HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:40:32 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>You're being silly. If you're going to treat the nuke as "just another
>weapon" you don't need the Clancyesque plot. Just nuke the friggin' carrier
>and be done with it. It's only full-scale war, after all, right Ed? 

Well, Tom Clancy at least understands the technology and how it works.

Just finding a carrier at sea, let alone hitting it, is not easy.
Don't believe everything Dan Rather tells you.  It's a moving
target, which will probably move out of the target area between
the time you launch your ballistic missile and the time the warhead
lands.

Hitting a satellite is almost trivial by comparison.



>It is not for nothing DARPA has a love with microsats and ways to get them
>quickly into orbit. And what DARPA is doing is in the sunshine. 

Microsats are incapable of replacing photorecon satellites.  The
laws of physics prevent it.  To get adequate resolution, you need
a large mirror (or large radar).  Black programs use the same laws
of physics as everybody else.



>Of course. So why did we get the UN to rubber stamp it first? C'mon Ed, 
>stop helping me out here. We really didn't NEED to get the UN's blessing, 
>did we?

Of course we didn't.  The United States has gone to war numerous
times in the past.  It has never needed permission of the United
Nations before.  It was George Bush who set that (dangerous) precendent.



>>Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
>>*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.

>Prevent a degree of hostile acts. Why didn't the Iraqis use chemical weapons
>against allied forces in Desert Storm? 

Not because he was afraid someone would say something bad about
him at a UN cocktail party.

Hint: the people who planned the initial airstrikes were not
complete idiots.
From: lordSnooty@cup.portal.com (Andrew - Palfreyman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: UPCOMING on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 93 14:44:01 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Perhaps, instead of a radio show, you should hold a Fair.

I for one would definitely attend if the rides were 
reasonably priced and the craft stayed under 7 gees.
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| lord snooty @the giant |  inceptus clamor frustratur hiantes             |
| poisoned electric head |              andrew_-_palfreyman@cup.portal.com |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:35:23 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <ewright.725820266@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec31.004513.12224@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>You misrepresent my position. All I'm saying is that new systems are
>>rarely as cheap and easy in metal as they are on paper. 
>
>You're setting up another strawman, Gary.  No one ever said that
>building launch vehicles was cheap or easy.  If it was, teenagers
>would be building them in the family garage.

Talk about strawmen!

>IMHO, anyone, in any industry, who believes a million dollars is 
>a small amount of money deserves a pink slip.

Sadly, a million just doesn't go as far as it used to. That's one
payroll for a modest 300 employee service operation. It'd keep GM
or AT&T in postage for a week. And the Federal government would 
go through it in 23 seconds. Keeping track of the pennies is a good
plan, but not if you lose sight of the real money in the process. It's
far too easy to be penny wise and pound foolish. I'd much prefer an
employee who grasps return on investment strategies and rough order
of magnitude profit/loss estimates than one who counts paper clips.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC vs. Shuttle capabilities
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:13:13 GMT

In article <C0B93G.Ksx.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

\4. The servicing goals and rapid turnaround requirements of the vehicle
/are doable on paper, but have been held out as very risky by an
\independent study.

>An independent study which apparently had an axe to grind of its own,
>if you're talking about the TAC study.

If he is referring to the TAC assessment, there are even more problems.

TAC examined Max Hunters SSX design, not DC. Their main complaint about
turnaround was the active cooling being used in the Thermal Protection
System (TPS). They felt (with good reason) that the complex tubes and
pumps needed for this would make access difficult.

However, since DC doesn't use active cooling, most of the TAC complaints
regarding maintenance are moot.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: future space travel
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:46:53 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

In article <19463@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:

>Who needs a gravity well (otherwise known as planet)?  The entire solar
>system could be colonized.  All you really need is raw materials and energy,
>and those exist in convenient packages out in the solar system.
>Do you have to have a planet under you just because your parents did?  Let
>your imagination roam...  :)

While it's fun to let imagination roam, I don't think it necessarily 
follows that all dreams translate into reality.

Imagineers (Gerard O'Neill, Robert Forward, and many others), can create
an interesting universe on paper, but I wonder which of their musings 
will come to pass.  I don't question their expertise in matters related to 
physical law and engineering practice.  However, I do question the stated 
economics of the plans of an Imagineer.   

The Imagineer is a salesman, and as such, underestimates costs for projects.
And because the dreams of an Imagineer cost billions of dollars to even 
start, he has to involve himself and others in the political process, that
grand arena of diminished truthfulness.  

-rabjab

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soviet space disaster?
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:06:22 GMT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: marks@iris.mincom.oz.au (Mark Stavar)

In article <4121@iris.mincom.oz.au>, marks@iris (Mark Stavar) writes:
>I recall reading that at some point earlyish in the Russian space
>programme that there was a retro mis-fire on one of their missions.
>This lead to the unfortunate situation of the space craft in question
>flying off directly into the sun.  The story mentioned something about
>the wife of the cosmonaut in question being in radio contact with him
>up to the very end.

Wow.  Given the delta-V requirement to cause a spacecraft in earth orbit to go
"flying off directly into the sun", this report has to be mistaken.

The first Soviet orbital test of the Vostok spacecraft (variously called
Sputnik 4 or Korabl Sputnik 1) was intended to demonstrate the spacecraft's
performance in orbit as well as test its retrofire system.  According to the
launch announcement, it did not have a heat shield, and so would be destroyed
by its encounter with the atmosphere after retrofire.  In the actual event, KS1
was aligned almost exactly 180 degrees out of position for retrofire, so the
retrofire had the effect of boosting it into a higher orbit, from which it
eventually decayed months later.

I have read reports that Komarov on Soyuz 1 had a farewell message for his wife
before his ultimately fatal reentry, but I have no way of knowing whether or
not this is true.  It's the kind of thing that tends to get reported even if it isn't
true.

The tale you report sounds like it could have its basis in those two incidents.

>I have no hard material evidence with which to back up this story - it
>may be plain wrong.

That would be my guess.

(I have received email from Ken Schmahl which says that near the end of
_Spycatcher_ there is a report of a Soviet cosmonaut being stranded in orbit
and transmitting for hours before dying.  My first impression is that this
sounds a lot like the other unreputable reports I have read, but since I think
this source is supposed to be more reliable than average, I'm going to give it
a look).
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Date: 10 Jan 93 14:24:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0n6pG.7v4.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
-Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
-Date: 2 Jan 93 20:35:31 GMT
-Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

-0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw) writes:

-> How's liquid Al going to work in the combustion chamber?
->
-> --forming fine droplets will require a new injector plate--how did that
-> work for the Li-F rocket Bruce mentioned?  What kind of surface tension
-> does LAl have?  How small would we have to get the droplets to be?

-Depending on the reaction chamber and throat material and conditions, it
-might be possible to use ultrasonics to break the aluminum into fine
-droplets.

-Hmmm, I vaguely that there are ways to make ultrasonic "whistles".  I don't
-know if this could be applied to the injection system, but if it could, it
-would at least not require an electrical power source.  It does sound complex
-though; hopefully existing injection technology will produce droplets of
-sufficiently small size.

There's a diagram on the wall in the building where I work, depicting the
formation of metallic powders. A narrow stream of liquid metal is injected
into a chamber, along with several intersecting high-speed jets of inert gas.
The physics of interacting jets causes turbulence which tears the stream
of metal apart. First the liquid metal breaks up into streamers, several
times as long as they are wide, then the streamers break up into individual
droplets, which eventually solidify.

The first part of this process could be used to form a fine mist of liquid
aluminum, presumably using oxygen instead of inert gas. The metal and gas
are introduced through different openings, which should help to prevent
buildup of oxide on the injectors.

If you want a more advanced reusable engine, you probably need to bring
along a supply of inert gas to blow the molten aluminum out of the
injectors as part of the shutdown process.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 06:18:51 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan9.030346.9714@ptdcs2.intel.com> greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason ~) writes:

>>The "extreme mass ratio" is an aerospace legend.  We've been
>>building vehicles with similar mass ratios for the last 30
>>years.  The Shuttle external tank has the right mass.  So
>>did the Saturn S-IVB stage.

>I would love to see some convincing evidence of this, as this is the
>key risk to SSTO in my opinion -- If I get sold of this, I'll try to 
>convince my Congresscritter.

So, contact the National Technical Information Service, get
the reports on Saturn Applications Single-Stage-to_Orbit,
Chrysler SERV, etc., and read them.


>1) A thermal protection system, capable of surviving multiple reentries
>   (many) suitable for reuse.  On previous vehicles, this is ablative and
>   non reusable, or (on Shuttle), heavy and only marginally reusable.

Nonsense.  The first US ICBM warhead (Atlas) used a nonablative copper
heat shield.  Copper's too heavy for SSTO, but there are many newer
refractory metals that would work just fine.  The problem is not that
there's no TPS available, it' choosing from among several alternatives.



Xref: sparky sci.space:19182 sci.astro:13876 alt.sci.planetary:513
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
Date: 12 Jan 1993 06:45 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Keywords: Mars Observer, JPL
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <C0o43w.J4L@well.sf.ca.us>, collins@well.sf.ca.us (Steve Collins) writes...
> 
>KaBLE is an engineering experiment to evaluate using Ka band to communicate
>to deep space spacecraft. It can potentially support much higher data rates
>than the X-band we currently use on MO. I don't know much about the details,
>but the transponder on MO can receive and return the signal under the
>right circumstances. There is a short window where we are on the High gain
>antenna but are close enough to have the link-margin to do the experiment.

Because of the higher data rates that can be provided with Ka band, it 
will be used in future deep space missions such as Cassini.  Mars Observer 
simulates Ka band by multiplying its X-band frequency by a factor of 4.  
Currently, there is only one antenna in the Deep Space Network that can receive
Ka band, DSS-13 in Goldstone.  The signal is received at DSS-13 and then
relayed to DSS-14 for analysis.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: peipyy@robots (PETER YASUDA)
Subject: Re: Space List Flame Wars
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Goddard Space Flight Center - Robotics Lab
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:18:00 GMT

In article <C0BGzz.1FA.1@cs.cmu.edu>, 
pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes...

>\I subscribed to this list in order to try to inform myself about the latest 
>/news about US and other coutnries' space programs.  I thought that this would 
>\be a list of technical discussions, not a religious debate that has turned 
>/into ad hominem attacks and flame wars as virulent as any I've seen in the 
>\religious news groups.  Then I see things like this, from Herman Rubin:

(excerpts of rantings deleted)

>1. Henry Spencer's little excerpt isn't political ranting but a
>   good summary of the facts. If you don't think so, you need to
>   look at the background of the COPOUS Treaty.

Great!  Let's degenerate this thread into a flame war on what 
constitutes ranting.


>2. Currently our space programs are run mainly by the government,
    ...(unrelated stuff deleted)
>   of the situation." The people trying to push this off into
>   other newsgroups, which are accesible neither for posting
>   nor reading purposes to much of the internet population, are
    ...(more deleted)

OK, if the problem is that some people don't have access to the other
newsgroups suggested by the originator of this thread, I suggest
either of the following solutions:

1.  Move the offending threads to a new newsgroup (sci.space.advocacy)
    or create a sci.space.news or sci.space.dispassionate.discussion.

2.  Use meaningful subject lines.

The latter would be good practice with or without the former.  It
would be a lot easier to sift through postings if the subject lines
reflected the actual topic.  For (just one) example, the "Re: Latest 
Pegasus news?" thread managed to stay on the topic for about two
postings before turning into the same discussion that seems to occupy
half the threads in this newsgroup.

Would it be too much trouble to change the subject line once a thread
has moved off to an entirely new topic?

Changing "Terminal velocity of..." to "Stupid Shut Cost arguements..."
is an excellent example of what I'd like to see.
From: rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: is the Lunar Society real?
Date: 7 Jan 93 19:11:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0I044.3n0.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Randall Tyers <tyersome@toxic> writes
>   Subject: Question:How Long Until Privately Funded Space Colonization
    In response to this question, a group called the Lunar Society appears
    to be interested funding space colonization.  I would like to know
    whether they are for real.  Does anyone know if this group is
    legitimate and whether they have any chance of reaching their stated
    goals?

and reprises the original LS announcement asking for support.

I sent them a $25 check in August (enough to get the newsletter), and
haven't heard a peep from them.  They haven't cashed the check though.
Perhaps they're just slow.

Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: 7 Jan 93 03:31:18 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <ewright.726345157@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan5.211253.20530@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>>It is my understanding that since the post-Challenger return to flight,
>>NASA has been forbidden to fly commercial stuff on the shuttle. Am I
>>wrong?
>
>Yes, those restrictions have been relaxed, though not removed
>entirely.  Remember the Intelsat salvage mission?  

Subject beaten to death last year, no further comment. :)

>>Is NASA doing that?  On any scale bigger than small, occasional excess
>>capacity?  If so, I agree it's playing games with its charter.
>
>It's certainly tried.  The original plan for the TDRS system
>called for at least one on-orbit spare, which would be leased
>to a private company for commercial service until/unless NASA
>needed it.  This never happened because NASA had trouble just
>launching enough TDRS satellites for a minimal constellation.

If all goes well next week, they'll have excess capacity aplenty.
Given the current state of the comsat industry, putting that excess
capacity on the commercial market could very well be called unfair
competition.  Stay tuned.

>>As for NASA hiring its own flight crew, constructing its own
>>communications facilities and in general operating the shuttle system
>>on its own instead of contracting out the whole works, I don't see any
>>inherent problem with that.  Just like I don't hire Tektronix to
>>operate my oscilloscope in the lab.  
>
>There is some difference between operating an oscilloscope
>and operating an airline.  At least six orders of magnitude
>worth.

But the airlines do not contract out their operations.  They procure
planes, and fly them, just like NASA buys shuttles and operates them.
It's certainly proper, legal, and it's not clear to me that doing
otherwise would be beneficial.

> And I don't think you actively try to put other people
>out of the oscilloscope business, do you?

No, my allocation of taxpayer's money is way too small. :-)



-- 
Francois Yergeau (yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca) |  De gustibus et coloribus
Centre d'Optique, Photonique et Laser    |  non disputandum
Departement de Physique                  |          -proverbe scolastique
Universite Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, Canada    |
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: averting doom
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:29:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0Dutu.C9s.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: len@math.nwu.edu (Len Evens)
-Subject: Re: averting doom
-Date: 5 Jan 93 00:21:23 GMT
-Organization: Dept of Math, Northwestern Univ

-> In article <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
-> >from a U.P. story
-> >
-> >	     WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Life on Earth as we know it will
-> >     come to an end in 1,500 million years and the planet will
-> >     look more like its dusty, volcanic sister Venus in 2,500
-> >     million years, scientists said Wednesday.
-...
-Unfortunately, this may confuse people about the issue of global
-warming which is something which may radically affect human societies
-in the next several generations and which we may be able to do
-something about.

-Leonard Evens      len@math.nwu.edu      708-491-5537
-Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

The local "conservative" newspaper made this exact claim. All the complaints
made by those wicked liberals concerning CO2 emissions and the warming of
the Earth over the next 50-200 years are irrelevant, because the slow-acting
natural forces will cause CO2 levels to be seriously depleted over the
next 100-200 *million* years. :-)

Actually, I'm not as sure as some people about the exact extent of global
warming from current CO2 emissions, and I suspect that return to "natural"
CO2 levels might take as little as a century or two following cessation of
current emissions rates. But we *do* seem to be producing CO2 faster than
natural systems can absorb it at the moment, and trying to put trends that
act over hundreds of millions of years into the context of what will happen
over the next few centuries (dismissed as a "little blip") is silly.

Another factor to consider - the major mechanism proposed for CO2 absorption
is the biologically-controlled feedback mechanism that tends to regulate
temperatures by reducing the levels of the greenhouse gas CO2 as the sun
heats up (Tommy Mac would call it "Gaia"). If at some distant future time
humans were to override the natural system by introducing large quantities
of CO2 to keep the plants alive, they would also override the temperature
regulation feature - and in the absence of technical solutions like huge 
orbiting mirrors, the increased heat output of the sun together with the
increased CO2 levels would accelerate the heating process.

If humans are still around 50-100 million years from now and can't think
of any clever solutions with tens of millions of years to think about the
problem, that will be a truly pitiful state of affairs.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space