waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr21.210712.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >> So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the >> U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida?  > >Why must it be a US Government Space Launch Pad? Directly I mean...  In fact, you probably want to avoid US Government anything for such a project.  The pricetag is invariably too high, either in money or in hassles.  The important thing to realize here is that the big cost of getting to the Moon is getting into low Earth orbit.  Everything else is practically down in the noise.  The only part of getting to the Moon that poses any new problems, beyond what you face in low orbit, is the last 10km -- the actual landing -- and that is not immensely difficult.  Of course, you *can* spend sagadollars (saga- is the metric prefix for beelyuns and beelyuns) on things other than the launches, but you don't have to.  The major component of any realistic plan to go to the Moon cheaply (for more than a brief visit, at least) is low-cost transport to Earth orbit. For what it costs to launch one Shuttle or two Titan IVs, you can develop a new launch system that will be considerably cheaper.  (Delta Clipper might be a bit more expensive than this, perhaps, but there are less ambitious ways of bringing costs down quite a bit.)  Any plan for doing sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting money in a big way.  Given this, questions like whose launch facilities you use are *not* a minor detail; they are very important to the cost of the launches, which dominates the cost of the project.
In article <1993Apr29.064347.15433@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>, ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote: > >1.	Calculators > >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan) > >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988) >  > I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced > many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology. > I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself, > a good thing. >  > If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in > and of itself.  I disagree with what to tout, although I agree that the space program is inherently a good thing.  Most people today only care about "what will it cost me?" and "what's in it for me?" and could care less about whether something is simply worthwhile in and of itself.  Our society has become increasingly geared toward the short-term (which you could read as NOW!).  They couldn't care less about next week, much less next century.  They want something to show for the expenditure and they want it *now*.  I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove* its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued existence of the space program relies upon that money.  just my $.02  BTW: don't forget Velcro...
In article <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is >enough to do it if the vehicle exists.  Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of course, they may be over-optimistic.  You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications that would help pay for its development costs.  I'd be inclined to make the prize somewhat larger, but $1G might be enough.
In article <STEINLY.93Apr20145301@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:  > Why Paul, it's obvious. > Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth, > as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will > sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to > assume any developments in Ti processing). > Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for > the trendy jewelry market and certain applications > of National Importance  > > :-) :-) :-)   Well, there already is a sulfate process for TiO2 purification.  The chlorine process is cleaner, however, and for that reason is achieving dominance in the marketplace.  Most Ti is used in pigment, btw (as the oxide), where it replaced white lead pigment some decades ago.  Very little is reduced to the metal.  > Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis > in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe > the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local > use...  Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)
This might a real wierd idea or maybe not..  I have seen where people have blown up ballons then sprayed material into them that then drys and makes hard walls...  Why not do the same thing for a space station..  Fly up the docking rings and baloon materials and such, blow up the baloons, spin then around (I know a problem in micro gravity) let them dry/cure/harden? and cut a hole for the docking/attaching ring and bingo a space station..  Of course the ballons would have to be foil covered or someother radiation protective covering/heat shield(?) and the material used to make the wals would have to meet the out gasing and other specs or atleast the paint/covering of the inner wall would have to be human safe.. Maybe a special congrete or maybe the same material as makes caplets but with some changes (saw where someone instea dof water put beer in the caplet mixture, got a mix that was just as strong as congret but easier to carry around and such..)  Sorry for any spelling errors, I missed school today.. (grin)..  Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not earth, why be limited by earth based ideas??
There are a number of Philosophical questions that I would like to ask:  1)  If we encounter a life form during our space exploration, how do we determine if we should capture it, imprison it, and then discect it?  2)  If we encounter a civilization that is suffering economicly, will we expend resources from earth to help them?  3)  With all of the deseases we currently have that are deadly and undetectable, what will be done to ensure that more new deadly deseases aren't brought back, or that our deseases don't destroy life elsewhere?    --  Have a day,
What fraction of the NASA workforce is civil servant  as opposed to contractor and what are the rules on reduction in work force for civil servants?  eg, if say the shuttle program is terminated, how much is payroll reduced and how?
In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes: >A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention >about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just >managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon.  Their Hiten engineering-test mission spent a while in a highly eccentric Earth orbit doing lunar flybys, and then was inserted into lunar orbit using some very tricky gravity-assist-like maneuvering.  This meant that it would crash on the Moon eventually, since there is no such thing as a stable lunar orbit (as far as anyone knows), and I believe I recall hearing recently that it was about to happen.
Regarding drag free satellites, Joe Cain gives a good description of the concept.  It is however more than a concept.  The Navy's Triad satellite succesfully used drag free control.  Drag free control is an integral part of the Stanford Gravity Probe-B spacecraft, due to fly in 1999.  It is also part of the European STEP satellite.
higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:  >(Josh Hopkins) writes: >> I remeber reading the comment that General Dynamics was tied into this, in  >> connection with their proposal for an early manned landing.   >The General Chairman is Paul Bialla, who is some official of General >Dynamics.  >The emphasis seems to be on a scaled-down, fast plan to put *people* >on the Moon in an impoverished spaceflight-funding climate. You'd >think it would be a golden opportunity to do lots of precusor work for >modest money using an agressive series of robot spacecraft, but >there's not a hint of this in the brochure.  It may be that they just didn't mention it, or that they actually haven't  thought about it.  I got the vague impression from their mission proposal that they weren't taking a very holistic aproach to the whole thing.  They seemed to want to land people on the Moon by the end of the decade without  explaining why, or what they would do once they got there.  The only application I remember from the Av Week article was placing a telescope on the Moon.  That's great, but they don't explain why it can't be done robotically.   >> Hrumph.  They didn't send _me_ anything :(  >You're not hanging out with the Right People, apparently.  But I'm a _member_.  Besides Bill, I hang out with you :)
Although the $1 billion scheme is a fantasy (it's an old canard in the space business called "trolling for billionaires"), there is a good chance that a much smaller program ($65 million) will pass the 103rd Congress. This is the Back to the Moon bill, put together by the people who passed the Launch Services Purchase Act. The bill would incent private companies to develop lunar orbiters, with vendors selected on the basis of competitive bidding. There is an aggregate cap on the bids of $65 million.   Having a single rich individual paying billions for lunar missions is probably worse than having the government bankroll a $65 million program, as the Delta Clipper program has shown (DC-X was funded by SDIO at $59 million). We have a clear chance of making a lunar mission happen in this decade - as opposed to simply wishing for our dreams to come true. Please support the Back to the Moon bill.   For more information, please send E-mail with your U.S. postal service address.
In article <1rruis$9do@bigboote.WPI.EDU> wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown) writes: >From: wfbrown@wpi.WPI.EDU (William F Brown) >Subject: Re: Space spinn offs >Date: 30 Apr 1993 19:27:24 GMT >I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program. >It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the  >system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it. > >Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for >enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence >the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has >all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive. > >My 2 sense worth. > >Bill >
Idea for repair of satellites:  Warning I am getting creative again:  Why not build a inflatable space dock.  Basically deploy one side of the space dock (using a scissor shaped structure, saw it on beyond 2000), then maneuer the side to next to the satellite and then move the rest of the dock around the satellite and seal it.. The inflate the dock with a gas (is does not have to be oxygen, just neeeds to be non-flameble, non-damaging to the satellite and abel to maintain heat), thenheat the space dock (for the astronaut who will be working onthe satellite to be able to not have to wear the normal bulky space suit, but a much striped down own)..   I know this might take a slot of work or not??? Or just to plain wierd, but ideas need to be thought of, for where is tomorrow, but in the imagination of the present..
In my first posting on this subject I threw out an idea of how to fund such a contest without delving to deep into the budget.  I mentioned granting mineral rights to the winner (my actual wording was, "mining rights.)  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year moratorium on taxes.
In article <1993Apr28.133101.25145@rpslmc.edu> rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye) writes: > >Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society: > >1.	Calculators >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan) >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)  I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology. I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself, a good thing.  If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in and of itself.
In article <C5xuGL.Jow@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes... >Writer Kathy Sawyer reported in today's Washington Post that Joseph Shea, the  >head of the space station redesign has resigned for health reasons. >  >Shea was hospitalized shortly after his selection in February.  He returned >yesterday to lead the formal presentation to the independent White House panel. >Shea's presentation was rambling and almost inaudible.  I missed the presentations given in the morning session (when Shea gave his "rambling and almost inaudible" presentation), but I did attend the afternoon session. The meeting was in a small conference room. The speaker was wired with a mike, and there were microphones on the table for the panel members to use. Peons (like me) sat in a foyer outside the conference room, and watched the presentations on closed circuit TV. In general, the sound system was fair to poor, and some of the other speakers (like the committee member from the Italian Space Agency) also were "almost inaudible."  Shea didn't "lead the formal presentation," in the sense of running or guiding the presentation. He didn't even attend the afternoon session. Vest ran the show (President of MIT, the chair of the advisory panel).  >  >Shea's deputy, former astronaut Bryan O'Connor, will take over the effort.
I just got out of the Army. Go signal corps or Intelligence;  photointelligence interpretation. If you go ADA you might get to play with  rockets but space will look pretty far away dug in the mud next to a grunt  protecting the foward troops from low flying objects. Good Luck
Okay here is what I have so far:  Have a group (any size, preferibly small, but?) send a human being to the moon, set up a habitate and have the human(s) spend one earth year on the moon. Does that mean no resupply or ??   Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.  Contest open to different classes of participants.  New Mexico State has semi-challenged University of Alaska (any branch) to put a team together and to do it.. Any other University/College/Institute of Higher Learning wish to make a counter challenge or challenge another school? Say it here.  I like the idea of having atleast a russian team.   Some prefer using new technology, others old or ..  The basic idea of the New Moon Race is like the Solar Car Race acrossed Australia.. Atleast in that basic vein of endevour..  Any other suggestions?
----- News saved at 23 Apr 93 22:22:40 GMT In article <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes: > > ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!! > >  This paper BOTH describes how heavenly bodys can be stationary,  >ether sucking structures, AND why we observe "orbital" motion!!     >  "Light-Years" between galaxies is a misnomer. The distance is  >closer to zero, as time and matter are characteristics of this phase  >of reality, which dissipates outward with each layer of the onion.  >(defining edge = 0 ether spin)    >  To find out about all of this, I recommend studying history.    Well, I'm working on it, but getting a little impatient. So far,  I've made it through Egyptian, Chinese, and Greek cultures, and up through the Rennaisance. But so far, these insights just don't  seem to be gelling. Perhaps it's in an appendix somewhere.
In <C5w5zJ.HHq@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> Greg Hennessy writes: >In article <1r6aqr$dnv@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >#The better question  should be. >#Why not transfer  O&M of all birds to a separate agency with continous funding >#to support these kind of ongoing science missions. > >Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will >changing them to a seperate agency help anything? > How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is able to accept donations to keep craft operational.
Mike Adams suggested discussions on long-term effects of spaceflight to the human being.  I love this topic, as some of you regulars know.  So, having seen Henry's encouraging statement about starting to talk about it; I shall.  I feel that we as a community of people have unique resources to deliver to the world a comprehensive book which can elaborate on the utility of spaceflight to fields which are as divergent  as medical intensive care, agriculture, environmental protection, and  probably more.  I do not believe that the general public understands the impact of spaceflight on the whole of society.  In the absence of such knowledge, we see dwindling support of the world's space effort.  I believe that we as a group have the responsibility to not only communicate amongst ourselves, but also with others through print media.  A well-orchestrated and technically oriented analysis of life science variables required to support long-duration spaceflight (like long expenditions to the moon or Mars) would be entertaining and educational to the general public.  The objective of such an effort would be to  compile resources and publications from accepted scientific and technical journals which would address each major life science area.  In addition, ideas for further research and development could be put forward for the general public to ponder...allowing the general public to take part in the excitement of exploration.  Individuals interested should be willing to devote an hour per week to running literature searches and finding journal articles.  In addition, we need to obtain the assistance of personnel from within the halls of NASA and industry.  I have appreciated the positive responses to date and I am personally eager to start this project.  Perhaps we could start with debate regarding how best to grade the viability of various technologies for application to spaceflight.
In <1pq7rj$q2u@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:  >In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >| >|I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately >|current spending rules don't permit it to be workable.  For this to >|work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain >|minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk >|enough to make this attractive to a private firm.  Since they >|generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the >|government can't provide such a tenant guarantee.   >Fred.  >	Try reading a bit.  THe government does lots of multi year >contracts with Penalty for cancellation clauses.  They just like to be >damn sure they know what they are doing before they sign a multi year >contract.   THe reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much >as they would like is the Reagan administration signed enough >Multi year contracts,  that it's now cheaper to just finish them out.  I don't have to "try reading a bit", Pat.  I *work* as a government contractor and know what the rules are like.  Yes, they sign some (damned few -- which is why everyone is always having to go to Washington to see about next week's funding) multi-year contracts; they also aren't willing to include sufficient cancellation penalties when they *do* decide to cut the multi-year contract and not pay on it (which can happen arbitrarily at any time, no matter what previous plans were) to make the risk acceptable of something like putting up a private space station with the government as the expected prime occupant.  I'd like a source for that statement about "the reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much as they would like"; I just don't buy it. The other thing I find a bit 'funny' about your posting, Pat, is that several other people answered the question pretty much the same way I did; mine is the one you comment (and incorrectly, I think) on. I think that says a lot.  You and Tommy should move in together.  --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
In article <1993Apr30.170718.1218@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: > In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes: >  >>I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers >>have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky. >  > And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights' > of the rest of us? >   Let me get this right - sorry, try again.  Let me get this straight -  well maybe that too is a poor choice of words - someone might think  I'm pushing a gay agenda.  How about:  let me try to understand this  by re-phrasing it as an extreme.  I, as a minority of one, have no right  to a beautiful world.  You, on the other hand have the right to make an  ugly one because you presume to speak for all the rest.  And I cannot  complain.  Curious.   ..   >>I say: >>What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably, >>would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating >>at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and >>would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and >>aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild >>and unspoiled things, including the night sky. >  > Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you; > you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want. >   And do you want everyone to do as you wish (insist on putting something  up that will impact everyone for selfish reasons) _without_ any legislation?   And no one else can even object?  Somehow I think this whole shoving  contest has gotten way off the track.  I'm ready to let this thread  die a quick and merciful death.   > --  > "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live >  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral exploration.  Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth.. You think this is crazy. Well in a way it is, but in a way it is reality.  There is a billin the congress to do just that.. Basically to make it so expensive to mine minerals in the US, unless you can by off the inspectors or tax collectors.. ascially what I understand from talking to a few miner friends  of mine, that they (the congress) propose to have a tax on the gross income of the mine, versus the adjusted income, also the state governments have there normal taxes. So by the time you get done, paying for materials, workers, and other expenses you can owe more than what you made. BAsically if you make a 1000.00 and spend 500. ofor expenses, you can owe 600.00 in federal taxes.. Bascially it is driving the miners off the land.. And the only peopel who benefit are the eco-freaks..   Basically to get back to my beginning statement, is space is the way to go cause it might just get to expensive to mine on earth because of either the eco-freaks or the protectionist..  Such fun we have in these interesting times..