HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:21:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.215514.22336@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

> There are many useful things to do with petroleum products other
> than produce energy -- they are useful as lubricants and are needed
> for the production of plastics and other petrochemicals.

They aren't *needed* for plastics, although they are currently the
cheapest feedstock.  We could make plastics out of any carbon source,
given energy and cleverness (we already know how to, just not
competitively).  I suspect our descendants will have sufficiently
better catalysts and cheap enough energy that petroleum would not be
of interest.

>>Powersats as usually described can't hack it as the primary energy
>>source for earth, since there's not enough room in GEO.  They'd have

> What does this mean?  Are you implying that powersats would be as restricted
> as comsats in "orbital slot" width?  Why?

I believe the problem was with shading during the equinoxes.  One
solution would be to make the individual powersats larger, with
multiple transmitters.  I don't know how big you can make them before
tides get too strong.


> There are reasons to think that a lunar surface-based solar power 
> infrastructure could be considerably cheaper than GEO powersats, due to
> the lack of a requirement to develop a very large-scale lunar surface-
> to-GEO transportation infrastructure for delivery of lunar raw materials
> for powersat manufacture.

I was wondering if someone would mention this.  This idea loses the
advantages of GEO powersats: ability to supply any site on earth
continuously, and the ability to keep the receiver in direct sunlight
at all times.  The first problem can be gotten around with orbital
reflectors, but that brings back the orbital debris problem (and makes
the transmission paths even longer).

Perhaps a better solution would be to use laser transmission from very
large orbits, perhaps using radiation pressure to keep the stations in
positions from which any debris is rapidly removed.  But laser
transmission has its own problems.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Overly "success" oriented program causes failure
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:22:08 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1993Jan4.164516.10926@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>I gave an example of a "success" oriented program that went sour
>for the typical reason. If you want a megaprogram that came in on
>schedule and on budget despite thousands of engineering change
>orders during development, I'll point you to GM's Saturn line
>of automobiles. A less grandiose development program would be



[ Stuff Deleted]

Actually,  GM's Saturn is a success, only if you read the PR stuff.
Remember,  Saturn was proposed in 1980,  they didn't start selling
cars until 1990.  It cost over 5 billion dollars in capital to set up.
The vehicle is strictly equivalent to an average Japanese Sedan.

Now in this 10 year time period,  GM's market share has fallen 50%.
They've lost billions on the books,  tens of thousands of workers
have lost their jobs.  GM has given enormous management bonuses.

Saturn slipped budget and schedule, based on initial projections,  
they just re-estimated.  Also, in the same time,  the japanese cranked
out 4 new model cycles.  the saturn car is now 3 years old, is there
a plan for a new product, or will it take 10 years for another one.

I am sorry,  saturn is just too much like Shuttle for me.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 20:52:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.144516.20330@cam-orl.co.uk> dg@cam-orl.co.uk (Dave Garnett) writes:
>Peering at a cut-away drawing of the Lunar Module the other day
>I noticed what appears to be a Radioisotope Thermal Generator
>mounted on the outside low down.
>
>Was this intended to power some experiment - I don't think
>that they generate very much power (order 80 watts ?)
>

Yes.  It powered the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package (ALSEP).

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:17:00 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 <72827@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>    As Gary and I pointed out, Pegasus really started slipping after
>    maiden flight... about eighteen months between flights 2 and 3, to
>    be precise. That DC-X has slipped little prior to maiden flight is
>    a good sign, but hardly justifies such smugness. 

Well, after the first Pegasus flight, they had to build another one.
Not because it failed, but because it worked.  Unless something 
catastrophic happens on the first test flight, you won't have to
build another DC-X before the second one.

 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: foreign partnerships was(Re: How many flights are Orbiters) 
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:11:29 GMT

In article <ewright.726167217@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan2.171539.9059@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>>DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the
>>proof of concept vehicle.
>
>If we can get *someone* to fund the proof-of-concept vehicle.  DoD
>may still have the deepest pockets around, but I certainly hope
>McDAC is looking at other sources also.  Perhaps the Japanese
>would be interested in a joint partnership.  It's too bad the
>Delta Clipper wasn't started several years ago when McDonnell Douglas
>was healthy enough to finance such a project itself.

Interesting street rumor reported on the business report of NBC Sunrise
program this morning. Apparently, Boeing is negotiating a partnership
with a Japanese and a German firm to underwrite the development of the
next generation widebody airliner, reportedly seats 600. The report
indicated that even Boeing isn't healthy enough to risk going it alone
on that one, and the US airlines are too strapped to place speculative
orders. If Boeing can't fund a new widebody, MacDD is in deep doo 
with DC without a deep pocketed partner to back them. With Clinton/Gore
in charge, DOD is going to be too busy doing environmental cleanups of
the bases they're going to be closing to fund DC, and all those DOD
people and contractor people laid off in the cutbacks are going to be
busy learning which end of a shovel to hold while building Clinton's
road and bridge projects, or training to be medical orderlies in his
national health care program. Maybe MacDD should give the Sultan of Brunei 
a call.

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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:51:12 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 <1993Jan04.205508.23361@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>Not to mention the EMP problems you'd cause for commercial sats and (possibly)
>electronics on the ground.... It would be bad. 

Not necessarily.  At least, not if you plan for it.

Consider this scenario.  You have a battle fleet somewhere in the
Pacific Ocean.  Your enemy has a battle fleet somewhere in the
Pacific Ocean.  Both fleets are looking for one another.  Your
enemy also has a satellite, which will pass overhead shortly, 
telling him exactly where you are.

Shortly before the satellite gets within detection range of
your fleet, you launch an SLBM, taking out your enemy's nice,
new, expensive satellite.  Both fleets get hit by EMP, but you
are prepared because you know it's coming.  Your enemy isn't
expecting it.  Worse, he has all his planes sitting out, exposed,
on the flight deck, waiting to launch when the satellite gives
him targeting information.  If you're lucky, you've taken out
all his AEW.  This puts you in a very good position....


 












Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 00:39:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.726192136@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>> Most engineering *is* paperwork, or workstation work today. Otherwise
>>> it's just tinkering on a wing and a prayer. You have to bend metal to
>>> *test* your engineering, but bending metal *isn't* engineering. It's
>>> fabrication done by tradesmen.
>
>Wait a minute, I never wrote that! That was Gary Coffman!

Not everyone is anal-retentive enough to waste bandwidth on keeping
every single one of those tedious attribution lines; some of us expect
people to have the sense to look at the ">" nesting depth too! :-)

>>I think engineering must consider how something is to be made.  The
>>most elegant design is useless if it can't be manufactured.  
>>Knowledge of what can be made is obtained by bending metal, or
>>at least by interacting with those who do.
>
>Indeed, G. Harry Stine has an article on this very subject in
>the current Analog.

Moreover, there is a deeper issue here.  Yes, having the engineers out
of tune with metal-bending is a bad thing when the objective is to
manufacture something.  It's worse, though, when they're trying to
*develop* something.

Gary's comments (the >>> above) are squarely in the NASA mold:  if you
do it right on paper, it will work the first time (although of course
you test it just in case).  Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work
that way, as witness any number of NASA projects that *didn't* work
the first time.  Real-world development involves *finding out* what
works and what doesn't... and you cannot do that on paper.  You have
to test things *during* the engineering, not just afterward.

Note, you have to put reasonable efforts into trying to build the best
you can, or you're just wasting time with your tests.  (One of the
problems found in investigation of the early Ranger program was that
if you expect the first attempts to fail, nobody tries very hard to
make them succeed.)  But sensible engineers -- which includes Gary,
actually, based on his accomplishments rather than on how he claims
to have done them :-) -- know that the first prototype is most unlikely
to be identical with the successful final product.  Successful
engineering includes bending metal and watching it break. :-)

Whether the bending is done by the engineer himself or by a technician
is irrelevant (except insofar as the engineer needs to understand how
it's done); what matters is that the engineer is involved, because
getting that metal bent and seeing how well it works is part of his job.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:02:52 GMT
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden

In article <1993Jan9.043932.11081@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
>"There appears to be only one weak link in the whole enterprise: no one has 
>yet found isolated free quarks!"

[...]

>At present, theorists conjecture that quarks are confined in colourless 
>clusters (hadrons) but this has not been *proved*.  It seems possible that
>free quarks may exist.

Possible, but *extremely* unlikely. Basically *all* experimental
evidence points toward confinement; there are only a handful of
experiments that seem to indicate free quarks, but so far none of
these have been repeated. 

And as a QCD theorist, I strongly object to the word "conjecture"
above; even though it's not been proved yet, confinement is _much_
more than mere conjecture. 

What is more interesting is the possibility of having charged,
meta-stable particles of more exotic kinds, such as "strangelets"
(colour-neutral lumps of large number of s quarks), supersymmetric
particles, and so on.

The word meta-stable means that the particles don't really have to be
stable to catalyze fusion. I don't know the latest status of
muon-catalyzed fusion, but muons may be just long-lived enought to do
it. 

              Magnus Olsson                | \e+      /_
    Department of Theoretical Physics      |  \  Z   / q
        University of Lund, Sweden         |   >----<           
 magnus@thep.lu.se, thepmo@seldc52.bitnet  |  /      \===== g
PGP key available via finger or on request | /e-      \q
Xref: sparky sci.space:19041 sci.aeronautics:2707
From: hagadorn@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Thomas Hagadorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: Subjective Safety Measure(Re: man-rating)
Date: 8 Jan 93 17:23:14 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity

In article <1993Jan7.204434.16621@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|In article <1993Jan7.181829.13714@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
|>The rating of transportation system safety by fatalities per 
|>passenger mile always struck me as bogus.  Subjectively, what
|>matters is the probability of exit.  That is if I climb in and
|
|In that case, the probability of exit can be made as low as you want, for an
|automobile, by stopping along the way.  (The risk of dying on the trip stays

  Actually, I believe replacing passenger-miles with passenger-hours is
a more appropriate metric, however, I think the airline industry still 
beats the automotive here as well (someone with source to the numbers 
might like to check).
Xref: sparky sci.space:19151 sci.astro:13858 alt.sci.planetary:509
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Magellan Update - 01/11/93
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:51 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Keywords: Magellan, JPL
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                         MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            January 11, 1993

1.  The Magellan spacecraft continues to operate normally, orbiting
Venus 50 times per week and transmitting a carrier signal (plus X-band
telemetry) which is precisely tracked by the DSN (Deep Space Network)
stations to extract gravity data.

2.  Temperatures remain in the expected range.  Bay 7 which contains
the CDS (Command Data Subsystem), is at 46 degrees C with a cycle depth
of 4 degrees.  Transmitter B is at 49.2 degrees with a variation of 0.7
degrees.

3.  Attitude control continues to be precise.  All starcals (star
calibrations) over the weekend were successful with only one partial scan.

4.  Magellan has completed 6523 orbits; 887 so far in Cycle-4 which
will end on May 25, 1993.

5.  Following the end of Cycle-4, the Magellan mission will begin a
"Transition Experiment" in which the periapsis will be intentionally
lowered to allow the atmospheric drag to slow the spacecraft's
velocity.  This aerobraking maneuver will enable the mission planners
to circularize the orbit and gather high-resolution gravity data
closer to the poles of Venus.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:26:49 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 <1993Jan5.212935.21012@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Having design engineers apprentice on
>the shop floor for a few years *before* they get to design a product
>would do a world of good for our manufacturing sector. It certainly
>has for the Japanese and old school Germans.

You mean like that horrid know-nothing, Wernher von Braun? ;-)

Xref: sparky sci.space:19143 sci.astro:13854 alt.sci.planetary:507 comp.robotics:2857 sci.geo.geology:2708
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: I want to be a space cadet
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:31:01 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

I saw 2001 A Space Odyssey the other night and I started to get the
feeling that if I didn't get into space, I would die!

I heard that the Air Farce now has a space command- is there now a 
service academy like Annapolis where I can be a space cadet?

-rabjab
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:59:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <J85swB3w165w@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca> lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper) writes:
>> Building the ramscoop itself is the easy part (difficult though it is).
>> Getting the hydrogen to *do* something useful, once collected, is hard.
>> Using it as reaction mass for an antimatter-powered jet engine is going
>> to be much easier than trying to burn it raw.
>
>Ah, but that would defeat the entire purpose of the ramjet itself!

No, not really.  Getting reaction mass from the interstellar medium is
still a *lot* better than having to carry it yourself.  This is, after
all, how existing jet engines work.  It's not as good as the ideal of
cruising forever without a fuel tank, but it still could be very useful,
and it's much more practical.

>...carrying around a mass of fuel equal to what you are going to tak 
>in in the scoop...

Nope, note that I said "reaction mass".  Until you start getting up to
relativistic speeds, much the most efficient way to use antimatter is
to heat a large quantity of reaction mass with a small quantity of
antimatter.

>... How's a carbon-catalyzed 
>reaction sound for getting there (except at the lower end, where we'll 
>have to use some conventional engine to attain a speed at which THAT 
>reaction is possible)?

The problem with sneaky reactions to get around the glacially slow
fusion rate of ordinary hydrogen is "why doesn't that happen in stars?".
The mere fact that stars (which do contain carbon) are billions of years
old indicates that carbon alone is not going to solve your problems.  To
get a reaction many orders of magnitude faster than the natural ones,
you must use conditions or catalysts which do *not* occur in nature.

Incidentally, to avoid running into the fabled ramscoop speed limit,
you must *not* use an engine design that converts all the kinetic energy
of the incoming gas into heat.  Otherwise your thrust will drop to zero
when the incoming gas temperature reaches the exhaust temperature of
your fusion reaction.  As with chemical jet engines, kinetic heating
of the gas stream is your *enemy*, not your friend, because the reaction
you're using for power produces a fixed final temperature, not a fixed
temperature rise.  The simplest way around this is the Bussard equivalent
of the scramjet:  don't slow the gas down much, just heat it as it goes
past.  Alas, this has the same sort of problem that scramjets do:  to
make a relativistic-combustion ramjet work, whatever heating reaction you
use must be fast FAST *FAST*, because it must happen within microseconds
at the very most.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:18897 sci.astro:13731
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Keywords: U.S. Government funding
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:45:10 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1993Jan5.211231.5031@aio.jsc.nasa.gov| tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
|
|I'm just guessing on my figures, but wasn't 500 lbs of moon rock and dust 
|brought back from the moon? And didn't the entire Moon program cost around
|$67 billion? I think that puts the moon dust/rocks at about $134,000,000 a 
|pound! But as Ken says, it ain't fer sale by Nasa.
|
A total of 842 pounds of rock and soil.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Los Angeles space events
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 06 Jan 93  19:49:56

         OASIS, a chapter of the National Space Society 
                       Schedule of Events 
                          Winter, 1993 
                 Call 310/364-2290 for updates
-
January 9 (Saturday) 7pm: Reception for special guest: space
artist and raconteur Christopher Butler will present a review
of: "1992 - the Year in Space". Also invited: special mystery
guest. Location: 3136 E. Yorba Linda Blvd., #G14, Cedar Glen
Apts., Fullerton.
-
January 30 (Saturday) 7pm: "Galileo at Earth: Even Better the
Second Time Around", presented by Robert Gounley, Engineer,
Project Galileo. To be held at the Von Karmann Auditorium, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena.
-
February 12-13: CalSEDS '93: The CSDC Annual Conference. To be
held at the Pasadena Hilton Hotel.
-
February 20 (Saturday) 7pm:  Chapter meeting with invited JPL
project engineer.  To be held at 293 E. Ohio Street, #1,
Pasadena. 
-
March 13 (Saturday), 7pm: Chapter meeting. Special guest to be
announced. To be held at 3525 Sawtelle Blvd., #210, (Western)
Los Angeles.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space