downlink specifications?  Effective
Radiated Power (EIRP), frequency, type of emission...  

It would then be a simple matter to set up a link budget and
determine just what would be required in terms of a receiving setup.
 
It would have been a bit much to expect anything worthwhile to be
done by amateurs in 1977 when the ALSEPS were shut off but today would
be a much different story, I'm sure.
 
--
 
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:32:14 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.154855.12520@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>>Off the top of my head, any initial builds for a lunar base would require
>>the following:

>I've included below just the estimated launch costs for this scheme, at
>$40 million per ton to the lunar surface.

For the amounts we are talking about it would be cost effective to develop
any of several ideas which would reduce launch costs to the moon by one
to two orders of magnitude.

Therfore your launch costs are excessive so analysis based on it is
in error.

>>	o	"construction shack" & living quarters space

>Based on SSF, presumeably.  $120 billion SSF cost + Apollo...

SSF to construction only runs $30 billion. A second set for a lunar base
would run far far less. Your estimate is therefore off by at least an order
of magnitude.

Your estimate of living quarters is excessive so analysis basedon it is
in error.

Hmmm... I see a pattern here. 

It looks like there is no point analyzing Nick's post as long as he insists
on using unrealistically bad numbers for ideas he doesn't like.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------201 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: dscy@eng.cam.ac.uk (D.S.C. Yap)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Laser Space Mirror
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:14:03 GMT
Organization: cam.eng

sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>New Scientist this week (No 1841, 3 October 1992) reports that next month a
>>crewless Progress spacecraft will open a space mirror after resupplying Mir
>>at an altitude of 350 km. 

>This different from the solar sail experiment they were going to do on another
>Progress? 

Yup, I think the solar sail experiment they were planning was intended to 
test the viability of using a solar sail for attitude control.  I haven't
seen the New Scientist article or (more importantly) any pictures but
I have a suspicion that their sail/mirror design has a lot in common
with the 2m diameter test rig that I'm doing dynamic tests on in the
lab.  The company that originally got me interested in my Ph.D. topic
had some very high level discussions with the Russians about possible
collaboration, but then something happened...

It occured to me two years ago that a very large solar sail could be
used as a giant bill-board in the nighttime sky.  At $50 million
dollars (excluding launch) you'd probably get some takers and still
make a profit.  It was a silly notion (I'm sure greenpeace would
concur), but if anyone has some venture capital - I'm free come 
one year's time... :-)

BTW, cyclically periodic structures, with very high flexibilities
behave in _very_ interesting ways.  350km is too low, I can't see
their space mirror lasting very long.

Davin


          .oO tuohtiw esoht fo noitanigami eht ot gnihton evael Oo.
      Davin Yap, University Engineering Department, Cambridge, England
                       -->  dscy@eng.cam.ac.uk  <--
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins)
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 09/25/92 (Launch Day)
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL, KSC
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:37:48 GMT


Thanks for your words of encouragement. The launch was even more "exciting"
from the mission support area than it sounded on nasa select, and the
24 hours after acquisition are something I will never forget. The SC is
in better shape than any of us had hoped. Since we have spent the last
couple of months concentrating on procedures for really ugly failures, it
was great to stay on the nominal sequence of events. Oops! got to get
ready for TCM 1...
                 Steve Collins
                 AACS MO Spacecraft Team
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 05:15:39 GMT

Ron Baalke (baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov) wrote:
: The spacecraft's orbit is deteroriating, and it is expected to plunge into the
: atmosphere of Venus within a week.

What is the current operation status of Pioneer Venus? 
Would we be able to get any useful data as it enters Venus's atmosphere,
or will its method of destruction be of no real use to us?

The Wigs of Oz,
Aaron Wigley
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars Observer info?
Date: 5 Oct 92 07:09:58 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: niininen@messi.uku.fi (Kristian Niininen)

In article <niininen.718157139@messi.uku.fi>, niininen@messi (Kristian Niininen) writes:
>How big is the Mars Observer? (weight, length etc.)
>What kinds of instruments it has?   

Payload Weight                   156 kg (343 lb)
Total Weight                    2573 kg (5672 lb)
Size (launch configuration):
   Length                        1.6 m (5.0 ft)
   Width                         2.2 m (7.0 ft)
   Height                        1.1 m (3.25 ft)
Solar array                 six 183 x 219 x 9.1-centimeter (6 x 7.2 x 0.3-foot)
  (arranged in a 3 x 2 rectangle, the middle 2 panels are left folded during
   the  cruise to Mars)

There are seven science instruments:

Gamma Ray Spectrometer			(GRS)
Mars Observer Camera			(MOC)
Thermal Emission Spectrometer		(TES)
Pressure Modulator Infrared Radiometer	(PMIRR)
Mars Observer Laser Altimeter		(MOLA)
Magnetometer and Electron Reflectometer	(MAG/ER)
Mars Balloon Relay			(MBR)

(This last instrument is provided by the French, and is designed to act as a
backup relay antenna for the Russian Mars 94 and 96 missions.)

There are three 6 meter booms extending from the spacecraft.  One holds the
high gain antenna, and the other two have scientific instruments (the GRS on
one and the MAG and ER on the other).

This information is from the Mars Observer Press Kit, posted to sci.space.news
a month ago, and from the 17 August 1992 issue of Aviation Week.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nick Szabo Disinformation debunking (Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:52:00 GMT
 <1992Sep28.180424.25844@eng.umd.edu> <v1_pjal.tomk@netcom.com>
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <v1_pjal.tomk@netcom.com>, tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes...
>In article <1992Sep28.180424.25844@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>>
>>I can't believe I just read this. Eco-political considerations will keep
>>fission out of near-earth space. If you've got fusion, you've got fusion for
>>everywhere, unless I'm grossly missing something on the byproducts of a fusion
>>plant verses the neuroticism which must go into place to make sure a fission
>>plant doesn't end up in the atmosphere.
> 
>You don't _have_ fusion. For here or anywhere else.  We _may_ have
>fission drive, but just. And it's about as easy to do as colonize
>the Mariannas Trench.
> 
>Fission drive is at least understood. Fusion is Big Science's way
>to more money.
> 
Fission drive has been fully tested and flight qualified. It was abandoned
shortly thereafter. NERVA was to supplant the S III stage on the saturn V 
for Apollo twenty, upping the delivered payload to the moon to 98 tons,
from the baseline Saturn V's 48 tons. Not bad, not bad. There were 
movies of the test of the Nerva at the World Space Congress.  It was a 
completely successful full power 265 minute or hour I forget which test. Do
you remember Bill? 
d
Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MYSTERY OBJECT
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:13:45 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <6636.409.uupcb@the-matrix.com> bill.nunnelee@the-matrix.com (Bill Nunnelee) writes:
>    We would very much be interested in any other observations of this
>objects from amateur astronomers across the southeastern U.S.  If we
>could get good timings and/or positions, it should be possible to
>determine its altitude precisely and perhaps its orbit as well.  Also,
>is anyone aware of a satellite, upper stage, etc., that might have
>reentered the atmosphere at that time?

WSB-TV reported on their 11pm newscast that night that they had received
several calls from the Smyrna Ga area reporting this fireball passing
overhead. They didn't give specific times, but likely have them on
file in their caller log. They also reported that some callers reported
a bright flash on the horizon after the object passed from view. 
Impact??? No further news reports about the object have been seen here.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Von Braun -- Hero, Villain, or Both? 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:53:46 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct5.122905.6385@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>I recall reading that there was a plot to spirit von Braun out of
>Germany into England.  The plot was busted and von Braun was set
>for execution when someone whispered in the fuhrer's ear...

This sounds like a melodramatic exaggeration of something that actually
did happen...  Von Braun was arrested by the Gestapo, the charge being
basically that he was more interested in spaceflight than in helping the
war effort.  Dornberger (Von Braun's boss) got him turned loose by pointing
out that the V-2 project was blessed by Hitler himself and claiming that
von Braun was vital to it.  It appears that he didn't bother denying the
Gestapo's accusations... which were undoubtedly true.  Hitler was not
himself involved in either the arrest or the release.  I've heard of no
evidence that von Braun was interested in defecting or attempted to do so.
-- 
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