HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:09:49 GMT
Organization: :noitazinagrO

In article <Bt8nGw.7LJ.1@cs.cmu.edu> jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
>mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov writes
>> Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
>> possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
>> to land in like the Russians.  
>
>Uhhh, this may be stupid, but why not just land on the steppes of
>Asia, or any other flat land surface that happens to be within reach
>when an emergency hits?  It's not like the capsule would be reused,
>nor need we worry about the Russians getting their hands on new
>technology :-)  Heck, they'd probably appreciate the return of their
>raw materials.
>
>Jonathan H.

The problem is, you'll be re-entering from low-inclination orbits.  Most
of the Asian steppe is north of the 40th parallel.  Check a map to see
how much land-vs-water you have between the 30N and 30S parallels.  The
Russians launch into high inclination orbits because they start at high
latitude.  The US takes advantage of having low-latitude facilities to 
get more payload into orbit at low inclinations.

-- 
||)) Dump the Whatizit!  Ren and Stimpy for Olympic mascots in '96 ! )))))))|
||)) "What is it, man?!?" ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))|
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com) | Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY   |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Re: Weak interactions, biology and the SSC
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:18:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.103524.4357@pollux.lu.se> I write:
>Since it has been mentioned several times in the ongoing SSC
>debate/flamewar in this newsgroup

Sorry, but I managed to goof up and post it to the wrong newsgrup - it
should of course have gone to sci.physics, not to sci.space. Sorry for
wasting your bandwidth (and this accursed NNTP server won't let me
cancel my own articles...)

Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52          | /e-      \q
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:32:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.180256.11121@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? ...

>Company #2 could not afford to develop the vehicle further. 

First of all, both MLV alternatives exist as commercial options today. Of
the HLVs, the development cost is $500M which can easilly afforded. GD
spent that much on commercial Atlas and Douglas also spent that much
on Delta.

If the market is there (and the whole point of this is to make the
market) they will come.

>Go look at ATF. One
>winner, one fighter. One winner, one launch system. 

You still don't get it. ATF is where the government says they will
buy one fighter and only one. With expendable Freedom resuply the
government doesn't own anything; it just buys services.

Indeed, ATF just proves my point. Both teams invested twice the money
needed to develop the HLV with only a 50-50 chance of winning. For resuply,
they only need half the money they needed for ATF and at the same time
BOTH companies can make a profit.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE)
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Summary: No, it's NOT a coincidence
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:13:00 GMT

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes...
>It's not the Earth-Sun distance, it's the distance from which the
>Earth-Sun distance subtends an angle of one second of arc.  That's
>*not* a coincidence; it follows from the definition.

>If I've gotten anything wrong, please correct me...

Forgive me if I'm being stupid, but isn't everybody ignoring a factor of 2 
somewhere?

Dave Ring
dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
Subject: Weak interactions, biology and the SSC
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 10:35:24 GMT

Since it has been mentioned several times in the ongoing SSC
debate/flamewar in this newsgroup, I thought I'd just summarize one
possible (very hypothetical) way the SSC results could be important to
biologists: 

It is a well-known fact that most biological molecules not only have a
distinct "handedness" (asymmetry under mirror reflection), but also
that all living organisms share the same handedness (all proteins are
built exclusively of the L-forms of amino acids, for example).

It is also a well-known fact that the electromagnetic force
responsible for chemical reactions is parity invariant, i.e. it
don't distinguish between left and right. (it should be pointed out
that this means it has no *intrinsic* handedness - of course an
asymmetric molecule can distinguish between left and right, but then
it's due to the spatial asymmetry of the molecule and not to any
fundamental reasons).


This is normally explained by the fact that all life has a common
ancestor that by pure chance happened to have a certain handedness.
However, why did all "right-handed" life in that case become extinct?

A recent attempt to explain this is the following:

The elctromagnetic force is not the only one acting on molecules.
There is also the weak force, which is - as the name says - extremely
weak. Up to now it has been treated as totally negligible in chemistry.

However, the weak force *does* distinguish between left and right. If,
for example, the nucleus of an atom interacts with an electron by
exchanging a Z boson, the process has different probabilites depending
on the direction of the electron's spin. This could, in principle,
give atoms a very weak handedness. The idea is that this handedness of
atoms would make reactions involving, say, L-amino acids (very)
slightly more favourable than those involving R-amino acids. This
would over geological time scales give "left-handed" life an advantage
over right-handed life.



So where does the SSC enter? Well, the argument is that to understand
the possible chemical effects, we ought to understand the weak
interaction better than today. The SSC will explore the high-energy
behaviour of he weak interaction in ways impossible today (for
example, one would liek to observe the four-Z-vertex). 

However, whether this has any relevance to chemistry and biology is
doubtful in the extreme - the influence of weak interactions on atomic
physics and possibly chemistry would of course be a low-energy
phenomenon, and as far as we know, the low-energy behaviour of the
weak interaction is well understood from earlier experiments.

Magnus Olsson                   | \e+      /_
Dept. of Theoretical Physics    |  \  Z   / q
University of Lund, Sweden      |   >----<           
Internet: magnus@thep.lu.se     |  /      \===== g
Bitnet: THEPMO@SELDC52          | /e-      \q
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Weak interactions...
Date: 15 Aug 92 00:57:33 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: magnus@thep.lu.se (Magnus Olsson)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: Re: Weak interactions, biology and the SSC
-Date: 13 Aug 92 12:18:31 GMT
-Organization: Theoretical Physics, Lund University, Sweden

-In article <1992Aug13.103524.4357@pollux.lu.se> I write:
->Since it has been mentioned several times in the ongoing SSC
->debate/flamewar in this newsgroup

-Sorry, but I managed to goof up and post it to the wrong newsgrup - it
-should of course have gone to sci.physics, not to sci.space. Sorry for
-wasting your bandwidth (and this accursed NNTP server won't let me
-cancel my own articles...)

Thanks for posting it anyway - it's relevant to SETI.

I wonder if the Viking biology tests had any "right-handed" food....

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Asteroid report
Date: 22 Aug 92 04:54:30 GMT
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii

Forrie Aldrich writes:

> Recently, and associate mentioned there was a report of a rather large
> asteroid (or some object) approaching or within our solar system, and
> with a trajectory currently in our direction.  And that radio signals
> have been transmitted from said object.
> 
> This does sound a little out-of-the-ordinary, can someone confirm or
> deny this? (for those familar with Arthur C. Clark, the above reference
> makes me have visions of RAMA heading our way... ::wince:: ;)

Probably was referring to the close approach of 4179 Toutatis on December
8.  The radio signals coming from it will be the radar waves bounced off
of it by Steve Ostro.  It (nor any other asteroid) has transmitted anything
to Earth all by itself.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: He3 Power Source
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:35:31 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Aug13.190624.1512@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, eatlv@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (thomas.vandoren) writes:
>.  It showed proposed lunar surface strip mining machines
>that would filter out the He3 and replace the regolith behind it thus having
>minimal environmental impact.  Other items such as oxygen and water could be
>extracted at that time as well.

Minimal environmental impact? 

Hm, doesn't the moon have to have an ENVIRONMENT first? 


                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Xref: sparky sci.space:11757 sci.physics:12797
From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:14:37 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Aug13.144737.1884@trentu.ca> pyacm@trentu.ca (A Colin Morton) writes:
>
>As other posts have stated, one parsec is equal to ~3.2616 light years.
>As we, on Earth, are only ~8 light minutes from the Sun, I don't think
>the Earth-Sun distance defines a parsec.                         ^^^^^

If you do not *know* how a parsec is defined, then you should look it up 
before persisting pushing a wrong argument. 

A parsec is a parallax-second and is defined to be the distance at 
which one second of arc (1/3600 of a degree) subtends 1 A.U.  Simple 
calculation (d = r * theta, theta in radians) will verify that this 
is exactly the way that otherwise silly value of ~3.26 light years 
is obtained.  

The reason for this was spelled out in my earlier post: it is defined 
as a convenient conversion factor between the angular shift in the 
apparent position of a star when your viewing position is translated 
by some distance (typically something like the diameter of the earths 
orbit = 2 AU) and the distance of that star from the viewer. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: geg@ornl.gov (GILES JR G E)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:53:25 GMT

The LEO environment contains lots of trash.  Thin skins might not
survive in this environment.
Gary Giles 

Newsgroups: sci.space
jhsegal
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Size,Mass,and velocity....
From: jhsegal@wiscon.weizmann.ac.il (Livy)
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 16:00:52 GMT
Organization: Weizmann Institute of Science, Computation Center

Hi.
Can anybody please email me the Mass(in kg),the Size (r in meters),and
the x and y velocity (m/s) of all the planets in the Solar System?
Thank you very much,
Livy
From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Electric Tethers
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:54:54 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

evert@CPSnet2.cps.edu (Mike Evert) writes:

>As I understand it, if a current is put into the tether, then that
>would cause the tether and spacecraft to gain kenetic energy and rise
>to a higher orbit.  The opposite will happen if current is drawn from
>the tether.  Would the acceleration always be in one direction and its
>reverse only?  I don't know if this would be in the direction of orbit
>or perpindicular to magnetic field.  Is it possible to use the tether
>for lateral motion?

The formula for the force developed in the tether is the same as
the force on any other current carrying wire in a magnetic field:

  F = IL x B

Where all the components above are vectors, and the x stands for
cross product.  This means the force is proportional to the current
I, the length of the wire L and the magnetic field strength B
(in Newtons, Amperes, meters, and Teslas respectively).  The
direction of the force is perpendicular to the current direction
and the magnetic field.  

The magnetic field is approximately a dipole tilted about 10 degrees
from due north-south, and you can mount the current carrying wire
in other orientations than straight up-and-down, so you have some
measure of control in thrust direction, but it is not a simple
thing to picture.

Note that the power consumed in an electric tether is mostly 
I^2R resistance losses, plus the power to run the plasma contact
devices at the ends.  For a given number of watts of input power
for thrust generating, you can play with the wire diameter and
length to look for the least amount of weight and most thrust.
You can control current I, and length L.  Field B is a given.

It turns out generally that you want a wire in the km length
range, but not hundreds of km.  So if this is a propulsion system
attached to a really long tether, it may only cover a short segment
of the total length.

Another real world restriction to this propulsion system is that
it uses the ionosphere to close the current loop.  As you go
up in altitude, you have less ions to work with, so eventually
you can't keep the current flowing.  Also, the field strenth of
the Earth's magnetic field falls off like radius cubed, so that
also falls off with altitude.  Thus, this propulsion system is
limited to low and medium earth orbits.

Dani

-- 
Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Civil Space/(205)464-2697(w)/232-7467(h)/
Rt.1, Box 188-2, Athens AL 35611/Member: Space Studies Institute
Physical Location: 34deg 37' N 86deg 43' W +100m alt.
***THE ABOVE IS NOT THE OPINION OF THE BOEING COMPANY OR ITS MANAGEMENT.***
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: paulg@griffin.demon.co.uk ("Paul J. Gravestock")
Subject: Russian Cosmonaut Pics) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Where's the beach ?
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:28:33 +0000


In article <1992Aug14.145556.1@fnalb.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalb.fnal.gov writes:

> In a
>nation gone insane for baseball cards, who knows what cosmonaut cards
>may be worth before the bubble bursts?
>
>In a similar vein:   I have two Russian maps of the Moon ......

This got me thinking, a couple of years ago (1988 actually) I saw an article
about Russia offering a satellite imaging service through the Foreign Trade
Association 'Sojuzkarta' , out of curiosity I wrote off for details, and too my
supprise a few weeks later a brochure, price list and contract landed on my door
mat.

The [full colour] brochure describes the various services they offer, and
seems to consist of a variety of Laboratory Ships, aircraft, manned and
unmanned platforms to gather the data. However, the customer can only request
images / data on land within their national borders, so no spying on the
cheep !

Paul

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Gravestock                  | email: paulg@griffin.demon.co.uk
Hertfordshire                       |        pgravestock@cix.compulink.co.uk
England                             |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:00:57 GMT



Attaching Shuttle to Energia :-

Have you figured what kind of saving could be achieved
by flying the Shuttle without its main engines ?
:wq
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Global Positioning System (GPS)
Summary: Where can I get technical data on the GPS system?
Keywords: GPS navigation
Date: 14 Aug 92 23:57:33 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

I am in need of technical reports describing the Global Positioning
System (GPS).  Are they obtainable from NASA or DOD?
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:20:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: judy.19AUG199220200286
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug19.174427.9782@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes...
>In article <18AUG199220444595@judy.uh.edu>
>wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
> 
>> There
>> is a demonstrated need for larger lift capability.
> 
>Sure, I believe you. I'm curious to know: what is the demonstrated
>need? How is it demonstrated?

It is simple. Look at the growth in size of geosync communications satellites.
Ariannispace has and that is the basline for the growth into the Arianne 5.
Also look at the Titan IV and planned V configurations. Both of these are in
the 35,000-45,000 to LEO class.  The baby Saturn BEGINS at the high end of this
range for a lower price.  Why lower price? Only one engine in the First stage
for (F1A) the initial boost.  Cuts labor costs way down and that is the driver
of ALL of the launch vehicles today.  Also a cut in cost due to using only one
14 million dollar engine.  The growth can then proceed from there with that
as a profitable viable baseline.  Questions Questions Questions.

Dennis Wingo, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: EDW@cup.portal.com (Edward D Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Small business program
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 13:14:05 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The NASA Small Business Innovative Research program (SBIR) may be
contacted at......
   SBIR Program Manager
   Code CR
   National Aeronautics and Space Administration
   Washington DC 20546.
The deadline for the 1993 applications is July 1993.  Initial grants
are reported to be in the $50k range.

Thanks to everyone who responded.
Ed Wright
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ACRV/Soyuz P
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:15:35 GMT

In article <9208181242.AA25370@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes:

>>Does the word 'comeptition' ring a bell? If GD says "Ah Uncle Sam, we
>>got you by the balls now!" then Uncle Sam replies: "Screw you, I'm taking
>>my buisness to Martin Marrietta".

> I think you're stretching this one a little bit Allen. Theoretically
>you're right, this is what should happen, however I've got money that
>says it wouldn't work that way. 

I'll take that bet :-)

>Firstly MM would have to have a viable alternative ready to roll, 

Which they will. Titan II or III for Soyuz and Titan V for HLV.

>which means that the Govt. would
>need to give them a share of the launch business in the first place.

Which I think would be a good idea.

>This reduces the incentive per contractor. If the US govt. needs the
>20 flights you say, then to ensure viable competition, the govt. could
>only promise GD and MM 10 flights each. 

Not quite. Buying 20 flights will save you about $50M per flight but
I priced ALL my launches in quanity one. The government can split
all launches among the available vehicles for the price I give since
I don't include any quanity discounts in my estimated price.

>In addition, you can bet that
>the management of GD would be savvy enough to try gentle seduction,
>rather than blatant rape.

Just like any supplier of anything today does to get the best price.
However, you are greatly constrained when there is another supplier
all set to go.

There is a bit of a change here; launches will be kind of like PCs.
Launches will go from being specialized products (like PCs 10 years
ago) to commodity products (like PCs today).

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------248 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space