HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: faught@berserk.ssc.gov (Ed Faught)
Subject: Re: Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
Reply-To: faught@berserk.ssc.gov
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:21:28 GMT

In article <C0qy7z.qI.1@cs.cmu.edu>  writes:

>inside liquid helium at 6 atm. pressure, 4% of the antiprotons
>live several microseconds. If the helium is "contaminated" with a
>small amount of hydrogen (0.04 %) this time is divided by about 10.

Having a limited education in cryogenics is hampering my understanding of this  
phenomenon. I understood that helium cannot exist in liquid state at 6 Atm. I  
can't see how one may "contaminate" it, either. Would someone kindly enlighten  
me? ( in layman's terms, if possible )
--
Ed Faught  WA9WDM  faught@berserk.ssc.gov
 Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 01/08/93
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:53:00 GMT

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                        MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                             January 8, 1993
                               1:30 PM PST

The spacecraft is in Array Normal Spin and continues to perform as
expected. Teams are continuing to study the Attitude Control Subsystem
miscompared star problem.

Downlink is via the HGA (High Gain Antenna) at 2 kilobits per second.
Uplink is at 125 bps using the LGA (Low Gain Antenna). HGA calibration
activities were completed last evening.  Those calibrations indicate
HGA performance to be nominal.

With completion of C5 B as scheduled at 7:00 PM last evening, no flight
sequences are currently active.  This is to provide a ten day window to
allow upload of a new Flight Software build.

Teams are preparing Flight Software Build 7.1.1 for uplink on January 13
though 15.  Build 7.1.1 contains changes to AACS (Attitude and Articulation
Control Subsystem) Fault Protection logic determined to be necessary by
the Spacecraft Team.  These changes are not related to the Celestial
Sensor Assembly miscompared star situation.

The next Flight Sequence, C6 B (necessary C6 A activities were moved
into C5 B) is scheduled to go active on January 18.

Ka Band Link Experiment (KaBLE) activities have begun and are scheduled
to take place daily through January 12.  There are additional KaBLE
opportunities projected for January 16 and 17.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst)
Subject: Re: fiber optic cable
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:33:11 GMT

In article <C0ozH8.4p4.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: Mark.Perew@p201.f208.n103.z1.fidonet.org
>-Subject: Fiber optic umbilical
>-Date: 4 Jan 93 15:30:14 GMT
>
>-Putting a fiber optic umbilical on a remote sensing platform designed to
>-traverse rough terrain seems very odd to me.  Can someone explain to me why 
>-this was done?  A few things come to mind such as eliminating the weight
>-required for a radio and associated power supply.  Also the fiber optic does
>-allow for high reliability and high speed data transfer.
>
>-I'm *not* throwing stones at the Dante folks.  I'm just doing some head
>-scratching and hoping someone will explain this to me.
>
>Well, one thing for sure - plans for an Earth-Mars fiber optic link
>will have to be scrapped. :-)
>
>I can imagine the Dante team trying to straighten out the cable by hand,
>and that tiny, heartbreaking "snap" (or maybe they didn't hear anything
>at all). Commercial fiber optic cable is great in stationary applications,
>but it's too easy to stretch it or bend it beyond the radius of curvature
>limits. The people who install our fiber optic links put up warning signs
>with a drawing of a hangman's noose, implying what will happen to anybody
>who tries to move the equipment. :-)
>
>Does anybody (the phone companies or the military, for instance) use 
>fiber optic cable that's stiff enough to reduce the risk of breaking?
>
	Speaking to a friend in Pittsburgh who is apparently
acquainted with one of the students on the Dante team this weekend,
she commented that they had apparently had an intermittent glitch in
the fiber cable before they went to Antarctica (N.B., while likely,
this is still 2nd hand quasi-rumor).  The cable supplier apparently
tested the assembly and claimed to find no problem.  So, the flaw may
have existed all along, and progressed to a complete break in field
condition.
	Actually, fibers can be quite rugged.  Isn't there a new
version of one of the wire-guided anti-tank missiles that uses a fiber
instead of copper, to reduce weight and increase range?  Is it
operational?  The key is to make a cable that is not stiff, I would
guess.

-- 

Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:47:20 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <1992Dec31.182405.7430@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) 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. 
>
>Gary, I refer you to my recent posting where I compared DC costs to 
>Shuttle costs. I encoumbered DC with development costs but not Shuttle.
>I doubled DC's DDT&E, production and operations costs. It still came up
>a winner.
>
>Nobody is saying it will be a piece of cake. Are you saying that a factor
>of two isn't enough to cover the risk? If not, then what's your point?

Yeah, I'm saying a factor of two isn't enough to cover the likely 
stretchout in the development timeline as problems appear. I said
in the other post that realistic numbers based on other new spacecraft
development programs would be a tripling of MacDD's projected base costs 
and a tripling of their projected development timeline. That would still 
be cheaper than the monsterous delays and costs of Shuttle development.
I think *everyone* agrees that the Shuttle development program was about
as badly managed as is possible while still getting a working system in
the end. Even if that system is mostly bandaids on top of bandaids that
have to be torn down and inspected after every flight. At least it flys.
I think comparisons to new airliner construction, such as the references 
to the progression of the 7xx series, is bogus because SSTO is attempting 
something no other craft has ever done, with an engineering tean that has 
no experience with similar reusable spacecraft to draw on. I don't expect 
them to make major mistakes, like mounting the engines upside down, as 
happened in a California nuclear power plant, but I do expect them to be 
bitten by numerous smaller gotchas as the program progresses. Each of those 
will cause schedule slips and additional development time.

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
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:02:56 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Distribution: sci
 <1992Dec30.180058.28938@cs.rochester.edu>
 <ewright.725755862@convex.convex.com>
 <1992Dec31.015157.14864@cs.rochester.edu>
 <ewright.725820847@convex.convex.com> <93002.220235SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
 <ewright.726166318@convex.convex.com>

In article <ewright.726166318@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V.
Wright) says:
>
>In <93002.220235SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
>writes:
>
>>What I understood Bruce to be proposing/discussing was the idea of
>>building a bottom stage for a DC-1 for those occaisons when a 'heavy'
>>payload needed launch.  (Heavy - either something that grosses out
>>long before it bulks out the cargo bay, or something that is going
>>higher than LEO on one launch (for whatever reason)).
>
>I understood that too.  Perhaps you did not understand what I meant
>when I said, if there are enough heavy cargoes to justify a new
>vehicle, it would be more cost-effective to build a larger SSTO
>than a two-stage kludge?

Rather depends on how many heavy cargoes there are, doesn't it?

As I understand it, the point to an SSTO is to make expendables
non-cost effective.  So there *won't* be another vehicle fairly
soon after DC-1's get flying in numbers if they work as advertised.

If there's one or two heavy cargoes a year, Bruce's quick and simple
second stage might make a great deal more sense than scaling up
an SSTO design by a factor of five, which I would expect to be quite
difficult, since it's a complete re-design and probably needs new
engines.

A company with three or four bottom stages could happily specialize
in lifting other people's DC-1s with heavy cargos (land your DC-1
next to their stacking facility after its last trip up) and make
decent money at it if there were enough cargoes ('enough' quantified
after someone does a real design study for the thing and provides
some numbers for things that need to go up in one piece and weigh
between 10 and 50 tons.)

Why would you expect the design effort for a factor five scale up
to be less expensive?

Graydon
From: redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:28:21 GMT
Organization: Lysator ACC at Linkoping University

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>        The most likely thing that we are going to want in large quantities
>in orbit is propellant.  For example, a Mars expedition using conventional
>chemical propulsion might require something like 5000 tons initial mass in
>orbit, most of which is LOX and LH2.  To transfer 50 tons of LOX and LH2 to
>orbit in a DC-1 using a lower stage,
Wouldent it be a much smaller technical risk if one built 10 more DC-1
wehicels instead and stream lined the fuel flights?
It ought to be cheaper but I havent got reliable figurs.
I think it makes sence to use standard DC-1 wehicels for simple high volume
cargo until there is enough flights to justify a gas gun that launches
smal cannisters for a much lover cost per kilogram to orbit.

--
--
Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
Mail: Magnus redin, Rydsv{gen 240C26, 582 51 LINK|PING, SWEDEN
Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (Answering machine) and (0)120 13706
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: Orbital elements of junk in space wanted
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 15:30:35 GMT

>|I'm looking for a '2-line orbital elements list' of junk, i.e. deceased
>|satellites, rocket-bodies and other debris that is still in orbit.
>|I have one very old list, but where could I get a list that is up to
>|date? (I don't know from where I got the list I have)
>|
>Two-line orbital elements for **every unclassified object in orbit**
>are available on the Reports and Information Dissemination Remote
>Bulletin Board System by modem. Phone (301) 306-0010.
>-- 
>Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131

Sorry Bruce, thanks for playing.  Seeing how _I_ work with the entire
satcat on a daily basis, I must inform you that the Unclass elsets that are
found at this BBS cannot be the entire list.  That's right, you are not
allowed to know about ALL the Unclass birds (or pieces thereof).  For 
example, a piece of (or whole for that matter) R/B of a Class sat can
sometimes be classified as Unclass.  However, with a little bit of work, I
can find out the Classified payload's elset by looking at the R/B's orbit.
Simple.  Also, there are a number of Unclass rekkie birds out there...but
with a little history file, you can easily find out where it was looking
at at a certain time (especially if we maneuvered it over to get a better
shot).

HOWEVER!  Most pieces of space debris are legit Unclass objects with no
interest to anyone save the debris community (my guys).  Therefore, 
(no exact figures allowed, sorry) "a large majority" of debris pieces are
probably at the above site (which I imagine gets its info from NASA...which
is where the best civilian (public domain) Unclass satcat can be found).
I highly doubt it is the same satcat I get that is pumped out of the Mountain.

Note to all!  The more people studying orbital debris, the better.  It is
a real problem, but without more public support, the issue will not become
"important" until a satellite gets clobbered.

			Enjoy,
					Fuzzy.
==============================================================================
_ __/|       | Lt. David "Fuzzy" Wells | "There's always an easy solution to
\'o.O'       |    HQ AFSPACECOM/CNA    |  every human problem...           
=(___)=      |    Space Debris Guru    |       ...neat, plausible, and wrong." 
   U  ...ack!| wdwells@esprit.uccs.edu |                      H.L. MENCKEN
==============================================================================

BTW: I cannot give out Unclass elset files except to government agencies via
a written request.  Even this is subject to approval.  Sorry.  I highly
recommend using NASA's satcat (found at your favorite astro BBS or ftp site).
 
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 01/05/93
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:58:00 GMT

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

                  MARS OBSERVER MISSION STATUS
                         January 5, 1993

     The Mars Observer spacecraft is being prepared for the outer
cruise flight sequence.  Adjustments to point the high-gain
antenna directly at the sun are continuing through Jan. 6, 1993,
at which time the antenna will be powered on to begin receiving
and sending engineering and science data.

     The spacecraft team reports that all spacecraft subsystems
and instruments are performing well.  The camera "bakeout" to
prepare the instrument for operation will continue through Jan.
14, followed by a focusing test on Jan. 18. 

     Today the spacecraft is about 43 million kilometers (27
million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 36,000
kilometers per hour (23,000 miles per hour) relative to Earth. 
The spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
97,000 kilometers (61,000 miles per hour).  One-way light time is
approximately 128 seconds.

                             #####  
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cheap Mars Rocks (was Re: Moon Dust For Sale)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:50:51 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan8.200623.18874@cc.uow.edu.au> gkm@cc.uow.edu.au (Glen K Moore) writes:
>>... I think I'll wait until a *large* lunar meteorite drops down
>>somwhere...
>
>Why not go out and buy a tektite? Even cheaper!

Because tektites probably aren't of lunar origin.  That was a pre-Apollo
theory.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: U.S. Government funding
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:29:00 GMT

In article <1iaeeuINN7kq@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn) writes:
>
>I think [selling moon rocks] is a GREAT idea and that NASA should
>market MORE space items to help finance its budget.  Whats [sic] the approx
>cost per pound of moon rocks anyhow?

NASA is part of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government.  As such,
it receives its funding from the U.S. Congress.  Under the U.S. Code,
NASA can't engage in this kind of fund-raising efforts, nor can it sell
advertising on rockets, hold bake sales, or even accept volunteer labor
from corporations (several of which have offered free services to the
under-funded Space Exploration Initiative).  NASA gets what funding
Congress allows it and no more.  And that funding is not enough to get
us "back to the moon... this time to stay."  If you have a problem with
that, write your Congresscritter.  

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "...back to the moon, back to the future,
      and, this time, back to stay." -- George Bush
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:51:14 GMT

In article <ewright.726254206@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <C0Cu9q.Bz9@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>>What they don't tell you in the textbooks is that although Pert charts
>>were indeed invented for Polaris, they *weren't* used to manage it --
>>they were used to intimidate assorted Washington kibitzers, keeping
>>them at arms length from the people who actually ran the project
>>(in the traditional way, using competence and judgement rather than
>>Pert charts).
>
>Doesn't surprise me.  From my experience, that seems to be the 
>main way they're still used today.

The Pert chart is a tool of the competent and experienced manager
that allows him to visualize the potential bottlenecks in his
schedule, and to track his project's progress to make sure he
isn't slipping badly because of a subassembly with development
problems. Competent managers don't have to use this tool any more
than they have to use spreadsheets, but it does make the job
easier to use the proper tool. Really competent management, like
the Japanese with their just in time methods, depend on Pert
charts, or their equivalents, to spot potential trouble in their
programs before it impacts their schedule. Trying to carry the
schedule of a complex project in your head almost always results
in some tiny but vital part of the program being overlooked until
it's too late.

Gary

I can't believe I'm giving free management seminars here. I should
be getting paid for this. :-)
-- 
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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:21:08 GMT

In article <2B40B0AD.5877@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman):
>>                        Tzu-Pei Chen
>>"The design of AUSROC II was in many ways too "positive". [...]
>>Obviously, greater testing of each component may have shown up some
>>of these problems earlier.  This simply highlights the very limited
>>resources with which the group currently works.
>
>What an obvious straw man, Gary!  You picked an underfunded project,
>which by simple lack of money was _forced_ into a schedule that
>allowed for little unit testing.  You then use its almost inevitable
>failure as a bludgen to beat up the well-funded DC-1 program.
>
>For shame.

DC-1 is well funded? Last I heard MacDD hadn't found *any* sugardaddy
to fund it *at all*. They've latched onto some SDIO money to fund
DC-X, but that's just an atmospheric test article, not a SSTO vehicle.
Their strawman paper budgets for an eventual DC-Y prototype and follow
on DC-1 production vehicle are underfunded by historic standards of
new spacecraft development programs. No actual money has been allocated
for either proposal.

For shame indeed.

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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: launcher costs by type of economy
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:34:54 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan4.152349.10512@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>Well, Gary, some of us have the theory that free societies are 
>>more efficient than "command economies."
>
>Then our launchers should be cheaper than theirs...

Gary, are you really suggesting that "our" launchers are built by free
enterprise?  The Western launcher industry *is* a command economy!  Some
35 years after it began operation, the very first private-venture launchers
are just starting to appear... and they're not coming from the mainstream
launcher industry.

I agree that, other things being equal (an important precondition!), free
societies are more efficient than command economies.  Nobody has yet tried
building a space program on free enterprise.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Delta Clipper
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:28:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.135902.6980@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan9.170808.18376@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>the DC-Y goals are 20,000 pounds to LEO (10K to polar) with an operational..
>
>>I think we need to be a bit more specific about *which* LEO we are
>>talking about. 
>
>I disagree. The point is that it decreases cost by one to two orders
>of magnitude. If it takes two flights, so what? It's still a hell
>of a lot cheaper than anything on the market.

You answered too quick. If you'd read a little further, what I wanted
to know was *how high* is the LEO they are talking about. The difference
between say 100 nm and 150 nm is important for payload comparison
purposes.

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
Xref: sparky sci.space:19137 sci.astro:13848 sci.anthropology:1712 rec.arts.sf.science:4048