HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: fiber optic cable
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:26:52 GMT

In article <C0ozH8.4p4.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>Does anybody (the phone companies or the military, for instance) use 
>fiber optic cable that's stiff enough to reduce the risk of breaking?
>
I thought I had just mentioned this in a recent post.  Northern Telecom
encountered the same problem when laying fibre optic cables underground
using a "ditch witch".  Their mechanical engineers came up with a sheath
(I vaguely recall it has a helical structure) which takes up the tension
and protects the cable from breaking.  Anyone from NT on the net?
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new Shuttle toilet
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 02:21:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <C0Lny2.ox.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>A few mitigating factors that might be considered:
>  * I understand the pre-Shuttle toilet facilities took around an hour
>    to use (for solid waste)...

That's the Gemini/Apollo stick-on baggies.  The Skylab toilet wasn't a
problem that way; it wasn't significantly more hassle than an ordinary
Earthbound toilet.

(I haven't seen details on the new shuttle toilet, but my impression is
that it more or less goes back to the Skylab approach.)
-- 
"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: russian solar sail?+
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:35:56 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.


I'd just like to mention than the Russian "solar sail" is not
a solar sail in the sense that people are discussing here.  Its
purpose is not propulsion.  Rather, it is what Karft Ehricke
called a "lunetta" -- an artificial moon or reflector designed
to light up a spot on the surface of the Earth.
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Keywords: DC,toilet,high-cost,long duration orbital logistics for astronauts
Date: 7 Jan 93 23:29:13 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 <1993Jan7.113005.6724@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>The GAO report concluded that the 'extended duration toilet' costs about
>ten times more than it needed to because of NASA procurement practices.

Not only did it cost ten times more than it needed to, it
cost ten times more than it was budgeted for.  Seems the
contractor kept tacking on features, and no one at NASA
thought to say, "no."  This despite the fact that NASA 
probably has more beancounters than a Big Eight accounting
firm.

>That is why the program is coming in at such a low cost. that is also why
>SSTO supporters worked so hard to find a new home which would execute
>the contract in a streamlined manner.

Worked?  I certainly hop you didn't mean to put this in the past tense.
From: bill.edwards@almac.co.uk (Bill Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soviet space disaster
Date: 12 Jan 93 06:02:00 GMT
Reply-To: bill.edwards@almac.co.uk (Bill Edwards)
Organization: Almac BBS Ltd. +44 (0)324 665371

DN>>I recall reading that at some point earlyish in the Russian space
DN>>programme that there was a retro mis-fire on one of their missions
DN>>This lead to the unfortunate situation of the space craft in quest
DN>>flying off directly into the sun.  The story mentioned something a
DN>>the wife of the cosmonaut in question being in radio contact with 
DN>>up to the very end.

DN>Yes. This last one sounds like stories about the Soyuz 1 accident.

I've come across a few references to Komerov's wife supposedly having
heart-rendering radio conversations with him during his flight. But as the
difficulties with the Soyuz 1 flight seem not to have been a precursor to
the parachute problem so it seems unlikely they are true.  There seem also
to have been rumours about manned re-entry accidents before Gagarin. 
Again, this seems very unlikely as, from Vostock 1, all Soviet manned
flights have been announced before retro fire.  A number of unmanned
Vostok ships did go the "wrong way" before Gagarin's flight though.

This latest story seems to be an combination of all of this.


Bill / Usenet: bill.edwards@almac.co.uk

---
 . Orator V1.12 #7 . From the Wye Valley in Wales
                                                                                                    
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
Date: Tue, 05 Jan 93 17:32:42 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <C0Cv53.CBC@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Gary's comments (the >>> above) are squarely in the NASA mold:  if you
>do it right on paper, it will work the first time (although of course
>you test it just in case).  Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work
>that way, as witness any number of NASA projects that *didn't* work
>the first time.  Real-world development involves *finding out* what
>works and what doesn't... and you cannot do that on paper.  You have
>to test things *during* the engineering, not just afterward.

To hell with that. Take a look at the "commercial" world. OSC's teething
problems are quite amusing... I understand SDIO started shopping around for
other launchers after the second or third Pegasus launch. 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: UN Space Agency
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 01:02:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan4.150827.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>I wonder if there is anything in the works for a United Nations Space Agency

Not really.  The problem is the "elephant among the chickens" syndrome:
the US is logically a major participant in such an effort, but then it
wants to run the show, and the other nations involved -- especially the
ones which have demonstrated competence of their own -- don't want to
just pay the bills for projects they have no say in.  Past experience
with US involvement in "international" space projects generally has
not been happy for the US's "partners".

>I wonder if the North American Free-Trade Agreement will lead to
>US/Canadian/Mexican Space co-working?? 

Canada is already a (minor) partner in various aspects of the US space
program... but it's also an associate member of the European Space Agency.
(It would probably be a full member, were it not for the inconvenient rule
that full members must be located in Europe...)  Much depends on whether
"co-working" means a say in decisions, or just a share in the cost.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: Ligon@macgw1.ge.com (Woody Ligon)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energy production on Earth
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:30:26 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE-CRD

In article <C0C251.Cxz.1@cs.cmu.edu>, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John
Roberts) wrote:
> 
> 
> Regarding the utilization of energy sources on Earth, which was discussed
> in the context of importing energy from space:
> 
> A report on the radio this morning described a genetically engineered
> bacterium, in which two genes were spliced in to allow it to do a very
> good job of converting complex carbohydrates (including celluose) into
> ethanol. Evidently the project is far enough along that there are plans
> to build a plant in New York, to produce 15(?) million gallons of ethanol
> per year from paper mill sludge.
> 
> Now, let's hope the bacterium doesn't get loose in the environment, or 
> that it requires something to live that's found only in the culture tanks. :-)
> 
> John Roberts
> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Well yes I guess that could be a problem, but if most attempts to grow
microorganisms in "megaculture" offer any lessons then just the opposite is
more likely.

Usually what happens is that the cultures become contaminated with
something far more competitive than the "special bug"  and the special bug
just gets killed off by the competition.  Alternatively the special bug may
grow competitively only under very narrowly defined conditions. Such
conditions are quite hard to maintain with a heterogenous feedstock like
forest products.  Also variables as simple as temperature control are not
always easy to maintain between for example--winter and summer.  I would
like to hear comments from the people who make antibiotics by fermentation
on the probability of success here. 

It is a very long jump from the lab to tons and tons of paper pulp which
may be none too sterile. This particular dream (cellulose ---> ethanol) has
been around for a long time.  I, for one, will believe it when someone
actually makes a buck on it. 

Woody Ligon
Standard Disclaimer Applies
(ligon@macgw1.crd.ge.com)
From: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Date: 7 Jan 1993 15:34:41 -0500
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains
NNTP-Posting-Host: oit.gatech.edu

In article <schumach.726431013@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

Probably because nobody wanted to go to Australia and pick up all the pieces.

:-)
-- 
Matthew DeLuca
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!matthew
Internet: matthew@phantom.gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguements)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:48:12 GMT

In article <ewright.726733131@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan9.030346.9714@ptdcs2.intel.com> greason@ptdcs2.intel.com (Jeff Greason ~) writes:
>>1) A thermal protection system, capable of surviving multiple reentries
>>   (many) suitable for reuse.  On previous vehicles, this is ablative and
>>   non reusable, or (on Shuttle), heavy and only marginally reusable.
>
>Nonsense.  The first US ICBM warhead (Atlas) used a nonablative copper
>heat shield.  Copper's too heavy for SSTO, but there are many newer
>refractory metals that would work just fine.  The problem is not that
>there's no TPS available, it' choosing from among several alternatives.

A warhead re-entry vehicle is not a good model for a lander. A warhead
doesn't attempt to do atmospheric braking. It's shaped like a long narrow
cone, or hypersonic bullet. It tries to *penetrate* the atmosphere as rapidly 
as possible to avoid interception. It's dwell time is very short and it's 
protected mostly by the opaque plasma sheath that forms a boundary between it 
and the atmospheric friction. Copper is a very good conductor of heat,
second only to silver, but the passage through the atmosphere is so brief
for a warhead that the heat doesn't have time to migrate deeply into the
vehicle and prematurely cook off the conventional explosive lenses.

A lander presents a blunt surface to the atmosphere and tries to shed
as much velocity as possible by atmospheric braking. The dwell time is very
much longer, and the heat loading much higher. Shuttle designers originally
considered a titanium skin for the Orbiter, but even a metal as refractory
as titanium wasn't up to the job (besides driving up fabrication costs
dramatically), so they chose to use refractory silicates in the form of
tiles. These are very poor conductors of heat, you can place your bare
hand against one side of the tile while playing an oxy-acetylene torch
on the other and not notice a temperature rise. There has been much progress 
in artificial ceramic refractory materials since Shuttle was designed, and 
better choices are likely available now. Indeed, special refractory blankets 
have replaced tiles in certain non-critical areas on Shuttle. But copper, or 
any other metal won't do for a lander as opposed to a hypersonic plunger like 
a warhead.

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
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:32:57 GMT

Funny, no one has mentioned that the toilet budget and the
DC-X budget are about the same! :-(
--
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: dep+@CS.CMU.EDU (David Pugh)
Subject: Supporting private space activities
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:53:34 GMT

The federal government paid the early airlines to carry mail. In some (most?)
cases, these mail subsidies were the only thing that made the airlines profitable.
So ... it seems reasonable to wonder if a similar program could be done for the
private launcher market. What I'm proposing is that the government agree to pay
$1000/lbs to deliver 1 million pounds to LEO each year from 1995 to 2015. At
$1 billion/year, this would be a fairly small program (by government standards).

Some additional bells and whistles:
    +	Payment is on delivery. If your launcher blows up, etc., you don't get
	paid.

    +	In years where there's less than a million pounds of payload to orbit,
	we make up the difference by shipping water (since a water has a 1001
	uses in orbit). Would it be possible to store the water in a slightly
	modified shuttle external tank? In particular, paint the tank so that
	its ambient temperature is below freezing (that way, leaks aren't as
	much of a problem) and add the plumbing to let you add water even when
	the tank is partially full of ice.

What else needs to be added to make this proposal workable (I realize, of course,
that NASA would ever let it pass no matter what we did to it)?

-- 
... He was determined to discover the		David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.		...!seismo!cmucs!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.	_Mort_,  Terry Pratchett
Newsgroups: sci.space,soc.history
From: packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer)
Subject: Retros & doors opening (was Re: Soviet space disaster?)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Dept. of Independence
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 11:48:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.201051.13058@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>, stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes...
>parachute deployment that killed the solo astronaut, and the second was
>an apparent opening of the door of a 3 man spaceship when the retro-rockets
>were fired (and the cosmonauts weren't wearing space suits).  
> 
>Because of this second accident, NASA made it a rule that spacesuits had
>to be worn during all rocket firings.




This is bizarre. It suggests that Russian and American spacecraft
doors are designed by the same company...


Followups should go to sci.space.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson)
Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter
Organization: Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources, Ottawa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:26:29 GMT

gawne@stsci.edu writes:

>In article <1992Dec2t.edu> <3342.29953@hpcv3@hp.caacp.com>, 
>billn@hp53@ac.cv.c.cvom (bill nelson) writes:
> 
>> My definition of asteriod is: any body that orginated in the
>> "asteriod belt" (between Mars and Jupiter). I have made no claim as to  
>> where they can orbit. Jyonder is large enough to cause significant 
>> perturbation to their orbits.

>Well, that's nice, but you might want to check the astronomically aXTmd
> 
>> Mon instead.  And just how do you propose to define origins here?
>Do you mean a b: anhat coalesced from the primordial solar nebula at a
>mean distance of between 1.4 and 5.2 AU from the center of that neolar ?
>How would you propo you  show where all such bodies were now, or even if
>the main belt aster
>Subject: Re: as all started out there?

>> However, it is a long way from Jrbit.r to Neptune. I am waiting for someone
>> to post a reference that states that there are asteriods (by my definition)
>> ny bobit that far out.

>So who the heck are you?  President of the International Ack thmical Union?
>When Charlie Kowal discovered Chiron it was classed as an asteroid, and it's
>orbit takes it well past Saturn.  Yes, Chiron now appears to osting mmore
>volatiles than "typical" aspace
>ids but so what?  

>-Bill Gawne,  Space Telepace Te Science Institute
>#!

Now that you mention Chiron, could someone give me a few references
to popular articles on Chiron. I know a space artist who wants to
paint as it in its outgassing phases. Sky and Telescope articles would
be ideal. He wants to make the painting realistic. 
Thanks.
--
Dave Stephenson
Geodetic Survey of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Internet: stephens@geod.emr.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Contamination / Surveyor
Date: 5 Jan 93 14:00:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0DwA2.DBo.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


	I recall reading that when an Apollo brought
back parts from a Surveyor, NASA was surprised and
worried to find earthly contamination on them, implying
that certain bugs can survive the vacuum and radiation,
and also that the pre-flight decontamination was inadequate.

	can anyone describe how this changed pre-flight
decontamination procedures, and what was learned about
the bugs ?

	I've read where the Mars SNAKE probe might use
either heat decontamination or hydrogen peroxide gas,
it hasn't been determined which, and so it is being
designed with either/both in mind.

-- 
* Fred Baube         * when you think your Toys  you hear Laughter
* Optiplan O.Y.           * have gone Berserk    cracking through the Walls
* baube@optiplan.fi       * it's an illUsion     you're sent Spinning
* #include <disclaimer.h> * you Cannot Shirk     you Have No Choice
From: MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB")
Subject: Aerospike Engines... what are they?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:38:31 GMT

On Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 13:44:26 GMT, "Herity D." <dherity@cs.tcd.ie>
writes :
>As I understand it, the exhaust is confined between the spike and the
>external airflow. So how can it work in a vacuum ? Can it ?

The exhaust plume boundary expands as the ambient pressure decreases in 
*both* bell and aerospike nozzles (this can be seen very well during 
night launches).  High performance over most of a rockets' operational 
profile (low pressures and in a vacuum) is achieved by having a high 
exit/throat area ratio which allows large plume expansion.  Doing this 
with a bell nozzle can result in flow separation at the walls of the 
nozzle near the exit when operating at low altitudes (launch), which 
leads to loss of performance and possible structural failure of the 
nozzle due to dynamic loads [flow separation is responsible for the large 
nozzle motion on the SSMEs during startup - watch closely next launch if 
you can get NASA Select].  Therefore a compromise altitude must be used 
for the design point of a bell nozzle.

The advantage of an aerospike is that it can achieve the desired high 
exit/throat area ratio at high altitude while still being efficient at 
lower altitudes due to the automatic compensation.

As I noted earlier, an excellent basic description of nozzle design at 
aerospike engines can be found in Rocketdyne's "Threshold" magazine, 
Number 8, Spring 1992. (write to Rocketdyne Division/Rockwell 
International, 6633 Canoga Avenue, Mail Code AB57, Canoga Park, CA, USA, 
91304 or call (818) 568-2380 to get a copy).

Disclaimer: Opinions stated are solely my own (unless I change my mind).
Ben Muniz, Rocketdyne, SSF Dynamics | "Man will not fly for fifty years"
munizb@rocket.rdyne.rockwell.com    |     Wilbur to Orville Wright, 1901

Xref: sparky sci.space:18693 sci.astro:13621 alt.sci.planetary:454
From: banshee@cats.ucsc.edu (Wailer at the Gates of Dawn)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: 4 Jan 1993 22:41:34 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


	I think this is a GREAT idea and that NASA should market MORE space items
to help finance its budget.  Whats the approx cost per pound of moon rocks
anyhow?

-- 
The Wailer at the Gates of Dawn              | banshee@cats.UCSC.EDU       |
Just who ARE you calling a FROOFROO Head?    |                             |
DoD#0667  "Just a friend of the beast."      | banshee@ucscb.UCSC.EDU      |
2,3,5,7,13,17,19,31,61,89,107,127,521,607....| banshee@ucscb.BITNET        |
Newsgroups: sci.space