HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 00:20:29 GMT

In article <1iibakINNic6@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>
>But, let me ask (since I don't know the specifics): how well did the
>Skylab toilet work and what does the new $23M Shuttle toilet do that
>the Skylab didn't do?
>
>There is also a reference to the Gemini program in this thread, what did
>they do?
>

Gemini (and Apollo) used a suction hose to collect urine (which was then
dumped overboard) and fecal collection bags for "solid matter".  Fecal
collection bags are hard to use in free-fall so they came with a plastic
glove called the "shit mitt" to help... well, you get the idea.  When
all was said and done, a tablet of bactericide was inserted into the 
bag which was then closed.  The astronaut was then required to knead the
bag to evenly distribute the bactericide amongst the solid matter. 
 
The astronauts like dumping the urine overboard (it froze into tiny
ice crytals which Schirra dubbed the constellation Urinus) but *hated*
the fecal collection bags for obvious reasons.
From: higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Anti-atoms (was Re: Making Antimatter)
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:08:55 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnala.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan9.095853.2229@pollux.lu.se>, magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.192720.1@fnalnl.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalnl.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>> H. Poth and collaborators have done work on
>>antiprotonic atoms, where a negative antiproton orbits a positive
>>nucleus for a short time (it's a nice probe of nuclear physics).  
> 
> And to clarify a little: "A short time" in this context is very short
> indeed. I don't know the lifetime for an antiproton-proton system, but
> the analogous electron-positron system, the positronium "atom", only
> lives for about a microsecond before the electron and positron
> annihilate each other.

I was vague because I was in a hurry.  Looking at the reference more
carefully (H. Poth, "Antiprotonic, Hyperonic, and Antihydrogen Atoms,"
*Proceedings of the First Workshop on Antimatter Physics at Low
Energy*, Fermilab, 1986-- it may not be the definitive source of
information, but had the advantage of being on the shelf in my
office), I see that Poth says the delay between capture of a p-bar
into an atomic orbit and its annihilation is less than 1E-10 seconds
in most solids and liquids.

> NOTE: I'm *not* dismissing antimatter as an energy source for
> spaceships. I'm only saying that it will take a very long time before
> it becomes even remotely practical.

"A very long time" in this context is more than a few microseconds. 
These physicists are so addicted to their jargon!

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dherity@cs.tcd.ie (Herity D.)
Subject: Re: Aerospike Engines... what are they?
Organization: Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:44:26 GMT

MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes:

>In an spike nozzle the opposite takes place and the gas flow is directed 
>inward from an annulus at some diameter away from the centerline.  This 
>flow is directly exposed to ambient pressure and its expansion is thus 
>directly coupled to the external environment (continuous altitude 
>compensation with no moving parts).

As I understand it, the exhaust is confined between the spike and the
external airflow. So how can it work in a vacuum ? Can it ?
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------|"Nothing travels   |
| Dominic Herity,  dherity@cs.tcd.ie,                      |faster than light, |
|Computer Science Dept, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland.|except possibly bad|
| Tel : +353-1-6772941 ext 1720 Fax : +353-1-6772204       |news"-Douglas Adams|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 23:23:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1993Jan4.180947.20495@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that
>there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV.

> It should also be
>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.

They didn't study the latter possibility. 

And if you're going to be a tightwad, why don't we just contract out launch
services to the Russians, for that matter? It would save us all that money
for integrating Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan, and obviously would be much cheaper
to pay Russian engineers than American ones....


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a research tool)
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:07:39 GMT
Organization: Universite Laval, Quebec

In article <1993Jan7.180422.3473@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.161638.6125@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:
>
>>>Commercial launch services cost the government 30% to 50% less then when
>>>government buys and operates the system itself. It is therefore very clear
>>>that doing otherwise would be very beneficial.
>
>>This has never been demonstrated for manned spaceflight, but may very
>>well be.  
>
>So what is so special about human space flight?

The market, for one thing.  Spin off shuttle to the private sector, and
you're likely to get at most one provider, and one buyer (NASA).  Not
my idea of a free, competitive market where cost savings could be
realized.  By contrast, the commercial launch market has many buyers
and a few more or less subsidized sellers, so there's competition,
incentive to invest, etc.

>Do you actually believe that Shuttle is the best that can be done?

No!  Where did you get this idea?

>>But didn't I read not long ago that MacDD would not operate DC?  Who would?
>
>I understand that American Airlines has indicated some interest. Why
>not them?

Why not, indeed.  Do I get 26000 frequent flyer miles for each orbit? :)

-- 
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    |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:55:23 GMT

In article <ewright.725665121@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec24.022440.27944@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Only the US and the former USSR have demonstrated knocking out orbital
>>satellites. Those other nations have the ability to achieve precision
>>orbits, so they should be able to do the same, but they haven't attempted
>>to do so.
>
>Achieving a precise orbit is not necessary to knock out a low-orbit
>satellite.  All of the nuclear powers have ballistic missiles capable
>of lofting a warhead to orbital altitude, if not into orbit.  Detonating
>a small nuke in the general vicinity of a satellite, at the right
>altitude, would do the job.

Technically possible, but militarily dangerous. You've just escalated
a brushfire conventional war into a nuclear exchange.

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
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 17:51:03 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan4.154842.13841@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
  <1993Jan4.180947.20495@iti.org>

>In article <1993Jan4.154842.13841@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mec
h
>.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:
>
>>       If men are part of the payload, the Shuttle is (currently) the
>>only way to fly!
>
>I think if you consult the Russians they can show you the error in
>this statement.
>
>BTW, the team evaluating Soyuz has finished its work. They concluded that
>there is no reason Soyuz couldn't be used as ACRV. It should also be
>possible to use Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan for US manned space.
>
>    Allen

    Excellent news about Soyuz ACRV, but even considering Shuttle
    launch costs, it seems cheaper to launch by Shuttle or Russian
    booster instead of Titan or Atlas. Neither is man-rated, and
    neither has existing facilities for manned launches. Atlas-Centaur
    has never been man-rated, and after Challenger, it would be
    difficult to man-rate the Titan SRMs. Let's send the two Soyuz up
    on one Shuttle if we decide to not let the Russians deliver.
    
    If it is your contention to replace Shuttle with Atlas-Soyuz, that's
    another matter. I think it would cost too much to reconstruct Atlas
    manned launch facilities for just two or three launches per year,
    and I think manned Titan III/IV is now a pipedream.
    
    -Brian
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space:19232 sci.astro:13910 alt.sci.planetary:523
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:16:26 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
Keywords: U.S. Government funding

In article <1993Jan7.063900.1070@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.183139.3779@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>think there was just a BIT more to it than that.  Using the same
>>logic, one could say that we paid $67 billion to develop Tang.
>
>And worth every penny. Yum, yum. :-) :-)


Gee, gary

	If you like that stuff, you are sicker then i thought :-)



.
From: dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Allen Markley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Delta Clipper
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:31:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.cfHN0fO00WCqA8a2NW
Organization: Systems Group 98, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I know this may have already flown by on the net, but I'll ask it anyway:

Does anyone have the design goals for the Delta Clipper program?
Specifically I'd like to know what performance they hope to acheive and
by when.

Thanks for any info,

++David

markley+@cmu.edu
N3N?? (T+55 days since the exam)
++David

Computing Services
markley+@cmu.edu
(412)268-7816
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:51:58 GMT
Distribution: sci
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 <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?
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Lunar bill press kit
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 12 Jan 93  08:56:46

       Info Kits for Back to the Moon bill Available
-
Informational kits for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act (also
known as the 'Back to the Moon bill') will be available on January
28. Anyone wishing a copy of the info packet, please e-mail your
snail mail address.
-
The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act, to be introduced in the 103rd
Congress, will jump start the U.S. lunar exploration program by 
authorizing the government to purchase lunar science data from the 
private sector.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:18:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.045416.15301@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>I've had people tell me that the media doesn't cover the space program very
>much because people aren't interested.
>
>But here's somethin to think about: did people lose interest and the media
>reduced it's coverage in response, or did the media cut back coverage and then
>convince people that they weren't interested in it?

After the first Apollo landing, TV ratings for space coverage dropped
sharply. The media took their cue from that. It's only climbed into
the top 50 *once* after that, that was the launch after Challenger.

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: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:30:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.165057.3965@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>In article <C0IADo.B1p@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> The radiation hazard from plutonium 238 is insignificant; it's pretty much
>> a pure alpha emitter, and human skin stops alpha particles completely.  (A
>> sheet of paper will do likewise.)  You don't want to eat the stuff, but so
>> long as it stays put, no sweat.
>
>Somewhere in the recesses of my mind lies a memory of a scientist
>who offered to eat some plutonium if the journalist covering the
>event would eat the same amount of caffeine.  No takers, obviously,
>but does this mean that it would be safe to eat plutonium?  If it's
>inert it should be passed in due course with only the mucus coating
>the alimentary canal getting irradiated.
>

Edward Teller.  The problem with Pu-238 is long term exposure.  You
don't want to breathe in particulate plutonium and let it sit in your
lungs.  I think it was Feyman who describes holding a sphere of
plutonium in his hands and how warm it was due to alpha emissions.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 22:11:11 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <STEINLY.93Jan11183327@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>
>I'm coming in late on this thread, but consider why NASA operates its
>own fleet of aircraft rather than lease them for all purposes.
>In particular do people contend that say the Kuiper Observatory
>should be put on a AA flight rather than a NASA owned Starlifter?

Depends...mostly on whether our lawyers or their lawyers are better.

AA *will* object to the body work.  :}






-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk (Chris Marriott)
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP *** 
Distribution: world
Organization: None
Reply-To: chris@chrism.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:49:09 +0000

In article <1993Jan7.124608.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov writes:

>In article <C0GH9C.DA@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>Does a Bussard ramjet work *at all* below seriously relativistic
>velocities?  
>
>Seems to me below some large speed, which I recall as
>something much bigger than .5c, you don't gather enough interstellar
>hydrogen to keep things stoked.  Admittedly I remember details rather
>fuzzily, and don't know how to apply them to the "ram-augmented
>interstellar rocket" Henry is talking about. 
>

I don't remember now *where* I read it, but I seem to recall that a
Bussard Ramjet starts working at speed around about 450km/sec.  Although
this is an order of magnitude beyond the speeds of current space vehicles,
it's certainly not unreachable eg, with ion drives.
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
| Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
| (Still awaiting inspiration              | CIX: cmarriott              |
|  for a witty .sig .... )                 | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:32:24 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 <1993Jan06.171601.10077@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>It's time for the periodic reality check:

>	A) Alan will fight for Freedom and favor it over renting space
>	   on Mir, yet Freedom has yet to be launched. Mir Exists. 

>	B) Alan will fight to shut down the 4 Shuttles, a multibillion
>	   dollar program ) and replace them with a
>	   Soyuz sitting on a U.S. booster. Which hasn't been launched, but
>  	   with a few hand-waving tricks, manages to respark the whole
>	   U.S. aerospace industry. 

>What is wrong with this picture? 


Actually, there's a certain logic to that.  As long as NASA continues
to operate the Shuttle as a "national space transportation system,"
it will continue to wage guerilla warfare against anyone else who seeks
to get into the launch business.

On the other hand, there is no space-station business, so Freedom
doesn't compete with anybody yet.  And although Freedom will cost
ten times what it should, it will return some benefits.  And if 
NASA focuses its attention on Freedom, it will have less time to
spend defending its sacred cow, the Shuttle, against potential
competition. 

You may agree or disagree with these reasons, but there's nothing
inconsistent.





Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:24:21 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.171213.11272@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)  
writes:
> In article <ewright.725666125@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.

I can't let this go by.  This is a common attitude in America.  It
leads to low pay for production engineers and inefficient production
methods etc. etc.  Result is the current economic morass with most 
production going overseas.  

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.

This probably has nothing to do with space.  But then maybe it
has a lot to do with why no really new space rocket designs have 
come out in the last 30 years except for the star-crossed shuttle.
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC reentry
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:49:02 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 <C0pIL6.BwF@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Um, it may have shared a certain amount of design heritage with missile
>warhead, but I'm pretty sure it does *not* share the trajectory, since
>an ICBM-warhead trajectory involves retaining very high velocity down
>almost to the ground.  (A certain amount of deceleration is inevitable
>in thick low-altitude air.)  A spacecraft, e.g. DC, does almost all of
>its decelerating at very high altitudes where the heat load is modest.

The heat load, remember, is the integral of the heating rate.   
Gradual reentry is a two-edged sword.  The heating *rate* may
be lower, but you're travelling through the atmosphere for a
longer period of time, so the total heat soak is higher.  This
nose-first reentry was picked to minimize this total heat soak.

This is not the first time this type of reentry has been proposed
for a  manned spacecraft.  The High-Performance Space Cruiser, 
described in "High Frontier: A New National Strategy," also used
an ICBM-like trajectory.  The damn thing even looked like an
overgrown missile warhead, with the addition of a popup bubble
canopy for the pilot to use on orbit.


Newsgroups: sci.space