HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Laser Space Mirror
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 16:53:17 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Oct5.131638.13834@rcvie.co.at>, se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian Taylor) writes:

>New Scientist this week (No 1841, 3 October 1992) reports that next month a
>crewless Progress spacecraft will open a space mirror after resupplying Mir
>at an altitude of 350 km. 
>
>The solar reflector is 20 metres across and will be unfurled by centrifugal
>force. The mirror weighs 4 kg and is made from aluminium coated plastic film
>5 micrometres thick, it is attached to a 36 Kg frame and costs $60,000.
>
>The plan is to test the effectiveness of using space based mirrors to provide
>illumination for ground based artic locations!

This different from the solar sail experiment they were going to do on another
Progress? 

Gotta admire the Russians doing research on a Budweiser budget...
                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: galileo antenna status?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:06:23 GMT

In article <718147905snx@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au>, cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham) writes...
>I have been off the net for 6 weeks.  What is currently happening with the
>attempts to unstick the Galileo antenna ?  I haven't heard anything about
>it in the papers so I assume it is still stuck.
> 
>Has there been any success with the heating/cooling treatment?  What happened
>with the attempts to use the deployment motors?  Last I heard was that there
>was a small amount of movement when they were pulsed.  Has this been retried?

There has been three tests done so far with the two deployment motors (DDA). 
The first test marked where the motors were stalling.  The second and
third tests turned on the motors for short durations, and the results 
have indicated that the motors have turned the ballscrew a little bit 
further on both occasions.  There will be one more DDA test this month, and 
then the 2000 pulse DDA test in December after the Earth flyby.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Errors in reporting "firsts"
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:18:08 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
-Subject: Re: NASA Daily News for 10/02/92 (Forwarded)
-Date: 4 Oct 92 21:23:06 GMT
-Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp

-In article <BvJAuw.8FE@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo (Henry Spencer) writes:
->In article <1992Oct2.195759.18661@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes:
->>(On Wednesday, Daily News erroneously reported
->>MacLean would be the second CSA astronaut to fly.)
->
->Okay, now it's Marc Garneau's turn to be annoyed by botched NASA reporting.
->Maybe on the third try they'll get it right.

-I grew up tremendously impressed by NASA as a can-do, nearly super-humanly
-competent organization.  Seeing this, and the error-riddled press release
-"honoring" John Young from several days ago, and various other official
-releases which garble reality brings home quite clearly that this NASA is not
-that NASA.  It's both sad and infuriating.

Perhaps it's not such a bad thing that NASA doesn't devote its best effort
toward remembering the trivia of the past. :-) I'd be much more worried
about an error in reporting an upcoming mission.

Actually, there's an easy fix - require all official press releases to
be passed by a review board - NIST does that. Of course, if a thorough
review is mandated, there may be a month or more delay in getting a
release approved. For fast-breaking space news reports, I'd generally
prefer to get them quickly, and put up with an occasional error.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:16:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: VOILA.NICKH.92Sep30111640
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

I love this guy. Best laugh of the morning.

Nick
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mikew@kpc.com (Mike Wexler)
Subject: Re: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Reply-To: mikew@kpc.com
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computers Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:48:36 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>Are they planning to use retrtrockets for the Huygens probe? If so, 
>_why_? The Galileo probe makes a direct entry into Jupiter and I'd
>think the entry velocities for Huygens would be lower...
This was probably confusion on my part.

>>Could someone with a better idea of the costs involved come up with a
>>quick estimate of the previous two approaches for a similar set
>>of overall goals.

>However, small spacecraft offer two additional advantages: They permit
>more frequent missions (there are many diagvantages to 20-year desing
>to use missions) and they are much less vunerable to a failure: With
>A Mariner Mark II, a single major failure could ruin the entire mission
>(witness Galileo's antenna), whereas such a failure on a series of
>small crafts would only jeperdize one of many parts of the mission.
To be fair it should be noted that the failure of Galileo's antenna only
jeopardizes part of the mission (the imaging which requires high bandwidth).

Also, if you didn't need a big antenna and a powerful battery on each
sattelite for communications (because of the relay sattelite), you
could conceiably make a sattelite much smallar and cheaper than the ones
they are planning on flying by Pluto.


--
Mike Wexler (mikew@kpc.com)
Xref: sparky sci.space:13721 sci.astro:10238 talk.politics.space:1315 alt.politics.bush:7084 alt.politics.clinton:7687
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Spinoffs...political, not R&D
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:08:14 GMT


>The truth is, I am personally not voting on a single issue.

Neither am I!  I think the whole field is ridiculous, and a complete
waste of time! :-) :-) :-)

>If you want to argue about ethics and values, I'll refer you to Tommy
>:-)

Oh, no you don't.  Arguing with me about ethics is bad.  Takes too much
time.  Causes zits, and ring around the collar...

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Diamond film semiconductors
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:38:03 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


There's an interesting article in the October 1992 Scientific American
entitled "Diamond Film Semiconductors". Apparently new techniques have
been used to grow large thin films on a silicon substrate, heavily doped
with boron and of adequate crystalline structure to act as a semiconductor.
Schottky diodes, transistors, and MOSFETs have been made. Ultimately, such
devices are expected to be smaller and operate 40-100 times faster than their
silicon or gallium arsenide counterparts, and function at up to 700 degrees
Celsius (in fact, they work better at 100-500 C than at room temperature).

Diamond semiconductors can also function as relatively low-temperature,
low-voltage electron emitters, and could be made into high-current
(1000 A/cm^2) subminiature vacuum tubes that essentially never burn out.

Sounds like something that could be applied to the demanding requirements 
of space electronics!

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Lunar landing in 2002
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:51:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.151124.25081@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>...US private industry won't fund
>a return to the Moon because the results won't show up in their bottom
>lines in the less than six months timeframe that institutional investors
>will allow them for venture investments.

This is silly socialist rhetoric.  Chevron, among others, is planning 
their oil operations in Siberia out beyond 2030 -- forty years.  The 
government rebudgets every year, with priority on pork that will get 
the congresscritter reelected in two years. Which sector has 
the longer term thinkers?


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian
From: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:22:23 GMT
Reply-To: m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY)
Organization: The Next Challenge, Fairfax, Va.


Is there any way to turn ALSEP back on once we get the ground station
set up properly?  Or was it a no-return type of prodedure?
-- 
The Next Challenge - Public Access Unix in Northern Va. - Washington D.C.
703-803-0391 To log in for trial and account info.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Goldin hails Pluto mission (Re: Sayonara, Mariner Mark II)
Organization: Institute for Astronomy, Hawaii
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:14:50 GMT

Bill Higgins writes:
 
>> That was the old NASA.  In Goldin's NASA, we fully expect the Pluto mission
>> cost to include launch, and the current budget ceiling we're looking at is
>> in the 400 million ballpark, including launch.  The spacecraft design is
>> quite a challenge, but Rob Staehle and colleagues haven't shrunk from it.

> I was going by the report in *Aviation Week*, 31 August issue, page
> 22, which says:
>
>    JPL planners have been directed to design a mission that would
>    cost no more than $400 million in Fiscal 1992 dollars for both
>    spacecraft, not including launch vehicle costs.  The project
>    currently is before NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin for his
>    decision.

It would seem the confusion is over the costs for one spacecraft or two.
OPSWG has been looking at several alternatives, each with a cost cap,
including launch, of around $400 million.  Just a few short months ago,
we were comparing "Pluto small", a <100 kg spacecraft on a very fast direct
trajectory to Pluto using a Titan IV launch, with "Pluto intermediate", a
much bigger spacecraft on a slower, gravity-assisted trajectory, using an
Altas-Centaur launch.  Both came in around $400 million, but for the former,
the launch dominated the cost, whereas for the latter, the spacecraft
dominated the cost.

Still, we continued to push the twin spacecraft concept, because it was one
way to get a good look at both sides.  When Goldin picked up on the Pluto
mission, he liked the twin spacecraft idea, so the cost cap for the total
mission has gone up, but we're still looking at $400 million, including
launch, for a single spacecraft.  Of course, with two spacecraft, the costs
will not quite double.  It's just a coincidence of the math that you can do
two spacecraft for $400 million, excluding launch, or one spacecraft for
$400 million, including launch.  Naturally, there is still concern that
Congress won't go for a twin spacecraft mission, so we may be back to the
$400 million cost cap, including launch, for a single spacecraft.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Subject: Re: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !)
Reply-To: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:58:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.151242.7274@rcvie.co.at> se_taylo@rcvie.co.at (Ian  
Taylor) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.160708.26767@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca>  
martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors) writes:
> [.../dev/nulled]
> >Of course Toutatis  
> >is NOT coming in randomly, and even for its chaotic orbit we know the  
> >position well enough to say that over the next few encounters it will  
not  
> >be hitting and after that its encounters are not so close.
> 
> As you know Toutatis's position _well enough_, perhaps you or someone  
else can
> answer Bill Higgins previous question about what the error is in its  
predicted
> position at Earth "encounter"?

Fair comment. I must admit the only Toutatis orbits I have done FORWARD in  
time were done with ephem and the results matched up pretty well with  
those in the Yeomans et al. AJ ('Asteroid and Comet Orbits using RADAR  
Data' in  the January 1992 Astronomical Journal.) Most of my Toutatis  
orbits are BACKWARDS in time and I look at statistical aspects.

Let me go out on a limb and guess that the positions given in say, Hahn  
('Close Encounters of Near-Earth Asteroids during 1900-2100', Advances in  
Space Research, v. 11, p. 29, 1991) would be good to at least .001 AU for  
this object. My previous posting tried to point out just how large this is  
or more precisely just how small a target the Earth is.

However, I promise, sometime before the encounter, to find out what the  
position errors are, and run some orbits to see what errors in Earth  
approach distance are implied by these errors.

Martin Connors
University of Alberta
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Wealth in Space (Was Re: Clinton and Space Funding)
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:39:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvCoDw.EGD.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> That's before you bring it home. Actual price of gold and platinum  
on earth
> would drop, ASSUMING you can bring home the metals for a price less  
than or
> equal to the price of extracting them using current and near-term  
methods.
> 

> Basic laws of supply and demand. More goods, prices drop. 

> 


Actually it's a bit more complex than that. Prices have elasticity,
ie, there are ranges over which there are somewhat linear changes.

For example, the price of a good may fall with supply until some  
threshold is reached at which it becomes feasible to use if for a new
purpose, say your gold plated urinals. The demand curve then goes up,  
and the price will fall more slowly. If the new use becomes the "in"  
thing to do, demand might even push the price above the original  
point at which the new use became feasible. There is a hysteresis  
involved, ie it may have to go considerably higher than the initial  
point before demand slackens again.

If many new uses open up, the curve might be almost flat for a  
considerable change in supply.

Rising prices can show the aforementioned effect on prior uses, and  
they can also be affected by the economics of substitution. And once  
the substitution has occured, the old material price may have to fall  
very considerably before users will switch back to it.

A lot also depends on the capital investment involved in switching  
from once material to another, and in changing uses of that material.  
The higher the capital investment involved, the more elastic the  
price. Of course some materials, such as Heroin, have a price  
elasticity for very different reasons.

I am not implying that your statement is necessarily wrong. Just  
indicating that the situation could be a bit less straightforward.

Just another friendly minilecture in economics....
				Dale
From: Steve_Grant@kcbbs.gen.nz (Steve Grant)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Military Sat photos, info required
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:23:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: kcbbs.10292270.58991.6248
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Hello all,
         I am looking to ask some one a few questions, if there is anyone 
on the net in this line of work. Thanks in advance.

Steve Grant
PLS E-mail responses
DOMAIN: Steve_Grant@kcbbs.gen.nz
SNAIL: Steve Grant
       9 Tui Vale Av
       Howick, Auckland
       New Zealand
FAX: (64)+(9) 5794813
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar landing in 2002
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:11:24 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <Bv3pqq.Cs2@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.105111.10555@dde.dk> ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering) writes:
>>A friend of mine recently told me that there are definite plans to
>>resume lunar flights around 2002 with the aim to establish a permanent
>>base on the moon.
>>Is this true?
>
>There are a lot of people *hoping* for something like that.  (Indeed, some
>of us think waiting until 2002 is stupid, since it could be done sooner.)
>Some of them have put a lot of effort into detailed proposals.
>
>Nobody, repeat nobody, has agreed to *fund* anything of the kind.
>
>Indeed, it is proving difficult to get funding for even the tiniest initial
>steps, because Congress is largely hostile to the idea.
>
>There is some hope for action on it if Bush gets reelected.  Nothing is going
>to happen on it for quite a while if Clinton replaces him.

Henry is right as usual. There are four powers who have a shot at going
back to the Moon. The US, of course, ESA, the ex-Soviets, and the Japanese.
We are all aware of the financial and political troubles of the ex-Soviets.
ESA is scaling back it's non-commercial space programs. The Japanese are
trying, but lag the other space powers in developed hardware and know how.
That leaves the folks who did it before, the US. President Bush has made
it official US policy that we are going back to the Moon, and this time
to stay. Unfortunately, the Democrat controlled Congress hasn't seen fit
to appropriate the money, they'd prefer to waste it on HUD, the VA, and
other welfare programs. Clinton/Gore have relegated the return to the
Moon to the status of just a dream. They propose to fund only Mission
to Planet Earth programs that fit their activist environmental agenda.
Mission from Planet Earth programs are to be squelched until we have
"excess" money available for them. Since Congress has never heard of
"excess" money, that will never happen. US private industry won't fund
a return to the Moon because the results won't show up in their bottom
lines in the less than six months timeframe that institutional investors
will allow them for venture investments.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: My final word on Ion to Pluto (long)
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 16:37:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Distribution: sci
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <Bvo1w0.L3w.1@cs.cmu.edu>, amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>> from sensitive instrumentation, the Pluto spacecraft is quite  
>small, with
>> RTGs body mounted.  Depending on the type of instrumentation, more  
>shielding
>> 
>
>I presume this means that an isotope source is once again available?  
>Which plant is on line? Will production be threatened by the nuclear  
>weapons cut backs? (I believe the RTG material was made in the same  
>breeder reactors that were used by the DOE for weapon fissionables.

Made in the Russian Republic. They've got the only stockpiles of Pu-whatever
leftover from bomb production. We're talking TONS, plenty for the next
20-30 years.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Who pays for SEI studies? (was Re: Lunar landing in 2002)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:35:42 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1654@hsvaic.boeing.com>, eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:
> ct@dde.dk (Claus Tondering) writes:
>>A friend of mine recently told me that there are definite plans to
>>resume lunar flights around 2002 with the aim to establish a permanent
>>base on the moon.
> 
> NASA has maintained an office for the past several years at the
> Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX dedicated to planning the
> Lunar and Mars exploration programs.  [...]
>
> Most of the work on these plans has been done in-house by NASA people.
> My company (and I assume other aerospace companies) maintain groups
> doing parallel work on company funds.  This is speculative on our part,
> in the hope that a real program will develop at some point.
> 
> For the past couple of years NASA has requested funding to start to
> pay contractors to work on these projects.  The US Congress has seen 
> fit to deny these requests except at the most minimal levels
> ($1 million per year).  Boeing and one other company were awarded
> contraacts to begin design of the lunar observer mentioned above,
> but the contract is un-funded at present because NASA has no funds

Dani, I have wondered how all this work gets paid for, since Congress
has voted essentially nothing for the Space Exploration Initiative. 
You give part of the answer:  some of the work is company-funded.
But, judging from the papers and conferences I see, there are really
quite a lot of people working on SEI-type stuff.  How does NASA pay
for in-house work?  Is there a non-SEI source of funds for this? 

I also feel that such companies as Eagle Engineering and SAIC seem to
do a lot of this work for their size.  Can it all be internally
funded, or is there a source of NASA money for it, or are they getting
contracts from Boeing, Martin Marrietta, etc.?

Submarines, flying boats, robots, talking         Bill Higgins
pictures, radio, television, bouncing radar       Fermilab
vibrations off the moon, rocket ships, and        HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
atom-splitting-- all in our time.  But nobody     HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
has yet been able to figure out a music           SPAN:  43011::HIGGINS
holder for a marching piccolo player. 
                     --Meredith Willson, 1948
Newsgroups: sci.space