HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Galileo's antenna (was Re: Gallileo's antenna)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 14:34:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Oct15.181719.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

[ Bill's Most Excellent Summary snipped]

>--Improvements in ground antennas

>--Data compression:  Galileo has multiple computers aboard. 
>"Stealing" the spare attitude control computer, JPL can program it to
>process image data and "squeeze" it so that a picture can be
>represented by 5 to 10 percent of the usual number of bits.  Tricky
>algorithms allow them to do this without serious loss of image
>quality. 

>--Error-correcting codes:  Software will be installed aboard the
>spacecraft to encode data in better formats that are resistant to
>errors or noise. 
    
> And who knows?  The antenna might open after all. 

ASSUMING opening of the HGA, 

Would it be useful to use the HGA in combination with some of the on-the-fly
"improvements" to pump back more data? I'd think of the options listed above,
the data compression technique might be able to provide more data if pumped
through the HGA....


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:17:17 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1701@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
>
>So how about landing a series of corner reflector arrays set to the
>EME sub bands from 50Mhz to 20GHz or whatever?
> 
>Should take care of the scatter....

Well it won't hurt, but it won't help much either. The problem is that
practical Earthside arrays pretty much illuminate the entire face of
the Moon at the frequencies of interest. At 50 MHz you'd be doing very
well to confine the energy to *just* the Moon. So your reflectors are 
only going to receive a very small fraction of the energy transmitted 
toward the Moon. Even lasers illuminate a several square mile area
of the Moon when fired from Earth.

Gary
From: u926135@tasman.cc.utas.edu.au (Adrian Hassall Lewis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Gallileo's antenna
Summary: fixing the antenna?
Keywords: gallileo
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:14:53 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.

As far as I know it hasn't been fixed; and on that assumption, I want
to ask a question that is probably a FAQ.

Would it be feasible to send a small robot after Gallileo that would
clamp itself onto antenna pole and then push in the pins that are
holding the ribs shut?
I can see several problems - revendous (damn, how do you spell it?), and
making an antenna small enough for the robot.
However, it also seems to me that control is not a problem as you wouldn't
need real time control.  This also seems a helluva lot simpler than sending
an entirely new high-gain antenna.

Adrian
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Update - 10/09/92 (End of Mission)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:45:37 GMT

An earlier post suggested that data on Venus's atmosphere would be gathered
upon reentry.  I take it that since the probe re-entered on the far side and
was lost, no data was gathered?

-Mike
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why not Mir? was(what use is freedom?)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:22:59 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct6.171821.19794@yang.earlham.edu> yannb@yang.earlham.edu writes:
>			I don't see why NASA, ESA, and the Japanese Space 
>Agencies should spend all that money on this Space Station Freedom.  My 
>question is:  why not spend less, and have each country but a module on 
>the Mir? ...

Evidently you're under the impression that putting a useful space station
into orbit is the highest priority for SSF.  This is technically sensible
but politically naive.  SSF's first priority is full employment for the
NASA internal bureaucracy.  Its second priority is major contracts for
a bunch of very hungry aerospace contractors.  (The order of priorities
1 and 2 may be reversed depending on who you're talking to.)  Putting
hardware into space is a distant third.  This is how such megaprojects
work, unfortunately.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DCX Status?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:31:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.145957.1003@rcvie.co.at> se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor) writes:

>Allen Sherzer's countdown signature is telling us that the first DCX
>flight is only six months from now, anyone know the current project status?

Things are going on pretty well. My countdown may be off by a day or two
but there have been no serious problems with deisgn or construction.

On the political front, all the current threats have been eliminated and
in doing so, we showed Congress that there is considerable support for
SSTO (much to their supprise).

Focus is not moving to the DC-Y vheicle. Insiders are briefing Air force
people to convince them they need it. Sources say they are getting good
reviews from everybody they brief.

On the public front for DC-Y, a program has begun to visit every incoming
Congresscritter by early next year. A briefing packet to use has just been
completed and we are beginning to call (with good results) NSS chapters and
others looking for volunteers. If you are a US citizen and want to help,
drop me a line and I'll send you a packet.

  Allen


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------192 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mass driver/railgun literature (was Re: Transportation on the Moon.)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:49:52 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct15.132708.14377@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:
>I was under the impression that the moon's axis had much
>the same obliquity to the ecliptic as the Earth's...

Nope, wrong.  The Moon's axis is almost precisely perpendicular to the
ecliptic; the Sun is permanently just on the horizon at the lunar poles.
This is one reason for optimism about frozen volatiles at the poles --
the bottoms of polar craters never see sunlight.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: jgreen@zeus.calpoly.edu (James T. Green)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: A Brief History of Time (movie)
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:22:39 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Mark Bixby) speakith unto us:
>
>"A Brief History of Time" is a quite fascinating movie.  No extensive knowledge
>of cosmology is required to enjoy it.  Stephen Hawking does a lot of "talking",
>but doesn't actually narrate the film.
>-- 

Does anyone know when this will be out on Videotape?  At any rate
whenever it does come out, please post it here (San Luis Obispo
is at the edge of the Universe when it comes to such things).

/~~~(-: James T. Green :-)~~~~(-: jgreen@eros.calpoly.edu :-)~~~\ 
| If the official Republican platform is carried out,           |
| a 13 year old girl who becomes pregnant as a result of being  |
| raped by her father, and who has an abortion, could end up    |
| in the gas chamber.                                           |
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Query Re: pluto direct/ o
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:29:50 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <15OCT199209461657@mars.lerc.nasa.gov>, spgreg@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (Greg Macrae) writes:
>I missed the original post or I would have followed up by mail...
>>HS>It is extremely difficult to combine a reasonable payload and a manageably
>>HS>short trip time with an orbiter mission.  Pluto is *a long way away*; to
>>HS>get there in under a decade, the probe has to be fast.  Killing all that
>>HS>velocity is inordinately expensive in mass.  You really cannot do a Pluto
>>HS>orbiter in a reasonable amount of time with 1960s propulsion technology,
>>HS>which is what all currently-planned missions use.
>
>NASA JPL and NASA LeRC studies show that a Pluto orbiter is possible with 
>a 10 year or less time frame, launching with an expendable, chemical first
>stage if you are willing to fly nuclear electric propulsion. 

I suspect you can't get much mileage out of this but...

Couldn't you use a chemical first stage, then deploy a solar sail to add on
some speed, dump it when dragging the mass around is more of a penalty than the
speed you get from it...?


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 11:19:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.203214.336@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>For the amounts we are talking about it would be cost effective to develop
>any of several ideas which would reduce launch costs to the moon by one
>to two orders of magnitude.

1. No one is going to spend these amounts.  Commerce would only spend
1/500-1/100 of that amount, and then only if it was profitable.

2. We should develop these ideas to reduce launch costs, instead of
assuming them. The markets -- commercial, military, and NASA if 
they procure commercially -- exist today, and would expand more
rapidly than launch costs decreased.  At one order of magnitude
drop, it would make economic sense to move practically every radio
and TV broadcast tower to Clarke orbit, for example.

3. Reduced launch costs benefit competing proposals, such as asteroid
and comet mining, equally.  The factor of 50 relative disadvantage of 
lunar regolith extraction outlined in my post remains.  

>SSF to construction only runs $30 billion. A second set for a lunar base
>would run far far less.

It is ridiculous to count only construction costs.  We must also include
launch and life-cycle costs.  That brings us to $150 billion.
Furthermore, we need to develop Apollo-style launch hardware, but larger
and from scratch, so we add on the $120 billion Apollo costs, bringing
us to $270 billion.  Of course you wish it cost less; so do I.  I was
told, and wishfully believed, that SSF was only going to cost $8 billion 
when I helped L-5/NSS lobby for it years ago.

>It looks like there is no point analyzing Nick's post...

True, there is no point in analyzing my posts if you are not willing
to be open minded to the facts, instead of wishes like
"one or two orders of magnitude drop on launch costs" which 
magically benefit your pet project and nobody else's.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com
Hold Your Nose: vote Republocrat  ////////  Breathe Free: vote Libertarian
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: SETI positive?
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:24:16 GMT

   I keep hearing rumors and there's this story in Newsweak (that our lackwit
bookstore can't get til friday).  Allegedy we have a potential hit on a SETI
search and a multi-telescope confimation is planned Oct 12-???

   Any information?

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: SETI NOT POSITIVE
Keywords: HRMS, SETI
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:19:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.054339.16971@ousrvr.oulu.fi> dah@tko.vtt.fi (David Harwood) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.145125.25507@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> eto@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Edward T. Olsen) writes:
>>Gentlemen:
>>
>>The NASA search for signals of extraterrestrial intelligent origin has
>>not yet begun. The Initial Deployment of the High Resolution Microwave
>>Survey (HRMS) will be October 12, 1992.
>>
>>Do not propagate misinformation and rumor!
>>
>>Edward Olsen
>>HRMS
>>-- 
>> Edward T. Olsen
>> Mail Stop 169-506, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
>> 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA  91109 
>> Phone: (818)-354-7604   INTERNET: eto@seti.jpl.nasa.gov (Node: 128.149.82.1)
>
>\\\\\\\\\\\\
>Just curious - I have a direct question for you:
>
>Is NASA/HRMS going to investigate any previously detected signals, which
>it considers might possibly have been of ETI origin? Does NASA say that no
>such candidate ETI signals have been detected so far? (We all now that
>HRMS is beginning soon, but there have been previous surveys of far less
>scope.)
>
>A direct "NO" to question 1 or "YES" to question 2 is what we are trying
>to detect. That will kill rumors most effectively.
>
>Also, there has been another interesting question:
>Is HRMS capable of detecting signals of power equivalent to terrestial
>broadcasts (different frequencies) at distances of say 50 light years or so?
>
>Thanks for your information.
>David Harwood

With regard to your questions, SCIENCE just had an article in last week's
issue on the project and all those questions are answered.


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: Drop nuc waste into sun
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:05:27 GMT

In article <BvszLx.79E.1@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes...
>> P.S. I think sending the waste outside the solar system is like  
>dumping it
>> in the ocean..it just sends the problem somewhere else.

>But nonetheless, perform the following reality check on what you just  
>said. Try this thought experiment.
> 
>Assume the Earth is entirely made out of Plutonium.

Let's see.  The critical mass of plutonium is a few kgs or so?  Along comes
a stray neutron...

*KABOOM*!!!!!!!!

>Now atomize it and spread it over the volume of a sphere of solar  
>space representing half the average distance between stars in our  
>regions of space. (r = 2ly or 12e12 miles is a good "Fermi number"  
>for this.)

It'll do this all by itself! :-)

>Now...  how good do your instruments have to be to detect it's  
>presence over the background cosmic radiation? (Other than by the  
>velocity distribution. That's cheating :-)

They'll probably be able to just look up in the sky and say "Wow, look at
that supernova!"

:-)

-Mike
From: strider@acm.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap hardware for LunaBase
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:30:00 GMT

In article <Bw0tC9.2xC.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>> $30 billion is not the construction cost. It is the construction  
>cost
>> *plus* the development engineering cost, by far the largest part of
>> the cost. A second set incurs only bent metal cost, much cheaper. 
>
>> Probably no more than $8 billion even with the modifications  
>required
>> for surface use.
>
>I don't entirely disagree with your numbers, but this statement is  
>financial nonsense (no offense). You amortize R&D costs over some  
>number of units. In the case of fixed capital investment, you  
>amortize it over a period of time specified by tax laws for a  
>particular class of capital equipment. You don't write it off in one  
>lump sum against the first unit of production.
>
	Yes and no.  What you are saying is correct.  But in the original
context I think the numbers were wrong.  Nick was attempting to show that
the "shack" would cost something over $100 Billion.  BUT, this money 
has been accounted for.  First of all, the umber was in error because it
was taken from the life-cycle of Freedom, not the R&D/production of the
cans.

	Secondly, it appers that Nick was trying to say that the R&D costs
would have to be applied twice, once to Freedom, then again to the Moonbase.
That is faulty math.  What you are saying is that the total cost should
be DIVIDED between the two.  That is correct.

	(Now Nick, before you get on m bandwagon, I admit, I don't recall
the exact number you used, I believe it was $130 Billion?)


>Please use reasonable accounting practice when you state things like  
>this. Boeing and the 747 is a reasonable model of how to charge the  
>R&D and manufacturing facilities against N units of a product over a  
>long time period. I'm sure there must be someone out there like Dani  
>who could tell you how they did it.
>
>BELIEVE ME. The second unit is NOT just the cost of bent metal.


Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Pioneer Venus Update - 10/08/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Pioneer Venus
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:34:50 GMT

                         PIONEER VENUS STATUS REPORT
                              October 8, 1992

Pioneer Venus is still alive and hanging in there.  The spacecraft's
spin rate was doubled on October 5 to provide better stabilization as
the spacecraft passed through the atmosphere of Venus, and this extends the
use of the High Gain Antenna.  Also, it was estimated that about 4 oz of
fuel still remained in the fuel tanks, and the increased spin rate would move
any remaining fuel towards the thrusters.  A thruster maneuver was attempted
today and was successful in raising the periapsis an additional kilometer.
Pioneer Venus continues to experience increasing drag on each orbit around
Venus.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Einstein's brain is stored
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | in a mason jar in a lab
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | in Wichita, Kansas.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Re: Greenhouse effect
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:55:32 GMT


\Yes, solid waste isn't as much of a problem as some people think it is.
/Air and water pollution (and I suppose topsoil depletion) are of much
\more immediate interest. For instance, human-caused acid rain appears
/to be a genuine problem over significant parts of the east coast of
\North America. (And for that specific problem, at least, the 
/"environmentalists" appear to be hurting more than helping.)

Gore's Clean Air Act that mandates using clean coal?

\While I don't think NASA should blow its entire budget on Earth observation,
/some level of it seems to be worthwhile, for instance in determining whether
\a runaway greenhouse effect is possible, by actual observation rather than
/political debate.

I don't care how they find out, as long as it isn't by experimentation.
I.e. I want to find out _before_ it gets too hot, not _after_...

\John Roberts
/roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

-- 
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418 SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
---------------------
Disclaimer: Some reasonably forseeable events may exceed this
message's capability to protect from severe injury, death, widespread
disaster, astronomically significant volumes of space approaching a
state of markedly increaced entropy, or taxes.
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Luna III images of the moon's farside
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:28:18 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <28420@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM+, wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
+ 33 years ago, on Oct 7, 1959, Luna III, launched on the 4th
+ returned to earth the first images of the other side of the moon.
+ 
+ -- 
+ Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  


From wats Thu Oct  8 13:32:10 1992
Received: by scicom.alphacdc.com (smail2.5/bdb)
	id AA17092; Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:32:07 MDT (-0600)
To: ncar!uunet!page!husky.bose.com!charlie
Subject: Re: Luna III images of the moon's farside
Cc: wats
Message-Id: <9210081332.AA17092@scicom.alphacdc.com+
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 13:32:07 MDT (-0600)
From: Bruce Watson <wats@scicom.alphacdc.com+
Errors-To: wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson)
Status: R

They were pretty poor. Luna III took a b/w photo and then scanned it
with a slow TV like process of 1000 lines/inch and transmitted to earth.
The Dec, 1959 Sky&Telecope magazine calls it comparable in quality to
1840's daguerreotypes. And what the rest of the world got was of poorer
quality than what they got for a variety of reasons. Features on the
earth side and far side features were included--only 3/4s of the previously
unseen side were in the photo. But quite a few features are clearly
seen. They were undeniably the first and got the privilege of naming them.
The article goes on to say that the far side appears to be mainly 
continental (as opposed to all the 'seas' we see on the earth side).
They continue: "The Soviet photographs mark the first serious beginnings
of what may be called _trans-selenography_, the science of the moon's
hiterto hidden side." --definitely science.

In the early days of space exploration--1957 to about the mid 60's, when
it seemed that we had pulled ahead of them (July 1969 clinched it), there
was a great deal of frustration in the US and it encouraged a great
deal of effort and commitment. Since the manned lunar landing the
space exploration effort has been in the doldrums--planetary probes
funding squeeking by, Space Station in constant danger of cancellation,
Space Shuttle with no real mission. It seemed that our entire program
was just a response to the Russians--if so, their propaganda worked!
I'm hoping that someone-the Chinese, the Japanese, even the Indians--
would do something boldt that we can't do--like go to the moon anytime
soon--and shock the country into action before we sink irretrievably
into third rate status.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
Newsgroups: sci.space