HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 17:32:21 GMT


-From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
-Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
-Date: 1 Jan 93 14:54:12 GMT
-Organization: University of Rochester

-In article <19077@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
-> It could be mixed with oxygen,
-> since molten aluminum forms an oxide slag cover.

-Does it?  Aluminum oxide is more dense than aluminum metal (spec. gravity
-of 4 vs. 2.7 g/cc.)

I used to set up little blast furnaces in the back yard and melt aluminum.
I can assure you that molten aluminum very quickly forms an oxide skin -
it takes about a second or two, if I recall correctly. The surface layer
very gradually gets thicker over time after that. I don't recall any
indication that the oxide was sinking to the bottom to any appreciable
extent.

I was never able to come up with a satisfactory way of casting the aluminum -
it tended to react with whatever I was using as a mold. Anybody know of a
way to do it? 

(Come to think of it, I never tried making the mold out of fired clay. That's
one approach to the "lost wax" process.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:17:17 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 <1992Dec29.202546.12526@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack) writes:

>1. The B-777 is one in a series of airliners built by the same
>engineering organization.  No one has built a man-rated space vehicle
>with the design goals of the DC-1 project, and certainly not at MacDac.

No one has ever built an airplane with exactly the same specifics
as the 777 before, either.  Not even Boeing.  You assume that, for
some reason, an aircraft capable of reaching orbit is harder to
build than a 777.  But you can't say why.

BTW, the Boeing 777 is man-, woman-, and child-rated.


>2. There is limited experience with composite airframes in routine
>operational use.  

Really?  I bet the Rutan brothers would be surprised to hear that.


>3. The throttled RL-10 with nozzle extender is a new and essentially
>untried engine. Engine development is more art than science and has a
>history of being subject to delays.

I think the 777 will use engines, too.  Airbreathers, in fact.  Potentially
much more troublesome than a simple rocket.


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

Ee, gads!  An independent study!  Well, boys, I guess that settles it.
Don't you believe everything you see in black and white?


>5. The weight margins on the vehicle are very tight, a historical source
>of problems in spacecraft and aircraft design.

The weight margins are probably tighter on the 777.  It can tolerate
more weight growth and still fly, but if it loses too much of its
payload capacity, no one will buy it.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:38:41 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 <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.
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Date: 3 Jan 93 18:28:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: elroy.1993Jan3.182812.13825
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <1993Jan2.234235.16100@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
> In article <2JAN199323293310@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> >The hammering sessions will continue all the way through the entire month
> >of January, if necessary.  Even though the first hammering attempt didn't
> >open up the antenna all the way, it did have a postive effect.  
> 
> !!  It did?  I sure don't remember seeing reference to that in the last
> report but I'm glad to hear it.  
>  
> What was the "positive effect"?  How was it determined or measured?

The GLL nav team chief told me the other day that although nothing
had unfurled, the degree of bowing had increased.  This was determined
from sun sensor data.  On the premise that any movement is better than 
none, this is a positive effect.  They're quite prepared to break the 
HGA if necessary, assuming they can.

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Summary: split out please
Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 18:31:01 GMT

Both Drs. Dietz and Rubin have made some good points. I hope the
subject can now be changed to focus more on a specific facet with its
own subject rather than continuing the present one whose thread seems
to be all inclusive. There are now several cross discussions going
with this reference and their own sub-threads.  

Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain
Department of Geology B-160
Florida State University
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 04:54:16 GMT


Concerning public opinion about the space program, IHMO those opinions can
and are greatly influenced by the media's depiction of space exploration.
Next time watch news coverage of a shuttle flight.  Invariably some reference
is made to the cost of that particular mission, plus any important technical
information is either watered down or omitted.

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?

Simon

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com
Subject: Justification for the Space Program
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 01:04:18 GMT

Denis and Dietz.
One part of your discussion disturbs me.  Money can be accumulated, and
horded, and stolen.  However, money must be MADE first.  I'm not a 
Ayn Rand (noid) but she did do a service by pointing out that the 
people of the U.S. were the first to talk about MAKING money, instead
of "redistributing" it as if it was a limited resource.  It is only
limited by the lack of persons willing to MAKE their own instead of
stealing others.  

As to what this has to do with the justification of space, I would say that
opportunities to MAKE money are abundant in space if the technology and
resources are put to good use.  This, in turn, increases the cumulative
wealth of the planet.  

Grant Anderson
Ganderson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: bell@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (E. V. Bell, II - NSSDC/HSTX/GSFC/NASA - (301)513-1663)
Subject: Re: SPAN
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:07:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.011849.1296@photon.com>, bvs@photon.com (Bruce Shetler) writes...
> 
>Apparently there is something called the Space Physics Analysis
>Network.  Does anyone out there have knowledge of this net, how to
>access it, etc.?  Feel free to reply here or via e-mail.  
> 
>Thank you,
>Bruce
> 
>--
> 
>========================================================================
>  Bruce Shetler                           
>  Photon Research Associates          Living in Southern California...
>  San Diego, CA   92121               The ultimate oxymoron?
>  bvs@photon.com        
>========================================================================

	SPAN is a DECnet protocol network which used to be run out of
	the National Space Science Data Center at Goddard Space Flight
	Center. At the time there were two competing NASA networks,
	SPAN and NASA Science Internet, which used the TCP/IP 
	protocol. A few years back, NASA HQ realized that it was silly
	that it had two competing networks for essentially the same
	purpose (NSI was run out of Ames). There was a competition
	between Goddard and Ames and Ames won. Both the DECnet and
	TCP/IP protocols are still supported, but they are now both
	known as NASA Science Internet, the SPAN portion now being
	called NSI/DECnet. NSI/DECnet, nee SPAN, is part of a larger
	DECnet network which includes European DECnet, HEPnet, and
	several other nets. Most nodes which used to be on SPAN are
	now also on the Internet, usually with the node names being
	the same (see my sig below for an example).

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr. Edwin V. Bell, II	|  E-mail:				       |
|  Mail Code 633.9		|	(SPAN) NCF::Bell		       |
|  National Space Science	|	or   NSSDC::Bell		       |
|    Data Center		|	or  NSSDCA::Bell		       |
|  NASA				|	or  NSSDCB::Bell		       |
|  Goddard Space Flight Center	|   (Internet) Bell@NSSDCA.GSFC.NASA.GOV       |
|  Greenbelt, MD   20771	|					       |
|  (301) 513-1663		|					       |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Poker Flats, Alaska UAF
From: lbartel@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 2 Jan 93 17:07:42 CST
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City
NNTP-Posting-Host: vax1.umkc.edu

In article <1993Jan1.180631.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> Does anyone know anything about "Poker Flats" in Alaska..
> Up near Fairbanks, AK.. If I remember right it is run by the 
> University of Alaska Fairbanks.. Mostly does atmospheric (northern lights, etc)
> research.. 
> 
> 
> Michael Adams
> Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu

It is located at mile 29.6 Steese Highway, northeast of Fairbanks, and is
operated by the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska.  They use it
primarily for auroral and upper atmospheric research for NASA and DOD.  I don't
believe the facility is open to the public although it is not used for
classified research.  They use a Nike solid fuled rocket launched to 60 - 200
mile altitudes often to release barium.  The barium release is visible over
much of Alaska as a green cloud at night.

Don't see too many Alaskans on the net!

Lawrence Bartel
in%"lbartel@vax1.umkc.edu"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:54:52 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 <SHAFER.92Dec22095137@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:

>Like Air France and British Airways?  Writing off the development
>costs of the Concorde so that they could show a profit?

It wasn't the French and British airlines that wrote off the
development costs, but the manufacturers.  Of course, all 
the airlines and manufacturers involved were owned by the
French and British governments, so his point stands.  If
any private company tried such shennanigans, the officers 
would answer to the stockholders, if not the courts.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:11:40 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1h2egpINNmk9@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>>You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).
>>Could somebody provide data ?
>
>According to a friend of mine who was a MOL engineer.  One MOL flew
>Manned.  only it was called ASTP.  

He's pulling your leg.  ASTP involved one Apollo, one Soyuz, and a docking
module.  The docking module might perhaps have inherited a bit of technology
from MOL, but no way was it a MOL.  For one thing, it was a fraction of the
size.
-- 
"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,talk.politics.space
From: DRPORTER@SUVM.SYR.EDU (Brad Porter)
Subject: University standards
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 23:49:27 EST

 
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
I apolgize for assuming in the previous article that you were a professor.
What is your position?  From now on, I'll ask things like this in the education
area.  By the way, I'd like to take this chance to apologize for the typing
mistakes in the 1st article I submitted to this forum - my connection was
not responding to my keys immediately, so I couldn't edit the message as
I was typing it.
                             -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
Xref: sparky sci.space:18050 talk.politics.space:1577
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:05:02 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec22.160234.21852@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>We WILL end up off-planet. However, this process will be a series of small
>evolutionary steps, rather than Absolutely-Positively-Overnight URGENCY
>which Dennis insists IS necessary. 
>
>Let's cut the crap here, and speak frankly. IF we needed to run out to the
>Great Beyond to save our butts, we COULD do it. 

Do you *really* believe this?  If we had 12 months notice, we could
remove enough people for a self-sustaining colony to another body,
even the moon, before a comet-earth collision?

>We don't NEED to do it. And we can do a whole hell of a lot more in improving
>the quality of life for all mankind in our own backyards before we step up and
>off the planet. 

Do you have 20-20 premonition?  I'm not going to claim that we have 50
years, no more and no less, or lose the chance forever.  But there are
large chunks of matter flying through the solar system.  Not all of them
have been mapped yet.  And from time to time, big pieces do hit other
big pieces, including the earth.  It could be a million years or more
until we get hit by one large enough to send civilization back to cave
dwellers or worse, or it could happen next year.  Our sun could produce
a major killing flare, or a star in this section of the galaxy may have
already gone supernova,and we're just waiting for the wavefront.

Now we could sit on our collective butts and wait for a crisis (maybe
even create one ourselves), or we could struggle to spread our species
far enough that no one disaster will eliminate us.  I for one dislike
gambling, and the stakes in this case are terrifying.  The sooner
we start, the better our chances.

I also maintain that a working space program would introduce new
technologies and generally stimulate a lackluster economy, to the
benefit of all.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aurora
Date: 23 Dec 92 14:59:38 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Many thanks to you all who answered, privately or on sci.space,
about the definition of "chase planes". I sort of understand that:
- in aeronautic American, "to chase" means "to fly along with",
- in plain American, "to chase" is kinder and gentler than "to hunt".
As "chasser" means "to hunt" in French, I misunderstood the word
"chasing" in the AW&ST article. I really thought it meant "hunting".
Once again I apologize.

So, contrary to what I thought, this April 1991 sighting, reported
in AW&ST, August 24, 1992, is perhaps the most serious of the handful
of sightings reported in this article: daytime, comparison possible
with a known plane (the F-16). But was it Aurora? It was not flying
at Mach 6-8, since an F-16 was flying along with it. It was a large,
"primarily delta-shaped" aircraft, "dwarfing an F-16 chasing it". A
B-2 is large, "primarily delta-shaped", and can easily dwarf an F-16
(Wing span: B-2 172 ft, F-16 31 ft). Could it be a B-2? The observer
quoted in the article (only one observer ?) said it was light colored:
the B-2 is dark, but with reflections of the sun and objects at high
altitude, it is sometimes difficult to judge safely.

J. Pharabod
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: averting doom
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:36:49 GMT

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: averting doom
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:41:39 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.165411.25838@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
Clarke) writes:
> In article <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John  
> McCarthy) writes:
> > By the way, it seems to me that if the above idea is sound, it settles
> > the question of the stability of the solar system - in the negative.
> ... In the most recent Sci Am or Sky and Telescope 

It was Sky and Telescope Feb '93 ppp 13-14.
I remembered wrong.  A one millimeter perturbation of Mars' orbit
eventually caused a 500,000 kilometer difference in the position of
Pluto after 100 million years.

Gerald Sussman and Jack Wisdom used the Supercomputer Toolkit at MIT
to simulate the solar system.

>Hey, maybe Pluto would be better than Ceres.  Kick a periodic comet
>so it ricochets of Pluto.  Pluto Ricochets off Neptune, then off Jupiter
>and into the inner solar system where it becomes tame!

A further thought:  sprinkle carbon black on the right part of the
comet and its natural outgassing will be modified.  Done properely
in an orbit or two the comet will ricochet of Jupiter then into
Pluto and away we go.  
This is a mission we could fly now!! A few hundred pounds of carbon
black in a comet fly by!  I wonder is the MIT computer is up to
predicting comet outgassing :-)

--
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: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<71877@cup.portal.com> <1992Dec22.160715.28828@iti.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 17:51:41 GMT

On Tue, 22 Dec 1992 16:07:15 GMT, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) said:

AS> In article <71877@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>NASA spends over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight. I think
>>you've indulged in some creative accounting.

> The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if
> memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year. 

AS> This number does not include NASA overhead, amortization of the orbiter,
AS> amortization of Shuttle development costs, and a host of other costs. Adding
AS> those in puts the cost at well over a billion per flight. Hell, interest
AS> costs on development alone adds over a quarter billion per flight (BTW,
AS> this interest is not a sunk cost since it is part of the national debt and
AS> we are paying for it even now).

>You have done the 'creative accounting' here, I'd say. 

AS> No, it's NASA who is being creative by ignoring billions in cost. BTW,
AS> if a private company ran their books the way NASA does they would be
AS> thrown in jail for fraud.

Like Air France and British Airways?  Writing off the development
costs of the Concorde so that they could show a profit?

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot