HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elder@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Elder)
Subject: Re: AstroCams - Where?
Followup-To: rec.models.rockets
Reply-To: elder@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Greg Elder)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:28:55 GMT

In article <Btz4Bs.C24@acsu.buffalo.edu> ztsindi@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (The Independents - SUNY Buffalo) writes:
>Howdy All,
>	One more question for the experts...Whats up with G.Harry
>Stine? Is he still involved in the field? I remember my own 
>introduction to model rockets was through one of his Handbooks that
>I found in the high school library when I was sixteen. I see that he
>still has a column in 'Analog', is he still cranking out The Handbook
>or has that been handed off to someone else? I remember it was a 
>no-nonsense kind of thing which stressed saftey on every other page
>with sentences like, '...if you like to make things blow up join the
>Army and become a Demolitions Specialist'. Excellent advice actually.
>That book was what convinced my parents I wasn't going to kill myself
>or be arrested (they had this notion that a model rocket was some
>kind of fireworks).
Yes, Mr. Stine is still involved.  He attends the meetings and launches
of the Superstition Spacemodeling Society, here in the Phoenix area.
I believe he will be giving a talk at one of our upcoming meetings.  I asked
him about a new edition of his Handbook of Model Rocketry at our last
club meeting and he said he had just signed a contract to it.  (Now he just
has to write/revise it.)


--
  Greg Elder               | 
  Dept of Computer Science |  
  Arizona State University | 
  elder@enuxha.eas.asu.edu |
From: soc1070
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Estes Replacement Policy
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:02:00 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug28.194329.21205@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, hrbob@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.e.wiersbe) writes...
>A few weeks ago an Estes D12-3 gutted my Saturn V in a beautiful pyrotechnic
>display. I mailed the motor and the guts back to Estes, and today a new Saturn V
>along with a pack of Cobra D12-3's came in the mail.  Estes has taken a lot of 
>abuse on the net recently, but I have to give them credit for their replacement
>policy. This is one thing they do right.
> 
>Hmmmm. I've done a stock Saturn V, a three stage Saturn V, guess it's time for 
>a five motor cluster Saturn V!
> 
>Bob Wiersbe	NAR# 44588	hrbob@ihlpb.att.com

They did the same thing for me about 10 years ago when a C6-5 took out the
insides of my Bandit (you remember - the one with the ducted ejection 
system, no wadding!). The said they would have replaced my kit, but,
*sigh*, another great kit was discontinued that year... but they did
send me a gift cert and a pack of motors...


Tim Harincar			"Always listen to experts.			
Central Minnesota 		They'll tell you what can't
Association of Rocketry		be done and why. Then do it."
soc1070@vx.acs.umn.edu			-Lazarus Long
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Ignition Systems
Keywords: ignition GSE launcher relay
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:53:55 GMT

In article <5834@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:

>About six years ago, not being able to find a small, cheap 12VDC PA system,
>I tried building the one that appeared in the Handbook.  I got all the parts
>except for two large transistors.  The guy at the electronics store said,
>"We could get you those, but they would be $45 each."  When I asked him 
>why, he said, "Because those are POWER transistors."  So I came away with
>the impression that all power transistors were hideously expensive.  Perhaps
>the guy lied.  Maybe the real answer was, "Because those are goddamn ANTIQUES!"

Heh,.. I wonder how big those antiques were physically.. Someone
showed me a mid-sixties op amp. It was in a plastic case about an
inch and a half square with four 1/16" diameter pins underneath.. 








-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Nike v.s. Mosquito
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:19:00 GMT

In article <BtvtLH.Kqr@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(Iskandar Taib) writes:
>Hmmm.. Is this "mosquito" the one in the Estes catalog? The
>little tiny thing with the huge fins?
>
That's the one I was refering to.  I have one that has two flights on it (1/2A
and A).  Apparently a couple of kids set an unofficial record at NARCON this
year getting a number of flights in the mid-teens off of one mosquito.  Estes
describes the lift off as 'instantaneous' - I've never seen one 'lift-off' -
I've always just seen them disappear.
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Micro Video
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:00:27 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <POPAT.92Aug28114243@image.mit.edu> popat@image.mit.edu (Kris Popat)
>writes:

>2. In the RCM Supercircuits ad, it said something like "240 lines
>noninterlaced" then went on to say "produces a standard video signal."
>What exactly does this mean?  A standard video signal *is* interlaced;
>specifically, 60 fields/sec interlaced in North America and Japan,
>with each field consisting of about 240 usable lines.  So are they
>just saying what one field's resolution is, or do they actually create
>a noninterlaced signal?

'Normal' NTSC video is 640x480 visible pixels (assuming square pixels) - NTSC
uses about 50 more lines but they don't usually carry anything that's visible
each 480 line frame consists of 2 interlaced 240 line fields (ie every other
line displayed on the screen comes from a different field). A common thing
to do with video is simply to repeat a field (for example when you convert
a 24 frame/sec film to video you need to turn 24 frames into 60 fields so
you repeat a few extra - noone ever notices).

It sounds like this piece of hardware just resends the same field again to
make a frame - it will have changed in time ... this will normally probably
look reasonable OK - when things are moving a lot you might get some wierd
aliasing problems (maybe a shimmy - imagine something moving from left to right,
in the first field it will be in it's initial position, in the next it will be
to the right and down a line, in the next to the right and up a line etc).

Now what I want in a video camera is 300 fields/sec so that I can play it
back slo-mo .... my dream is to launch a video system that includes hardware
video compression to on-board RAM - no moving parts - so I can dump out the
results when I get it back. The technology is here today to grab data at 60
fields/sec - it's a bit power hungry - with 20-30x compression you can get
something around 30Mb/minute - 10 secs of launch video will fit into
5Mbs.

	Paul


-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P

	How do you tell when George Bush is lying?
	You read his lips ...
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu (A. Roger Wilfong)
Subject: Re: Nike v.s. Mosquito
Organization: U of Michigan - Information & Networking Services
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:34:06 GMT

In article <6102@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
writes:
>In article <1SEP199221101875@vx.cis.umn.edu>, soc1070 writes:
>> Over the last 2 summers, I have put 26 flights on a Red Max that is at
>> least ten years old. Does that count for anything?
>> 
>> The other guys in my club are sick of seeing it on the rack...
>
>I still fly the same "Diet Pepsi bottle" rocket that I published plans and
>photo of in the 12/80 Model Rocketeer.  There are people sick of seeing
>THAT rocket, located all over the United States!
>-- 
>
Chris -
 
That's a great odd-roc.  I've got two (a big one and a small one) built along
your design and they're always great crowd pleasers at demos.  Model rocketeers
DO fly bottle rockets - just a little differently.
From: galenr@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Galen Raben)
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:36:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Astrocam Breakthrough
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets

In rec.models.rockets, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>>Astrocam: Hmm, Estes will not make astrocam anymore due to market
>>decision. I suppose that Estes should sell Astrocam continuously because
>>many modelers still looking for it include me! I am looking for
>>that R/C aircraft carrying 35mm/Video camera for aerophotography.

>I'd love it if someone described this AstroCam. I understand it takes
>110 film, but what lens? How is the shutter actuated? Does it replace 
>a segment of body tube and therefore is in a tubular shape? I suppose 
>it gets ejected as part of the nose cone section.... Do you advance the
>film between flight or do you have to break open the cartridge to put 
>little segments of film in the camera? (horrors!)

Yes, it does take 110 film, preferably ASA 400.  I dunno about the lens,
never payed too much attention to the specifications (someone else will
either have to answer that or I can take a better look at mine).  It is a
small cheap plastic lens though.  The camera looks out the side and a mirror
points it behind.  No it doesn't replace a segment of the body tube (at least
not without mods)...it IS the nosecone section.  The Astrocam comes with
a "booster".  The body tube size is no longer sold by Estes, so if you want
to fly it in something other than the stock rocket you will need to either
make an adapter or modify a payload section to carry it (though I've heard
of some netters finding body tubes that will fit).  Essentially the spring-
loaded shutter snaps the picture on ejection.  The shutter release is
friction-fit between the camera base and the rocket tube.  Yes, you advance
the film manually (via a thumbwheel) between flights...

Hope that helps...
- Galen -
semi-resident BAR
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets

>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>
>> Apparently not all NAR intends to work towards solving the current HP
>> bans in place, as my above note points out. And will the infighting within
>> Tripoli stop long enough for a real organizational effort to take place?
>
>> I agree, but I fear that the NAR members that hate HP...
>
>You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Good, because I've been worried about this issue since I started reading this
"notes group." In the last three months, it has become painfully obvious to
a returning rocket hobbyist such as myself that bad history exists between
NAR and Tripoli. I didn't start any such notions, I just read about them.

Since I posted that remark (purposefully), I've read more about how these
groups are now cooperating (on the DOT issue, for one) than ever before. That's
good, too. It was the anti-HP rumblings that kept me from joining NAR as I did
Tripoli. Now I think I'll re-assess that decision... 

BTW, a distributor told me of "a NAR offical" in CA blowing the whistle to the
fire marshall. I should have qualified that remark as hearsay. Your remark 
about Aerotech bending the regulations to a point of making actions like
confiscation appropriate is understandable. However, knee-jerk reactions tend 
towards overkill, and IF a "concerned hobbist" wanted to amend the situation, 
perhaps a better course of action would have been to work through his NAR
(or Tripoli, or both) organization to have THEM bring pressure to bear against
Aerotech, so that all of us didn't end up with a crippled hobby.

All these problems could have easily been forseen (and maybe they were), but
I'd like to think that my future membership dues will support organizations
that can see fundamental changes in the hobby (like reloads) as reason for
long-sighted action, both with the manufacturers and with the government
agencies, by whose blessing, we exist.

Bo Viger
Tripoli #1864
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Altitude Busters at LDRS
Date: 25 Aug 92 06:38:29 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <171g3pINNd3t@runamok.hal.COM> chuckh@hal.COM (Chuck Heron) writes:
>(This is my second try at posting this, sorry if there are two versions)
>I attended LDRS on Saturday and Sunday, and I must say, It was spectacular!
>It's now on my list of annual road trips.

That's it - next time we have to organize a netter's dinner at LDRS .... 
I only met one person from r.m.r there (but I've figured out two others 
since ...).

Next year of course LDRS wont be at Blackrock - but Aeronaut IV, Blackrock V
and probably BALLS III will (whether the last two will be at the same time
or not I don't know).

>Blackrock Desert is a great place in itself (as long as you don't mind a
>little dust.)

Check out the picture book called something like 'Blackrock - images on the
playa' - it's by the same artist who built many of the Emeryville mudflat
sculptures (in the Bay Area) and made a photo book of them - it's full of
wierd people doing wierd things on that great flat desert - it also describes
the annual Blackrock Open - the last winner was almost disqualified but his
opponents couldn't find any reference in the (non-existant) rules about having
a dead rock star as a golf partner ....

At labor weekend a whole group of pagans will be going up to burn
a giant wicker man - suposedly to burn up all their sins - if you think that
LDRS is the biggest thing that happens to Gerlach - there are twice as many of
them than there were us .... I guess Bruno's has two busy seasons ... :-)

	Paul

-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P

	How do you tell when George Bush is lying?
	You read his lips ...
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: snouty@cix.compulink.co.uk (Phil South)
Subject: Supercircuits
Reply-To: snouty@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:23:22 +0000


Somebody mentioned Supercircuits Super 8 video transmitter and
reciever earlier in this newsgroup. The phone number was mentioned
and the area was Austin, Texas. But in case anyone's interested
here's the address:

Supercircuits
13015 Debarr Drive
Austin
TX 78729

fone: (512) 335-9777
faxx: (512) 335-1925

and according to the geezer on the phone they now do a PAL version as 
well as an NTSC version. I've just GOT to have one!

Phil

ACME Space Model Association

NAR (no. in the post)

 ============================================================
 Phil South                  | aka. "Snouty"
 FONE: +44 373 836889        | Freelance Writer
 snouty@compulink.co.uk      |===============================
 uad1135@dircon.com.UUCP     | No job too big, no FEE too big
 ============================================================

Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Ignition Systems
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:29:26 GMT

In article <560@rml.UUCP> jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes:
>
>What both of you seem to be describing is (are?) the modular op-amps
>like the type used in old analog computers circa 1955.  I took one of
>the last analog computer classes at Berkeley (1975) and the insides of
>those beasts were packed with hundreds of little octal-socketed boxes like
>that, all glowing in the dark. 
>
>The lab tech responsible for keeping them running (commercial parts 
>sources had long since disappeared) had a dozen or so of them on his 
>work bench at any one time, rebuilding them as the tubes and other 
>components burned out.
>
No.  You're talking about tubes (heater, cathode, grid(s), and plate were the
internal parts).  Were talking about hybrid circuits.  Each of the OP amps in
the analog computer your talking was made up from several tubes - keeping them
all from drifting took considerable maintenance.  What we were decribing were
early hybrid circuits.  They were made up from transistors and later small
scale integrated circuits and enclosed on tube housings - usually 8 pin bases.

BTW the last Eniac (a tube-type digital computer) in comercial use was replaced
sometime in the mid 70's.  It was replaced with a PDP-11 and I think Edison
gave them money back because they could take a power plant off line. :-) 
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets,rec.models.rc
From: m14494@mwvm.mitre.org (Mike White)
Subject: Re: Astrocam
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:23:12 GMT

Iskandar Taib writes:
> >>Using a Polaroid, I presume...!

> Or build a little compartment to catch the photos?

Just such a system is available for scuba divers; an underwater
housing for a Polaroid SX-70 (or maybe it's the Spectra) that
has a compartment to catch the exposed pix.

************************
* These are my opinions only.*
************************
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Ignition Systems
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:59:03 GMT

lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) writes:
: I was recently shocked to discover that several lines of guitar
: amplifiers still use tubes exclusively. Hard to believe...

So do some "golden ears" high fidelity amps. They even run them in
Class A mode.  As you say, hard to believe. But then, I have seen
these people pay $1000+ for a phono cartridge. 

Bill
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Where did my rocket go??
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:37:24 GMT

Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu writes:
: 
: Flame on -
: 
: My beef against Aerotech.
:  
: 1)  What give these turkeys the right to jeopardize the hobby by selling
: products to the unsuspecting public with instructions that 'interpert' the
: federal law differently from the interpertation that has been commonly accepted
: for 25-30 years?  I'm refering specifically to the insert that came in my
: Initiator kit that said in so many words that when flown with an F or G, the
: rocket was too heavy to fly without a waiver. Basicall what the insert says is:
: 'Even though the rocket is too heavy for the FAA to consider it a model rocket
: covered under FAR 101, don't worry about it.  You're only going to be breaking
: the law for a few seconds, until the propellant is burned up - then the
: Initiator will again be a model rocket.'  BULL.  FAR 101 say: '16 oz lift-off
: weight' - if it ain't a model rocket when it lifts off, it ain't a model
: rocket!  The ethics of this insert are questionable.  If Aerotech wants to work
: to change the FARs, great.  I'm all for it.  But, encouraging the unsuspecting
: to ignore the FARs is deliberately risking bringing the FAA down on the entire
: hobby!

I don't recall the wording to be quite like that - but, I agree that it is
misleading. I also believe that Aerotech is doing a disservice to the hobby
by making such statements.

Re-interpreting the regs for their convenience, counter to conventional
use is also performing a disservice.

... deleted ...

: No having said that, I'll make my position on reloads clear.  In my limited
: experience with them, they appear to be the single biggest improvement in the
: hobby in 20 years (perhaps since Carlson invented the hobby).  At the bare
: minimum, they rank up there with the invention of 'Mabel' (I hope I got the
: name right) and the introduction of composites.  Again from my limited
: experience, they seem to be at least as safe as conventional single use motors.

They seem to be safer - at least, before they are loaded in the casing. No
problem with differential expansion causing cracked grain caused by heat
cycling of the propellant.  At least, that is what the initial results of
some tests I am running indicate.

Bill
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
From: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu
Subject: Re: Scale rocket competition
Organization: U of M Hospitals
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:27:17 GMT

In article <BtnIps.GCA@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(Iskandar Taib) writes:
>
>Oho! I wonder if these would also be acceptable as a Jetex 
>substitute on old Free Flight designs. Unless they produce
>_no_ thrust  9-)
>
Nil, zip, zero, zilch.  3" of thermalite probably has more impulse.  Although
I haven't tried it, I suspect that an FX motor might manage to push it self off
of my 6mm piston - but that's about it.
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Ignition Systems
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:44:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.182926.20594@med.umich.edu> Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu writes:

>BTW the last Eniac (a tube-type digital computer) in comercial use was replaced
>sometime in the mid 70's.  It was replaced with a PDP-11 and I think Edison
>gave them money back because they could take a power plant off line. :-) 

Hmmmm.. I wonder how many Eniac's were built. I just knew of the 
one from 1945 or so...




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !
From: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com (Buzz McDermott)
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: Ignition Systems
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:47:44 GMT
Organization: NEC America, Radio Software Dept

In article <Bu0H5E.B2I@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug28.182926.20594@med.umich.edu> Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu writes:
|> 
|> >BTW the last Eniac (a tube-type digital computer) in comercial use was replaced
|> >sometime in the mid 70's.  It was replaced with a PDP-11 and I think Edison
|> >gave them money back because they could take a power plant off line. :-) 
|> 
|> Hmmmm.. I wonder how many Eniac's were built. I just knew of the 
|> one from 1945 or so...

Are you sure this was an ENIAC?  I do recall a DATAMATION article (in the
spring of '76, I think...I remember the date 'cause it was my senior year
and all...) about the last IBM 650 to be taken off line.  This was supposed 
to be the last all-tube commercial computer in use.  It was a rather 
interesting article.  The fact that I remember most about the story was when
the old IBM SE described the diagnostic procedure for fixing the thing:
turn off all the lights and replace any tubes that don't glow!!  Well, that's
what he said in the article, anyway!

It was replaced with some type of much smaller computer system (I don't recall
which type).  Mention was also made of the fact that the economic justification
for replacing the 650 included the fact that the money saved in power consump-
tion alone paid for the basic lease price of the new computer!

============================================================================
Buzz McDermott                   Internet: buzz@rsd.dl.nec.com
============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets