HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: munk@prl.philips.nl (Harm Munk)
Subject: Re: Meteorite/Fireball object spotted?
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, Netherlands
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:08:32 GMT

LJ10717@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:


>Hello,

>I just recently heard over NPR (National Public Radio) that a possible
>"meteorite" was spotted over Europe somewhere.  I missed the information on
>exactly where it was spotted.  However, the object was accompanied by large
>tremors covering a 12 mile stretch and a flood of calls to authorities who
>have already confirmed that the "fireball" object was NOT
>military test aircraft, abnormal weather patterns, an earthquake OR
>anything else identifiable, at this point.

>If anyone has specifics to this event please post or email.  Thank you.

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Diamond - lj10717@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday evening, at around 22:30 local time (20:30 UT) in the northern
part of the Netherlands, a loud, explosion-like noise was heard. At the time,
the air space over this area was closed (it is controlled by a military air
base), and no other military or civilian air activity was going on. Also, no
reports of accidents were reported. The European Space Organisation reported 
no space junk entering the atmosphere at that time in that area.

The Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute has six
seismic measuring stations in and near that part of Holland to measure seismic
activity in the gas fields in the northern parts of Holland. All six stations
registered the explosion, and the seismograms indicate that it was a sound
wave and not a seismic wave. From the order of reception of the sound waves
it was concluded that something caused a shock wave above or near the town
Joure in Friesland (a province in the Netherlands). Eye witnesses said that
they saw a 'pillar of fire in the sky'. Alas, at the time that part of the
Netherlands was heavily overcast, so whatever these people saw was filtered
by the clouds.
At this moment, the best guess is that a meteorite of approximately 30 cm 
diameter entered the atmosphere and exploded at a height of 10 kilometers
above the town of Joure. Up to this moment, no fragments have been found.

+----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Harm Munk                              | Building WAY 11                    |
| Philips Research Laboratories          | P.O. Box 80 000                    |
| Knowledge Based Systems                | 5600 JA  Eindhoven                 |
|                                        | The Netherlands                    |
| #include <standard.disclaimer>         | tel. +31 40 74 46 59               |
|                                        | email: munk@prl.philips.nl         |
+----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 22 Aug 92 19:02 PDT
Subject: Space Economics
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1469100013:000:1308
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 22 19:02:00 1992


To:    sci.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    space economics
Date:  21 aug 1992

I want to raise a subject that I have not yet seen in sci.space.
It has to do with the economic value of space activities.  I use commercial viability as the sign of economic value, though I recognize that this fails to account for "public goods" values like weather forecasting or the long-term (and unpredictable) value of R&D.

Much of the discussion here has dealt with human spaceflight and
solar power satellites, neither of which is close to to being
commercially viable.  Satellites (a.k.a. automated spacecraft)
and related services are where it's at, which leads me to the
questions:

What is the future of small satellites?  They go by many names
(lightsats, microsats, Little LEOs, Brilliant Eyes and Pebbles).
Is there a potential market niche for these systems, say in
mobile communication or remote sensing?  Will they create a
viable market niche for small launchers like Pegasus?

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cc843@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul A. Voytas)
Subject: Re: Balloon Launches
Reply-To: cc843@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul A. Voytas)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:10:52 GMT


In a previous article, 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) says:

>I don't know if this is a wacko idea or what:
>
>Has there ever been any proposal or even thought of using lighter-than-air
>platforms for launching small payloads?  It seems to me that with a
>dirigible designed to fly relativly fast, you could get pretty good cost
>savings with it, as you could get both velocity and altitude advantages.
>
>-Tommy Mac

Wacko or not, something like it was tried. The Air Force had a project
(called FARSIDE) in the early sixties (I think) that used balloon 
launched rockets called ROCKOONS. The idea was to lift the rockets 
up 20 miles or so and then launch them through the balloon. At least
two rockets were launched this way.

Descriptions of schemes to have a floating spaceport in the stratosphere
are also seen from time to time. These would be huge floating structures
with runways for single stage to orbit type of vehicles. Of course,
you have to get everything up there in the first place....

PAV
From: pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: 22 Aug 92 21:47:58 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

nicho@VNET.IBM.COM writes:

>In <8780.2339210127@kcbbs.gen.nz> Simon Demler writes:
>>Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money
>>on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program
> Nope, it doesn't bother me at all. The planet is overpopulated as it
>is. Besides, how do you fix a drought ???
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

Massive weather control. Of course, the greens won't like it 
very much if anyone drops a couple hundred square miles of
evaporating film off of Somalia, and starts seeding clouds
with whatever the latest material is...

There have been rumors of secret attempts to alleviate droughts
bandied about (although I doubt them); the reason they're supposedly
kept secret is the possibility of having to pay for any damage it
_might_ have caused. 

...

--
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
From: Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: BuckyStalks (was Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky)
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 00:04:09 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <16eqs1INNb5k@early-bird.think.com> <1700@aviary.Stars.Reston.Unisys.COM>
  <1992Aug22.030234.3243@u.washington.edu>

"  Well, why didn't you SAY so?!? We could build the tether around a
temporary Lofstrom loop."
 
What is a Lofstrom loop?
 
                                                          Eric Klien
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: Earl W Phillips <ephillip@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Saturn's moons
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 03:06:41 GMT

There are many programs that predict and displB{y the{ positions
of{ the moons of Jupiter..... {my question:{ Are there {any{
programs out there, written for the IBM-PC, that will do the
same for Saturn's moons?

*****************************************************************
*                                    | ====@====      ///////// *
* ephillip@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu|     ``________//         *
*                                    |       `------'           *
*                 -JR-               | Space;........the final  *
*                                    | frontier...............  *
*****************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cbettis@unlinfo.unl.edu (clifford bettis)
Subject: Tether and Space Junk
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 15:25:18 GMT


I have been waiting to see this issue discussed: in the event of 
serious difficult with the tethered satellite experiment, I understand
that one option was to cut the tether. Wouldn't a 20 km cable in orbit
be the environmental equivalent of a drift net for space craft and 
pose an unacceptable hazard?
Cliff Bettis
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: manuel@space.ualberta.ca  (John Manuel)
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Reply-To: manuel@space.ualberta.ca  (John Manuel)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:36:08 GMT

Are there any bodies in the solar system that have weak enough gravitational  
fields (moons, I'd guess) that currently available materials would make a  
beanstalk a good idea?

I can't imagine that a beanstalk would really be useful at Phobos, for  
example, because it has no atmosphere and a weak field thus making it easy to  
land on.

--
John R. Manuel                 Department of Physics, University of Alberta
manuel@space.ualberta.ca                 Edmonton, Alberta, CANADA, T6G 2J1
Office: (403) 492-2526          (NeXTMail OK)           Fax: (403) 492-0714
From: cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: More second-hand info on TSS
Date: 12 Aug 1992 19:26:28 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Academic Computing

In article <1992Aug12.005707.25791@den.mmc.com>,
jhull@vulcan.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (   Joseph F. Hull) wrote:
> 
> If you really think it is that simple, Chuck, why don't you bid for the deployer contract
> for TSS-2.  Until you are willing to put that kind of money where your mouth is, please try
> to be a little less derogatory. 

First of all, my original comment wasn't intended to be derogatory. Perhaps
a bit too tongue in cheek for some, but not derogatory.

If you'll read the rest of the message, I was putting the recent failure of
the TSS in context with the failures of other relatively low-tech devices
that failed, jeapordizing the shuttle's primary mission (e.g., capture bar,
cooling fans, etc.). 

The simple point was that NASA (often through its contractors) seems to
over-engineer solutions. (and I AM speaking from first-hand experience as a
former contractor). I place the blame squarely at the feet of NASA
management for continuing to foster over-engineered, contractor-welfare
solutions to problems that used to be solved "in-house" in a simple,
cost-effective fashion. The culture has changed from being one of technical
excellence to one of low-risk management decisions.

Before I get flamed for painting with too broad a brush, let me say that
there are several fine examples of engineering coming out of many NASA
centers. Unfortunately, most don't get the same amount of publicity that
the failures do.
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: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 21:58:50 GMT

In article <16l0ebINNa5p@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:

>	I would think that 62 Atlases with no orders is a pretty
>strong argument for companies taking risk for potential payoff.
>Even more significant was the hundreds of millions invested in
>R&D on the vehicle when the Commercial Atlas startup occurred.

GD and McDonnell Douglas have, between them, invested over a billion $$
of their own money in commercial launchers. they did it because there
was a market and a reasonable chance of getting a decent return. Raising
the money isn't a problem if the market is there.

If we are ever going to go, we need to help make a market, not waste
money on expensive systems like Shuttle.

   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?"                               |
+----------------------250 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: ACRV/Soyuz P # of Passengers
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:33:08 GMT


	Allen,

	Concerning the use of Soyuz's and the like, I still have not seen you
respond to the agrument I presented LAST time this debate came up.  Therefore,
I'd like to see your response.

	Soyuz is great, Soyuz is God, Soyuz can carry ONE passenger.  The
other two occupants must be qualified as pilots.

	The Shuttle is lousy, the shuttle is the eater of money, the shuttle
can carry 5 passengers (or more).  

	With Soyuz, 66% of each flight is taken up by pilots.  Since a majority
of astronauts are NOT pilot qualified, this means that you either have to 
qualify a lot more than you currently have, or not fly them as often.  Since
much of the work on the station will be research, you presumably will want
mostly scientists on board, not pilots.

	Assume in a typical station crew you have one pilot-qualified astronaut
and 3 scientist astronauts.  That means that to perform a crew rotation you need
to fly at least 3 Soyuz's.  (Assuming the pilot from one flight stay's on
board.)

	With shuttle, you only need one shuttle flight.  AND the shuttle can
supply the station in the same flight.  (sorry, I don't recall how many
Soyuz/Progress missions you allocate for this.)   

	If the station EVER (and I doubt this for a LONG time) gets to 
8-person capability you will need 6 Soyuz flights to recrew.  (I'm assuming
two pilots in this case).  This can still be done (barely) with the shuttle
in ONE flight.

	An added cost comes up with these multiple flights.  Before you argue
that costs would go DOWN as a result of a larger production line, keep in mind
that you will need more launch pads, more ground support, etc.  You can't 
simply double or triple the flight rate of any rocket without taking into
account the cost of these factors.  Therefore, I don't think your savings in
production quantity would help, it would end up being eaten in launch support
costs.

	Finally, as my recent post concering the EOS system asks, why is the
cost so low.  As has been opointed out to me by at least two sources, 
NASA contractors OFTEN bid low in the initial bid and then when the Real
Requirements sheet is drawn up raise their price.  I ask you what is
keeping the companies from doing this with HL-Delta and Atlas?
	Your answer taht you've talked to teh engineers, ro that Boeing does
it with aircraft all the time doesn't hold water with me.  First:  the
companies in question have a tradition of giving lower figures, why change
now?  Two: Boeing is operating in the real world with real customers who
WON'T allow them to underbid and get away with it.  NASA does and the
customers know it.

-- 
<------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Greg d. Moore                  |  Strider@acm.rpi.edu
Green Mountain Software        |  "All that is gold does not glitter."  
Carpe Diem                     |
From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Balloon Launches
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:36:47 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: SABER - Sistemas de Informacao, Lda.

In article <Bt7Kpw.3xo.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:

   Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: pinkie!dec4pt.puug.pt!inesc.inesc.pt!mcsun!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!18084TM@msu.edu
   From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
   X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
   Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
   Organization: [via International Space University]
   Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
   Distribution: sci
   Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 02:09:14 GMT
   Approved: bboard-news_gateway
   Lines: 15

   I don't know if this is a wacko idea or what:

   Has there ever been any proposal or even thought of using lighter-than-air
   platforms for launching small payloads?  It seems to me that with a
   dirigible designed to fly relativly fast, you could get pretty good cost
   savings with it, as you could get both velocity and altitude advantages.

   -Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +


As far as dirigibles are concerned, I think NASDA has used one to launch a prototype of a SSTO reduced scale vehicle, but they used it mainly to DROP the vehicle.

I don't think dirigibles are fast enough to be really useful to give a first kick to a Pegasus launcher, for example. That's why they use B-52's.

Rui Sousa
-- 
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil)
Subject: Re: What about Saturn?
Organization: Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Univ. North. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:35:53 GMT

>laurecr@eng.auburn.edu (Chase R. Laurendine) writes:
> ...  With all the interest in using Energiya's payload capacity for
> SSF and the fond memories of the Saturn V program, I am curious to know how
> the payload capacities of the two compare.

The heaviest lift variant of ``revitalized'' Saturn V that has been discussed
here would use STME's for the 2nd stage, to put ~140 metric tons into LEO.
Energiya can put up ~150 metric tons with 4 strap-ons and ~235 metric tons
with 6, but only into high inclination orbits.  Payloads to 28.5 degs are
10-15% of those quoted above.
-- 
Gerald Cecil 919-962-7169  Dept. Physics & Astronomy
U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3255 USA
-- Intelligence is believing only half of what you read; brilliance is 
   knowing which half. ** Be terse: each line cost the Net $10 **
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Re: Watching a Shuttle launch
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 19:10:53 GMT

In article <9208110433.AA04107@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>-> True. But I'd be happy to sign a liability release if it would let me watch
>-> a Shuttle launch from a mile or two away.

I've witnessed and photographed shuttle launches from the press site
(about 3 miles away).  At that distance you can feel the ground 
rumble.  You can feel the heat of the exhaust on your chest (on a hot
day at that).  It is one impressive event.  I'd say its the most
exciting thing you can watch in public.  Get to within a mile?
No thanks.

>were really fantastic. What fooled me is the limited dynamic range of
>television systems and camera film - with the sensitivity set to pick up
>the body of the Shuttle, the exhaust flames of the SRBs are washed out - 
>you only see them at a fraction of their true brightness. In fact, they're

[stuff deleted]

>
>I got some pretty good pictures with a zoom lens set to 300mm. If I had it to
>do over again, I'd probably add my 2X converter and try for 600mm. 

A semiprofessional's recommendations (I've photographed 3 shuttle
launches and sold both prints and pictures to magazines of launches as
well as much other stuff):

At 3 miles I got excellent results with a Canon A-1, a Canon 500 mm
and a matched Canon 2X teleconverter.  The effective f/stop was f/16.

Films used were Ektachrome 64.  On a bright sunny day I shot at both
1/500 second and 1/250 second.  1/500 gave really good image of the
exhausts (both liquid and solid).  1/250 gave better over all balance.

If I ever get a chance again, I'd likely opt for Ektar 125 (1 stop
gain) and shoot at 1/500.  That would overexpose the flames, but a
good to excellent lab might well be able to bring them out in custom
prints.

Of course I used a solid tripod and _no_ exposure automation.
A local


-- 
Chuck Divine
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What about Saturn?
Date: 15 Aug 92 21:26:25 GMT
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Fidonet/Internet - +1 408 734 2289

laurecr@eng.auburn.edu (Chase R. Laurendine) writes:

>         Maybe this topic has already discussed, if so, sorry for waisting
> your time.  With all the interest in using Energiya's payload capacity for
> SSF and the fond memories of the Saturn V program, I am curious to know how
> the payload capacities of the two compare.  If the Saturn rockets had
> comperable payload capacities, what would it take to bring the Saturn out
> of mothballs.

At least 2 of the 3 remaining Saturn Vs, I'm afraid. Among other problesm
(like the missing ring segment from the one they had to cut in half to fit
in the Smithsonian), the initiators on the S-I engines (those nice BIG
engines) were all hand wired, each one individually according to the
specifics of that one's manufacture and sequencing the things was
similarly custom work. The paper trails are gone. They're more likely to
blow up than go up, and there's no guarantee that what worked for one
would be transferable to another, even if you DID manage to get one of the
pad. The costs of re-engineering the Saturn V would be compribale to the
original development costs scaled up to 1990's prices. It's a LOT cheaper
(IMHO) to put money into SSTO-type vehicles than to try recapturing our
"glorious youth". Enough nostalgia ... let's get on with the job.

        Michael

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org - Michael Wallis
            Oakland lost the Raiders. Now SF has lost the Giants.
            Guess that makes then even again.               8-)
From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:44 PDT
Subject: Re: PAVE PAWS
Nf-ID: #R:BtAAn3.5z1.1@cs.cmu.edu:-580398357:cdp:1469100012:000:1021
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 21 12:44:00 1992


To:    sci.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    meteoroid detection
Date:  21 Aug 1992
 
Several people have pointed out my error in dismissing OTH radars
as meteor detectors.  I hang my head in shame.  Plasma trails,
doppler shifts, yes, yes.  I was thinking of their weakness as
early-warning radars against cruise missile attack, but that's
a different story.
 
It is news to me that the PAVE PAWS radar in Georgia does not
operate.  I knew the OTH/B radars were mothballed or operating
on limited schedules.  I assume the BMEWS radars for warning
against (former) Soviet ICBMs are still working.  But there
haven't been any (former) Soviet ballistic missile subs off our
coasts for years.
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.aeronautics,alt.censorship,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.sys.super