HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: REIFF@spacvax.rice.edu ("Patricia Reiff (713"))
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: University standards
Date: 27 Dec 92 14:13:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bzx8vI.Izy.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In SD 15.600, Brad Porter writes:
]I tend to feel it's the univerity's standards that are lower,
]not those of the public schools.  If the professors at Purdue have this
]low of an opinion of the students, I'm going to have to reconsider Purdue
]as a possible school for me.

The problems nowadays are twofold (in my opinion):  the talent is there, 
but the "best and brightest" are going for the gold (i.e. law, etc) rather 
than science/engineering; and, yes, the preparation may be inadequate (and/
or) the counselors don't encourage their students to pursue a technical 
career.  On the other hand, we at Rice have never had any trouble filling 
our undergrad SE slots with extremely talented students (we have a 10/1
ratio of applicants to slots), so we get the very best.  In graduate school
the problem is a little different: here the problem is the perception that
faculty and research jobs are very tight and so why torture yourself with
years of grad school?  Again, we at Rice have been fortunate to have very
strong graduates who have generally not had major difficulty landing very
good jobs.  Recognizing the tightness of the funding recently, we have cut
back on the number of grad students we admit each year. 

Bottom line:  we'd love to have you come to Rice, but you'd better be good
to make the cut! We'll work you hard, but you'll end up with a degree
that's worth something. 

------                                                         ^
                                                             /   \
From the First Space Science Department in the World:       /     \
                                                    :      / _^ ^_ \
     Patricia H. Reiff                              :     / / O O \ \
     Department of Space Physics and Astronomy      :    /  \  V  /  \
     Rice University, Houston, TX 77251-1892        :   /  / ""R"" \  \
     internet:  reiff@spacvax.rice.edu  (128.42.10.3)    | \ ""U"" / |
     SPAN:      RICE::REIFF                         :    | _/|\ /|\_ |
                                                        /             \
"Why does man want to go to the Moon? ...  Why does Rice play Texas?"
   ....JFK, Rice Stadium, 1962
Xref: sparky sci.space:17992 talk.politics.space:1567
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 00:09:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <STEINLY.92Dec23121415@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>... And are you sure that the first 747 didn't
>fly? Even the first 707 flew and that was a far more groundbreaking 
>test article...
>Henry, you there to arbitrate?

I'm not up on the details of the 747's history, but there was (possibly
still is) a fatigue-test airframe tucked away in a building at Boeing,
being pressurized and depressurized and stressed and relaxed regularly,
simulating flight cycles at a greater rate than operational 747s to
clear their structures for continued operation.  It wouldn't be a fully-
fitted-out 747, but all the structure would be "for real".  This is part
of the cost of safety certification for most any substantial aircraft.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:28:38 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1h8p38INNk40@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>...he  said that something called "Apollo
>Telescope Mount"  was the SOn of MOL...
>... I am wondering if he was referring
>to the astronomical section of SKYLAB?

The ATM was the Skylab solar-telescope assembly.

>... he implied that it had been
>transmorged,  but that it still had a lot of MOL-like systems and fixtures.

I find this extremely difficult to believe.  For one thing, there was *no
resemblance* between the two projects.  MOL was a pressurized manned lab,
sort of a mini-Skylab.  The ATM was an unpressurized unmanned telescope
platform which happened to be attached to Skylab.  (It had originally
been planned to be attached to a modified Lunar Module ascent stage,
which would have been its crew station, and there was some thought to
building it into a modified LM descent stage... but both of those ideas
were discarded in the end.  The ATM's crew station was in the Skylab
docking-adapter section.)

Skylab did use some bits and pieces developed for MOL, e.g. the toilet,
but as far as I know there was no major subassembly transferred intact
from the one project to the other.  There is no mention of such a
relationship in the Skylab News Reference or in Living And Working In
Space (NASA SP-4208, the NASA History book on Skylab).
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:29:48 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 <1992Dec31.182358.13827@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>You are apparently tossing in the assumption that stacking will be
>very expensive.  This assumption may very well be true, but you have
>not justified it.

If you want justification, leave our office, drive out to the local
airport (or truck stop), and look at the sort of routine maintenance 
that real transportation systems require.  To turn an airliner around
between flights, they unload the passengers, refuel, vacuum the interior, 
and run through the preflight checklist.  Unless something unexpected
crops up, that's all they do.  Any additional maintenance, even something
as a new coat of paint, would more than double the operating cost.  More
complex work, like stacking and mating stages, would probably increase it
by a factor of 10.

  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dillman@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: "Slick" Goodlin
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Flight Center
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:11:55 -0600

Last I heard of Slick Goodlin was ~3 years ago, he was president of 
Burnelli Aircraft in Miami, Fl.  I corresponded with him, and he seemed eager
to answer questions, etc., and sent literature on Burnelli (which is a story in
itself!).

Dennis Dillman
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Date: 23 Dec 1992 04:14:32 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <BzMwJK.KKG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>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.
>-- 



No,  this guy was quite serious.  he  said that something called "Apollo
Telescope Mount"  was the SOn of MOL.  It was my mistaken assumption that
that meant it had been recycled into the ASTP.  Dennis newkirk and i
have exchanged e-mail on this.  I am wondering if he was referring
to the astronomical section of SKYLAB?   he was dead serious about
this part,  i dont think he was having a go with me.

Henry,  do you think this was the case?  he implied that it had been
transmorged,  but that it still had a lot of MOL-like systems and fixtures.

pat

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: 23149
Date: 25 Dec 92 03:25:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec24.192557.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

I speak from ignorance or so it seems when I ask what is the DCX, DC-1, and
DC-2? So please forgive me for it..

I might have posted this question elsewheres so plesse forgive the duplication!


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:37:17 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Dec22.161111.29439@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.163212.20944@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>>For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom
>>>space stations
>
>>without shuttle, you might not have ONE Freedom space station.
>
>Nonsense. The Russians have no problems building space stations without
>their Shuttle.

Nevermind Allen. It was too politically subtle for you to catch.

Try again, after the tone.

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: SNOMCB <SNOMCB@mvs.sas.com>
Subject: "Slick" Goodlin
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:37:00 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.

 
 Just out of curiousity can anyone tell me whatever happened
to Chalmers "Slick" Goodlin? Cannot seem to find anything
about him after his hot shot days at Muroc, aka Edwards AFB.
 
 
 
Mike Bishop
SAS Institute Inc.
Cary NC
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Sea floor Planetary Protection really.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 23:39:00 GMT

In article <1hvg8sINNppt@mirror.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes...
>I know the Mars Observer orbit was constrained under planetary protection
>guidelines to stay off the surface for X thousand years.

Mars Observer does meet this contraint and will survive in orbit until the
year 2009 with a 99.9% probability, and will survive until 2039 with a
95% probability.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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,talk.politics.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:12:52 GMT

In article <19070@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

> density of about 2700 kg/m^3 will require small tanks.  The tanks are very
> hot, meaning that little mass of pressurization gas will be needed.  A useful
> technique might be to have the molten aluminum stored in a spherical steel
> tank pressurized by injecting liquid nitrogen into the tank (which because of
> the heat will immediately vaporize).  Is nitrogen available from the moon?


Hydrogen or helium could work.  If the tank is at 1000 K, and the tank
pressure is 2 MPa, one needs about 1 gram of hydrogen for every 5000
grams of aluminum.  Producing a gram of aluminum requires the
processing of about 10 grams of anorthite.  So, if the anorthite has
at least 20 ppm hydrogen (implanted from the solar wind) , this
byproduct would be sufficient to provide pressurizing gas (actually,
since there will be an excess of oxygen in the rocket, still more
regolith would have to be processed, so still more hydrogen would be
produced).  No need to liquify it, just store at high pressure.

Water might be more convenient, although I expect steam would react
with the aluminum (not necessarily a problem, unless the aluminum
oxide byproduct clogged things).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: james@cs.UAlberta.CA (James Borynec; AGT Researcher)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 20:14:53 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>How?  Earth-based antisatellite weapons are simple and cheap; anything
>in Earth orbit can easily be destroyed from Earth.  Unless you assume

Ok, I'll take that bet, blow up the moon.  It's certainly in Earth orbit.
By your argument it should be "easily destroyed".  I'll even let you
break a small sweat in your efforts.

I do not grant that current ASAT weapons would be effective against
"hardened" satelites.  We have never gotten into that kind of arms race 
in any serious fashion.

I do know that transportation from the moon to LEO is about 25 times
easier than transportation from Earth to LEO.

The military tends to follow ther merchants.  A powerful moon colony
would have MUCH more at stake in the orbital sweepstakes than the
mother planet (with all of her unruly children).   

j.b.
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Justification for Space Program
Date: 25 Dec 92 21:54:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1992Dec25.135425.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Reasons for Space Program: Well maybe with the technology provided by the Space
Rpogram we can better predict the future climatic changes and more and help
Somalia and other places to stop being such a pain on the resources.. Not to
say Somalia deserved what they have, but with out some major changes of their
culture or atleast basic ideas of agriculture and more, they will be back where
they are in a few years. Remember Ethipia next door, it was less than 15 years
since they had the same problems that Somalia has.. 

Maybe the Space Program is expensive, but is that becuase they are not doing
anything or is that because of poor management? I believe the benefits they
provide are benefitial toa ll, including Somalia.. Maybe the Shuttle is to many
things and can't get any done wuite right, well maybe we need to change our
expectations and build more specific space vehicles..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: news@netnews.upenn.edu (USENET News System)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: 30 Dec 92 21:54:02 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: GRASP Lab, University of Pennsylvania

could use the bread to defray current operating costs.
From: sal@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Marcos Salganicoff)
Seriously, I think its kind of sleazy for that technician (whomever
they were) to make off with the moon dust that was gotten on a trip
funded by the public, even if accidentally so.

Oh well, no one ever said life was fair.

Marcos Salganicoff
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:17:46 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec31.010256.4062@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
>Although items such as food and clothing could have been replenished
>rather easily, I'm under the impression that oxygen and nitrogen could
>not.  Skylab was essentially designed as a "throw-away" workshop...

Basically correct.  Resupply undoubtedly could have been done, if you
were willing to work hard enough, but Skylab wasn't really designed
for it.  Actually, even food and clothing were mostly pre-stocked aboard
Skylab, because the Apollo CSM as flown for Skylab did not have a very
large payload capacity.  The biggest difference between Skylab and Mir
is that Skylab lacked any equivalent of the Progress unmanned freighters.

Skylab would also have needed substantial repairs for long-term use;
things were failing, like its momentum wheels.

It would have been fairly straightforward to fly one or two more crews,
but keeping it habitable in the long term would have been harder.  Even
when NASA was planning to reboost Skylab on an early shuttle mission,
there weren't any very specific plans to use it again.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jenkins@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov (Steve Jenkins)
Subject: Re: Manhattan DISTRICT (not Pr......)
Summary: So what?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 21:13:31 GMT

As long as we're being pedantic, the name was

    Manhattan Engineering District.

Nothing whatever hinges on the name. Everyone knows exactly what
the term "Manhattan Project" denotes.

-- 
Steve Jenkins      			jenkins@devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory	(818) 306-6438
Xref: sparky sci.space:18339 talk.politics.space:1624
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 29 Dec 92 14:55:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <C00w78.H6E@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

> Progress cannot be made when the Luddites are running the show.  It is
> only perceived threats to the country which can get reasonable action
> by any government.  Where would astronomy be if the attitude of such as
> Paul Dietz prevailed?  Our benefits from astronomy are very few indeed.
> Any society which tries to prevent people from climbing mountains is
> oppressive, and the same goes for space exploration.


A masterful example of doublespeak.  Bleah.

Listen, astronomers don't have any right to a blank check of the
treasury.  Nor do space fans, or aerospace companies.  And questioning
government priorities is not the same as proposing that people be
prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?

Astronomy, in the absence of government funds, would be supported by
private funds, as it was before the government horned in.  Comparing
the cost/scientific benefit of Keck vs. HST, this would, I think, not
be a bad idea.  No doubt funding would be lower, and no doubt Herman
thinks this is an incredibly bad thing, with no further reasoning
necessary.

This doesn't belong in sci.space, so I've directed followups
to talk.politics.space.

	Paul
From: roussel@cicb.fr ( Franck Roussel)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: *** METEOSAT weather images ***
Keywords: METEOSAT, weather
Date: 30 Dec 92 15:32:50 GMT
Organization: CICB, Universite' de Rennes I, FR

Hello everybody!

I am interested in METEOSAT weather images. I know there are many
  anonymous FTP sites, such:
    - cumulus.met.ed.ac.uk  in directory /images
    - nic.funet.fi               ''      /pub/sci/meteosat
  where satellite images of World,Atlantic,Europe are displayed.

Does anybody knows about other anonymous FTP sites like those ?

Especially, is there a server at the Meteorological Space Center
  of Lannion (Brittany) ?  I tried the FTP site "lannion.cnet.fr",
  but after typing the command 'ftp lannion.cnet.fr' it answered me:
    'Connected to lannion.cnet.fr'
    '421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection'


Thanks for all answers to my questions
Roussel
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Justification
Date: 26 Dec 92 17:27:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bzvn8D.JB4.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
-Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
-Date: 25 Dec 92 17:43:41 GMT
-Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

-And those who do not recognize the value of human ingenuity want us to
-waste the time of the productive people by making them wait for public
-transportation, 

You mean by implementing HOV lanes on highways near cities?

-and keeping the bright from getting an education by
-putting them in classes with the mentally deficient.

Has anyone had personal experience with magnet schools? I'm curious about 
whether they provide any benefit.

-What else can one call the government blocking of
-human endeavor, including going to space?

If you're referring to the government's policy of holding people who launch
accountable for damage their spacecraft might do on the ground, I disagree.
A similar policy is applied to people in the US who want to drive automobiles
on other than private land (with the permission of the owner).

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 00:29:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.161111.29439@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.163212.20944@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>>For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom
>>>space stations
>
>>without shuttle, you might not have ONE Freedom space station.
>
>Nonsense. The Russians have no problems building space stations without
>their Shuttle.

Nonsense. The Russians have built no space stations and are having
trouble raising the funds to operate the one they inherited from 
the Soviet Union. Comparing what was done by a command economy using
what amounts to slave labor to what's done in an open society where
people expect to get paid fairly for their work is meaningless accounting.

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