HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:26:00 GMT

In <ggm2ljr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>	I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1.  Allen seems
>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."

From a technical point of view I am saying that a fully reusable SSTO
vehicle carrying a reasonable payload (10 to 20 K pounds) and operational
costs of $10 to $29 million per flight *CAN* be built with available
technology. I also believe that operational costs can drop to $1 to $5
million range if utilization is high enough.

I believe this partly from my own assessment and the fact that every
assessment done has concluded that it is possible. Even the internal
NASA assessment say it can be done and that it could save billions.

Now this doesn't mean that DC-Y WILL work. The biggest problems however
are managerial, not technical. Using conventional government procurement,
it will be impossible to build SSTO. Using a commercial like process however
should work.

>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.  

That is a point well taken. It should tell people that we need to be
very careful and make sure we learn from the mistakes of the Shuttle.

There is every indication that the DC development team is doing exactly
that. Shuttle pushed technology everywhere from engines to tiles; DC
emphasises existing technology. Shuttle was designed as a complex
vehicle; DC is designed to be simple. Shuttle was to be *THE* spaceship
forever and ever; DC is A spaceship, first of many. Shuttle has four
sets of engines using three different fuels; DC has two sets of engines
using the same fuel (even the same tank).

If your going to say it can't be done just because Shuttle failed is
to fail to learn from history. It also condems us to sacrificing the
final frontier to protect government pork.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Manhattan DISTRICT (not Pr......)
Date: 25 Dec 92 18:59:03 GMT
Organization: Panix, NYC

(note: I tried replying direct to the person who first wrote back
to me, but the system refused to take his address.  A problem
we've all encountered once or twice...)

<numerous message error handling notes deleted...>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 tffreeba@ivax... The site ivax does not exist in our domain

To: tffreeba@ivax
Subject: Re: numerous/ 1:ASAT 2:Water 3:misquotes
Newsgroups: sci.space

The bit about calling the process the "Manhattan Project" has become so
entrenched that you have to look har d to find it referred to by it's true
name.
  
The (unfrotunately) late Isaac Asimov used to comment about this specific
mis-naming frequently in his columns, generally in the science articles he
wrote for Fantasy and Science Fiction.  I'll try to dig up a referenence
or two from my pile.

Other places the correct name appears are pretty rare.  Generally, if you
can find material written or produced immediately after the War, you'll
find proper mention.

For example, the movie "Beginning or the End" which is a
semi-fictionalized documentary of the program has the top people sitting
around the table.  The actor playing General Groves says "You'll be
working on the Manhattan District.  Project 'Y' is uranium purification,
project 'X' is the bomb site."  (this is not the exact quote from the
movie, but the DISTRICT vs. PROJECT distinction is correct)
  
Or, more recently, NOVA did a segment on SZILARD, one of the prime
scientists in the undertaking.  In the interviews with various
contemporiaries (damn, I forget who they spoke to/with), they constantly
refer to it as the Manhattan DISTRICT.

take care
danny

<dannyb@panix.com>
or
<dburstein@mcimail.com> <----direct e-mail address
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 05:33:00 GMT

>I heard on Paul Harvey radio two days ago that former Gemini and Apollo 15
>astronaut David Scott had been charged with fraud.  No further information
>was presented.  Does this auction of the piece of tape have something to
>do with the story report on P.H./ABC News?

INo. it has something to do with a business partnership that was formed in 
1980, and is unrelated to the Moon dust.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.
From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Clueless Shuttle Questions
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:32:20 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I recently examined a close-up picture of the Space Shuttle, and I was
puzzled by some of the design features. Please excuse my ignorance but:

1) Why is the tank so blunt? Isn't the shuttle a super-sonic vehicle?
Shouldn't this be sharper, say one of theose secant ogive numbers?

2) Why is the tank so rough? Not only is the texture less than smooth,
but there are a number of grooves near the front as well.

3) The struts that hold the shuttle to the tank are apparently naked
cylenders. Shouldn't these be streamlined in some way?

4)On the side od each SRB, there is a piece of metal running lengthwise.
Is this a strap to hold the segments together? 

5) Wouldn't the SRB segments mate more reliably if the propellant grain
from an upper segment extended into the next lower segment? That way,
the propellant segments wouldn't coincide with the chamber segments and
the infamous O-rings wouldn't take as direct a blast. No? 

Just curious. Thanks much.

-Larry C.
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Breeder reactors
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:16:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzMDJq.2KJ.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


Brenda asks:
>>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
>>them?

Henry sez:
>Limited demand (as Paul said) and massive political problems.  The choice
>of the fast breeder may also have been a poor one; there are alternatives.
>(The whole US nuclear-power enterprise has suffered from early decisions,
>arguably premature, to concentrate on one or two reactor types and give
>little or no attention to others.)

Maybe it's just as well.  The way I heard it, France is already reaching
the point where the costs are becoming dominated by uranium ore
recovery, as it gets rarer & rarer.  And they've had nukes for what,
15 years?  That's pretty short, especially considering all the other
high-tech-costs in reactor operations.

-Tommy Mac
------------------------------===========================================
Tom McWilliams               |Is Faith a short '  `      '   *.;     +%
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu       |cut for attaining    +    .      '
(517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986 |  . knowledge? ;"'       ,'    .   '     .
a scrub Astronomy undergrad  |      *     ,    or is it just  .       .
at Michigan State University |   ';   '        * a short-circuit?   ,
------------------------------===========================================
Xref: sparky sci.space:18320 sci.bio:4711 sci.med.physics:524
From: palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.bio,sci.med.physics
Subject: How much radiation can an organism survive? (Panspermia)
Date: 28 Dec 1992 22:58:41 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

The Panspermia hypothesis is that after life originates on one
planet (or in a molecular cloud, or whatever) it can be transported
by natural causes to other planets, so that life need be created
only once per galaxy (or universe) in order to become widely
distributed.

People have found that microbes of some sort, when ensporulated
(is that the right word?  dormant anyway) are very resistant to
radiation, and thus could make the trip from star to star, enter
a sterile but nutritious environment, and start living, reproducing,
evolving and generally creating a biosphere.

I personally don't believe that this happens very often, but it's
an intriguing idea.

Anyway, does anyone have a reference for the work on the microbe
spores?  I am interested in exactly how much radiation these
things can take.

Thanks in advance.

-- 
		David Palmer		 palmer@alumni.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Chase planes
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:27:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BznB6J.6Jq.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: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
-Subject: Aurora
-Date: 21 Dec 92 16:29:18 GMT

-John Roberts wrote (Wed, 16 Dec 92 07:58:24 EST):
->It's common to have chase planes flying along with an aircraft
->undergoing tests. One of the two Valkyrie supersonic aircraft was
->destroyed when a chase plane crashed into it.

-Thanks for that info. However, does "flying along with" means "chasing"?
-(AW&ST wrote "chasing"). 

I believe the "chase planes" occasionally used with the Shuttle are
T-38s (T for "trainer"?), which carry no armaments. I don't know the full
history of the term as it applies to aviation - I've just seen it in use.
I think the more agressive term may be "engage".

-Also, was the Valkyrie a "black" aircraft? 

Sorry, I don't know. They show it on television now. There are several
programs on the Discovery Channel (a cable TV channel) that regularly
feature military aircraft.

-I apologize for being so skeptical and stubborn, and for my bad knowledge
-of American and/or military aviation words, but I want to be sure...

I suspect the misunderstanding is due to one of those words that's nearly
the same in two languages, but which has slightly different connotation.
Doesn't the French verb "chasser" mean "to hunt"?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ParaNet Press Release
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:07:04 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:104/428.0 - <ParaNet(sm) , Arvada CO

JOIN THE MOST INTERESTING HOUR OF TALK RADIO IN NORTH AMERICA!

ParaNet Information Services, a global UFO computer communications network, is
proud to present a new, weekly one-hour talkshow called The ParaNet UFO
CONTINUUM.

Aired via satellite with host Michael Corbin, Director of ParaNet, the program
is dedicated to uncovering the mystery of the UFO enigma featuring scientists,
researchers and witnesses otherwise inaccessible.  Listeners are invited to
phone in with questions over toll-free lines.

Some of the guests to appear on the ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM will be:

Don Ecker, research director of UFO Magazine.

Kevin Randle, co-author of UFO Crash at Roswell.

Linda Moulton Howe, cattle mutilation expert and Emmy award-winning documentary
producer.

And many, many, more!

Presently, this show is heard by an estimated 500,000 listeners via satellite
throughout the United States and Canada, and will expand to other radio markets
in the near future.

The ParaNet UFO CONTINUUM is heard each Sunday evening at 9:00 PM Mountain
Time, 11:00 PM Eastern, via satellite Galaxy Six, Channel 17, Audio Channel 7.5
MHz.

-30-

--  
Michael Corbin - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@p0.f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mike@rahul.net (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Conrad auction
Organization: a2i network
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 02:00:30 GMT

[]

Anyone get to the auction of Pete Conrad's memorobilia that was held
a few weeks ago?

I wonder if they sold the Soviet Space suit, and if so what price it
fetched.

Also, anyone know why Conrad was getting rid of all of his stuff? Bad
gambling debts? His kids not want "daddy's junk"?? Extra pocket change
for Christmas gifts???

mike


-- 
This message brought to you by the Happy Fun Ball! It's Happy! It's
fun!! It's the HAPPY FUN BALL!!! (Still legal in 16 states)
*** Mike Smithwick - mike@rahul.net 
*** No disclaimer is necessary since I only work for myself, HA! HA! HA! HA!
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 16:56:30 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:00:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.214118.6461@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>You have to be careful with polls.  A poll in which people are asked
>"do you want a manned space program?" will ellicit a generally
>positive response.  However, similar questions on other issues, like
>education, health care, and so on, ellicit much more positive
>responses.  The *relative* support of the space program is not very
>high.

Another Dietz assertion-without-proof... Please
provide data which shows the relative support.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:04:23 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan1.165738.24729@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>... you can put the spare satellite in the same
>>orbital slot as the operational one...  Result, no repointing.  Only
>>the control room needs to even *know* which bird is live.
>
>Redundancy is always desirable if it's affordable, but there is a practical
>difficulty with having *cold* spares in orbit. Will they work when we need
>them? They have to be cold spares if they share the same orbital slot and
>frequencies. That's why spare capacity is not operated cold. It's located
>in another spot where it can be kept as a *hot* spare that can be tested...

Testing co-located spares is trivial.  Once a week at midnight (or
whenever is convenient), switch to one of the spares for ten minutes.
Remember, switching among co-located birds does *not* disrupt service
for more than the time taken to turn one off and the other on (or,
worst case, the time taken to do that once, realize that the spare
is not working, and do it again).

>>The big expense
>>of doing most anything in space is getting into LEO; cutting that cost
>>massively makes *everything* more feasible.  It becomes much more
>>attractive to develop a tug capable of bringing things back down from
>>GEO, or a reentry capsule capable of landing a payload too big for a
>>DC cargo bay.  Neither of these devices is technologically difficult...
>
>Well if they're too big for DC, then they can't *get* into LEO in 
>the first place by that "cheap" launch method...

I note we have changed the subject; thank you for conceding my point.

As for getting them up there, sure they can:  assemble them in orbit.
On-site assembly is normal practice when device X has to be set up at
location Y but is too big for economical transport there when fully
assembled.  (Of course, in principle you could then disassemble them to
bring them back, but it's not really needed.  Coming down is the easy
part.)

>It's not impossible to deploy mulitple special purpose vehicles in
>space, of course, but cheap as an airliner ticket they ain't.

Cheap as an airliner ticket, no, but much cheaper than even a small
"feeder airline" airliner.  If you can get them into orbit cheaply, it
will be worthwhile to build and operate them.  The vehicles themselves
are not that expensive, especially if you can recover them afterward
for re-use (of subassemblies, at least).
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: BUSSARD RAMSCOOP
Date: 27 Dec 92 05:02:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzwJC9.8uv.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: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: ** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP **
-Date: 24 Dec 92 17:18:53 GMT
-Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

-Was told to put this message in this area to get more replies, so here 
-it is.  I'm doing a science fair project on the Bussard Ramscoop, and am 
-looking for ANY help I can get on the scientific end of it.  I'm looking 
-for help specifically on the general theory end of it (things like what 
-polarity the field must be, how best to ionize the hydrogen, how best to 
-FUSE the hydrogen, etc, all already worked out, but in need of checking 
-by somebody who KNOWS what they're doing).  

There's an article on interstellar travel in the January/February 1993
issue of Stardate magazine, which contains a three-page section on
ramscoop spacecraft. It also mentions that R.W. Bussard's original paper
came out in 1960, and that one variant of an electromagnetic collector
was proposed in 1977.

The magazine is put out by McDonald Observatory of the University of Texas
at Austin. The phone number for the magazine is given as (512) 471-5285.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Air ops vs. space ops (was Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities)
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.113157.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <9ls2_fp@rpi.edu>, strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>See *2010*.  The first cosmonaut across uses an MMU.  She brings a
>rope with her.  Subsequent transfers are straightforward (if the
>engineers have done their jobs on handling of this tethered system!).
>
	Saw it. Also noticed several mistakes in it.  For example
at one point they had "gravity" in a non-rotating part of the ship. :-)
(Hmm, should have hired McClewin (sp?)

	Anyway, the key phrase is "... if the engineers...."  This will
take some practice and work.  The engineers thought they had modelled
Instelstat Vi rescue well.

	This by the way this one reason I support NASA's decision to
fly more EVA's.  I think the more experience in EVA the better.  Perhaps
it won't be an astronaut who doe sthe above, but an astronaut. :-)

> (deleted wing-walking/jerry can story.)  Very interesting though.

>Given proper equipment and training in both cases, an in-space
>transfer or refueling operation *is* less dangerous than the
>equivalent in mid-air.
>
>> 	I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it won't be done.
>> Simply that some thought and PRACTICE will have to go into it.
>
>Right.
>
>Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
>Fermilab                          | until I write the song
>Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
>Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
>SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
>                                            --John Prine


Xref: sparky sci.space:18216 talk.politics.space:1604
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 25 Dec 92 18:28:10 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <Bztt8t.9L8@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>>world is not completely perfect.  As I said, ON AVERAGE, the world is
>>getting better.  Fewer people (in absolute numbers, not just as a
>>fraction of the world's population) are living in countries that
>>experience famines that did a generation ago.  On average, people are
>>getting more nutrition, and living longer.

>Baloney.  The US economy is in a shambles, and will probably continue
>to go downhill.

The US economy is growing, not "going downhill".  Manufacturing
productivity is growing smartly.  Moreover, the US is not the world.
Less developed countries can and do use technologies that have already
been worked out by the west; naturally, the tendency is for the
underdogs to catch up, if the mechanisms for wealth creation are in
place.

Consider China.  The private sector there will grow more than 20% this
year, and exceed the size of the public sector; aggregate GNP growth
will be in double digits.  At current growth rates, China's GNP could
exceed the entire OECD's by the year 2010.  The per capita GNP could
reach current US levels within a generation, at current rates of
growth.


>>I cannot imagine what you are trying to prove by this quote.  Let's
>>consider a world with 10,000 1 GWe reactors.  It will consume
>>somewhere less than 20,000 tons of uranium per year.  Those 10^14 tons
>>would last 5 billion years at that rate.

>But we cannot build nuclear plants which are safer than the coal plants.

Bullshit.  Existing coal plants kill more people than existing
nuclear plants, and we can build nuclear plants that have accident
rates much lower than the current generation, low as they are.


> Communism may be passe in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,
> but some of the worst aspects of it are pervading Western Europe and
> the United States.  What else can one call the government blocking of
> human endeavor, including going to space?  Name ONE sufficiently large
> (to accomplish) country in which the individual with enterprise is not
> boxed in by the  socialists who insist that the wealth must be shared.

Capitalism is quite robust, and can create wealth even in unfree
countries, as the example of China demonstrates.  Again, your argument
confuses perfection (a probably unrealizable libertarian utopia) with
progress (a world in which the aggregate statistics are improving).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:08:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <72109@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>we should look to develope cheap sats to go with DC-1.
>>
>   I thought we were already developing cheap sats, but these are to
>   go up with Pegasus, Taurus, etc.

There's cheap and there's cheap.  The satellites being developed for
Pegasus etc. are *relatively* cheap because they're small... but they
still (usually) cost millions each, and they're typically built to the
same gold-plated zero-failures ten-year-life specs.  Drop prices by
two orders of magnitude (not out of the question for DC-1) and many
things would have to change.
-- 
"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