Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 05:07:36 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #420 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 5 Apr 93 Volume 16 : Issue 420 Today's Topics: Astro/Space Frequently Seen Acronyms Atlas rocket questio Atlas rocket question lie low netters! UFO's want you! NASA (dis)incentives nuclear waste nuclear weapons and power-reactor plutonium (was: Re: the call to space) Portable Small Ground Station? Prefab Space Station? (3 msgs) pushing the envelope Sky Surfing Safety. What if you bite the wave! Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 Apr 1993 00:00:16 -0400 From: Mark Bradford Subject: Astro/Space Frequently Seen Acronyms Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,news.answers Archive-name: space/acronyms Edition: 8 Acronym List for sci.astro, sci.space, and sci.space.shuttle: Edition 8, 1992 Dec 7 Last posted: 1992 Aug 27 This list is offered as a reference for translating commonly appearing acronyms in the space-related newsgroups. If I forgot or botched your favorite acronym, please let me know! Also, if there's an acronym *not* on this list that confuses you, drop me a line, and if I can figure it out, I'll add it to the list. Note that this is intended to be a reference for *frequently seen* acronyms, and is most emphatically *not* encyclopedic. If I incorporated every acronym I ever saw, I'd soon run out of disk space! :-) The list will be posted at regular intervals, every 30 days. All comments regarding it are welcome; I'm reachable as bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu. Note that this just tells what the acronyms stand for -- you're on your own for figuring out what they *mean*! Note also that the total number of acronyms in use far exceeds what I can list; special-purpose acronyms that are essentially always explained as they're introduced are omitted. Further, some acronyms stand for more than one thing; as of Edition 3 of the list, these acronyms appear on multiple lines, unless they're simply different ways of referring to the same thing. Thanks to everybody who's sent suggestions since the first version of the list, and especially to Garrett A. Wollman (wollman@griffin.uvm.edu), who is maintaining an independent list, somewhat more verbose in character than mine, and to Daniel Fischer (dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de), who is maintaining a truly HUGE list (535 at last count) of acronyms and terms, mostly in German (which I read, fortunately). Special thanks this time to Ken Hollis at NASA, who sent me a copy of NASA Reference Publication 1059 Revised: _Space Transportation System and Associated Payloads: Glossary, Acronyms, and Abbreviations_, a truly mammoth tome -- almost 300 pages of TLAs. Special Bonus! At the end of this posting, you will find a perl program written by none other than Larry Wall, whose purpose is to scramble the acronym list in an entertaining fashion. Thanks, Larry! A&A: Astronomy and Astrophysics AAO: Anglo-Australian Observatory AAS: American Astronomical Society AAS: American Astronautical Society AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers ACE: Advanced Composition Explorer ACRV: Assured Crew Return Vehicle (or) Astronaut Crew Rescue Vehicle ADFRF: Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility (was DFRF) (NASA) AGN: Active Galactic Nucleus AGU: American Geophysical Union AIAA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics AIPS: Astronomical Image Processing System AJ: Astronomical Journal ALEXIS: Array of Low Energy X-ray Imaging Sensors ALPO: Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers ALS: Advanced Launch System ANSI: American National Standards Institute AOA: Abort Once Around (Shuttle abort plan) AOCS: Attitude and Orbit Control System Ap.J: Astrophysical Journal APM: Attached Pressurized Module (a.k.a. Columbus) APU: Auxiliary Power Unit ARC: Ames Research Center (NASA) ARTEMIS: Advanced Relay TEchnology MISsion ASA: Astronomical Society of the Atlantic ASI: Agenzia Spaziale Italiano ASRM: Advanced Solid Rocket Motor ATDRS: Advanced Tracking and Data Relay Satellite ATLAS: Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science ATM: Amateur Telescope Maker ATO: Abort To Orbit (Shuttle abort plan) AU: Astronomical Unit AURA: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy AW&ST: Aviation Week and Space Technology (a.k.a. AvLeak) AXAF: Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility BATSE: Burst And Transient Source Experiment (on CGRO) BBXRT: Broad-Band X-Ray Telescope (ASTRO package) BEM: Bug-Eyed Monster BH: Black Hole BIMA: Berkeley Illinois Maryland Array BNSC: British National Space Centre BTW: By The Way C&T: Communications & Tracking CCAFS: Cape Canaveral Air Force Station CCD: Charge-Coupled Device CCDS: Centers for the Commercial Development of Space CD-ROM: Compact Disk Read-Only Memory CFA: Center For Astrophysics CFC: ChloroFluoroCarbon CFF: Columbus Free Flyer CFHT: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope CGRO: (Arthur Holley) Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (was GRO) CHARA: Center for High Angular Resolution Astronomy CIRRIS: Cryogenic InfraRed Radiance Instrument for Shuttle CIT: Circumstellar Imaging Telescope CM: Command Module (Apollo spacecraft) CMCC: Central Mission Control Centre (ESA) CNES: Centre National d'Etude Spatiales CNO: Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen CNSR: Comet Nucleus Sample Return COBE: COsmic Background Explorer COMPTEL: COMPton TELescope (on CGRO) COSTAR: Corrective Optics Space Telescope Axial Replacement CRAF: Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid Flyby CRRES: Combined Release / Radiation Effects Satellite CSM: Command and Service Module (Apollo spacecraft) CSTC: Consolidated Satellite Test Center (USAF) CTIO: Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory DCX: Delta Clipper eXperimental DDCU: DC-to-DC Converter Unit DFRF: Dryden Flight Research Facility (now ADFRF) DMSP: Defense Meteorological Satellite Program DOD: Department Of Defense (sometimes DoD) DOE: Department Of Energy DOT: Department Of Transportation DSCS: Defense Satellite Communications System DSN: Deep Space Network DSP: Defense Support Program (USAF/NRO) EAFB: Edwards Air Force Base ECS: Environmental Control System EDO: Extended Duration Orbiter EGRET: Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (on CGRO) EJASA: Electronic Journal of the Astronomical Society of the Atlantic ELV: Expendable Launch Vehicle EMU: Extravehicular Mobility Unit EOS: Earth Observing System ERS: Earth Resources Satellite (as in ERS-1) ESA: European Space Agency ESO: European Southern Observatory ET: (Shuttle) External Tank ETLA: Extended Three Letter Acronym ETR: Eastern Test Range EUV: Extreme UltraViolet EUVE: Extreme UltraViolet Explorer EVA: ExtraVehicular Activity FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions FAST: Fast Auroral SnapshoT explorer FFT: Fast Fourier Transform FGS: Fine Guidance Sensors (on HST) FHST: Fixed Head Star Trackers (on HST) FIR: Far InfraRed FITS: Flexible Image Transport System FOC: Faint Object Camera (on HST) FOS: Faint Object Spectrograph (on HST) FRR: Flight-Readiness Review FTP: File Transfer Protocol FTS: Flight Telerobotic Servicer FUSE: Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer FWHM: Full Width at Half Maximum FYI: For Your Information GAS: Get-Away Special GBT: Green Bank Telescope GCVS: General Catalog of Variable Stars GEM: Giotto Extended Mission GEO: Geosynchronous Earth Orbit GDS: Great Dark Spot GHRS: Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (on HST) GIF: Graphics Interchange Format GLOMR: Global Low-Orbiting Message Relay GMC: Giant Molecular Cloud GMRT: Giant Meter-wave Radio Telescope GMT: Greenwich Mean Time (also called UT) GOES: Geostationary Orbiting Environmental Satellite GOX: Gaseous OXygen GPC: General Purpose Computer GPS: Global Positioning System GRO: Gamma Ray Observatory (now CGRO) GRS: Gamma Ray Spectrometer (on Mars Observer) GRS: Great Red Spot GSC: Guide Star Catalog (for HST) GSFC: Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA) GTO: Geostationary Transfer Orbit HAO: High Altitude Observatory HD: Henry Draper catalog entry HEAO: High Energy Astronomical Observatory HeRA: Hermes Robotic Arm HF: High Frequency HGA: High Gain Antenna HLC: Heavy Lift Capability HLV: Heavy Lift Vehicle HMC: Halley Multicolor Camera (on Giotto) HR: Hertzsprung-Russell (diagram) HRI: High Resolution Imager (on ROSAT) HSP: High Speed Photometer (on HST) HST: Hubble Space Telescope HUT: Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope (ASTRO package) HV: High Voltage IAPPP: International Amateur/Professional Photoelectric Photometry IAU: International Astronomical Union IAUC: IAU Circular ICE: International Cometary Explorer IDA: International Dark-sky Association IDL: Interactive Data Language IGM: InterGalactic Medium IGY: International Geophysical Year IMHO: In My Humble Opinion IOTA: Infrared-Optical Telescope Array IOTA: International Occultation Timing Association IPS: Inertial Pointing System IR: InfraRed IRAF: Image Reduction and Analysis Facility IRAS: InfraRed Astronomical Satellite ISAS: Institute of Space and Astronautical Science (Japan) ISM: InterStellar Medium ISO: Infrared Space Observatory ISO: International Standards Organization ISPM: International Solar Polar Mission (now Ulysses) ISY: International Space Year IUE: International Ultraviolet Explorer IUS: Inertial Upper Stage JEM: Japanese Experiment Module (for SSF) JGR: Journal of Geophysical Research JILA: Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics JPL: Jet Propulsion Laboratory JSC: Johnson Space Center (NASA) KAO: Kuiper Airborne Observatory KPNO: Kitt Peak National Observatory KSC: Kennedy Space Center (NASA) KTB: Cretaceous-Tertiary Boundary (from German) LANL: Los Alamos National Laboratory LaRC: Langley Research Center (NASA) LDEF: Long Duration Exposure Facility LEM: Lunar Excursion Module (a.k.a. LM) (Apollo spacecraft) LEO: Low Earth Orbit LeRC: Lewis Research Center (NASA) LEST: Large Earth-based Solar Telescope LFSA: List of Frequently Seen Acronyms (!) LGA: Low Gain Antenna LGM: Little Green Men LH: Liquid Hydrogen (also LH2 or LHX) LLNL: Lawrence-Livermore National Laboratory LM: Lunar Module (a.k.a. LEM) (Apollo spacecraft) LMC: Large Magellanic Cloud LN2: Liquid N2 (Nitrogen) LOX: Liquid OXygen LRB: Liquid Rocket Booster LSR: Local Standard of Rest LTP: Lunar Transient Phenomenon MB: Manned Base MCC: Mission Control Center MECO: Main Engine CutOff MMH: MonoMethyl Hydrazine MMT: Multiple Mirror Telescope MMU: Manned Maneuvering Unit MNRAS: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society MOC: Mars Observer Camera (on Mars Observer) MOL: Manned Orbiting Laboratory MOLA: Mars Observer Laser Altimeter (on Mars Observer) MOMV: Manned Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle MOTV: Manned Orbital Transfer Vehicle MPC: Minor Planets Circular MRSR: Mars Rover and Sample Return MRSRM: Mars Rover and Sample Return Mission MSFC: (George C.) Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA) MTC: Man Tended Capability NACA: National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (became NASA) NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASDA: NAtional Space Development Agency (Japan) NASM: National Air and Space Museum NASP: National AeroSpace Plane NBS: National Bureau of Standards (now NIST) NDV: NASP Derived Vehicle NERVA: Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application NGC: New General Catalog NICMOS: Near Infrared Camera / Multi Object Spectrometer (HST upgrade) NIMS: Near-Infrared Mapping Spectrometer (on Galileo) NIR: Near InfraRed NIST: National Institute for Standards and Technology (was NBS) NLDP: National Launch Development Program NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAO: National Optical Astronomy Observatories NRAO: National Radio Astronomy Observatory NRO: National Reconnaissance Office NS: Neutron Star NSA: National Security Agency NSF: National Science Foundation NSO: National Solar Observatory NSSDC: National Space Science Data Center NTR: Nuclear Thermal Rocket(ry) NTT: New Technology Telescope OAO: Orbiting Astronomical Observatory OCST: Office of Commercial Space Transportation OMB: Office of Management and Budget OMS: Orbital Maneuvering System OPF: Orbiter Processing Facility ORFEUS: Orbiting and Retrievable Far and Extreme Ultraviolet Spectrometer OSC: Orbital Sciences Corporation OSCAR: Orbiting Satellite Carrying Amateur Radio OSSA: Office of Space Science and Applications OSSE: Oriented Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment (on CGRO) OTA: Optical Telescope Assembly (on HST) OTHB: Over The Horizon Backscatter OTV: Orbital Transfer Vehicle OV: Orbital Vehicle PAM: Payload Assist Module PAM-D: Payload Assist Module, Delta-class PI: Principal Investigator PLSS: Portable Life Support System PM: Pressurized Module PMC: Permanently Manned Capability PMIRR: Pressure Modulated InfraRed Radiometer (on Mars Observer) PMT: PhotoMultiplier Tube PSF: Point Spread Function PSR: PulSaR PV: Photovoltaic PVO: Pioneer Venus Orbiter QSO: Quasi-Stellar Object RCI: Rodent Cage Interface (for SLS mission) RCS: Reaction Control System REM: Rat Enclosure Module (for SLS mission) RF: Radio Frequency RFI: Radio Frequency Interference RIACS: Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science RMS: Remote Manipulator System RNGC: Revised New General Catalog ROSAT: ROentgen SATellite ROUS: Rodents Of Unusual Size (I don't believe they exist) RSN: Real Soon Now RTG: Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator RTLS: Return To Launch Site (Shuttle abort plan) SAA: South Atlantic Anomaly SAGA: Solar Array Gain Augmentation (for HST) SAMPEX: Solar Anomalous and Magnetospheric Particle EXplorer SAO: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory SAR: Search And Rescue SAR: Synthetic Aperture Radar SARA: Satellite pour Astronomie Radio Amateur SAREX: Search and Rescue Exercise SAREX: Shuttle Amateur Radio Experiment SAS: Space Activity Suit SAS: Space Adaptation Syndrome SAT: Synthetic Aperture Telescope S/C: SpaceCraft SCA: Shuttle Carrier Aircraft SCT: Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope SDI: Strategic Defense Initiative SDIO: Strategic Defense Initiative Organization SEI: Space Exploration Initiative SEST: Swedish ESO Submillimeter Telescope SETI: Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence SID: Sudden Ionospheric Disturbance SIR: Shuttle Imaging Radar SIRTF: Space (formerly Shuttle) InfraRed Telescope Facility SL: SpaceLab SLAR: Side-Looking Airborne Radar SLC: Space Launch Complex SLS: Space(lab) Life Sciences SMC: Small Magellanic Cloud SME: Solar Mesosphere Explorer SMEX: SMall EXplorers SMM: Solar Maximum Mission SN: SuperNova (e.g., SN1987A) SNR: Signal to Noise Ratio SNR: SuperNova Remnant SNU: Solar Neutrino Units SOFIA: Stratospheric Observatory For Infrared Astronomy SOHO: SOlar Heliospheric Observatory SPAN: Space Physics and Analysis Network SPDM: Special Purpose Dextrous Manipulator SPOT: Systeme Probatoire pour l'Observation de la Terre SPS: Solar Power Satellite SRB: Solid Rocket Booster SRM: Solid Rocket Motor SSF: Space Station Fred (er, Freedom) SSI: Solid-State Imager (on Galileo) SSI: Space Studies Institut SSME: Space Shuttle Main Engine SSPF: Space Station Processing Facility SSRMS: Space Station Remote Manipulator System SST: Spectroscopic Survey Telescope SST: SuperSonic Transport SSTO: Single Stage To Orbit STIS: Space Telescope Imaging Spectrometer (to replace FOC and GHRS) STS: Shuttle Transport System (or) Space Transportation System STScI: Space Telescope Science Institute SWAS: Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite SWF: ShortWave Fading TAL: Transatlantic Abort Landing (Shuttle abort plan) TAU: Thousand Astronomical Unit (mission) TCS: Thermal Control System TDRS: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite TDRSS: Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System TES: Thermal Emission Spectrometer (on Mars Observer) TIROS: Television InfraRed Observation Satellite TLA: Three Letter Acronym TOMS: Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer TPS: Thermal Protection System TSS: Tethered Satellite System UARS: Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite UBM: Unpressurized Berthing Mechanism UDMH: Unsymmetrical DiMethyl Hydrazine UFO: Unidentified Flying Object UGC: Uppsala General Catalog UHF: Ultra High Frequency UIT: Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (Astro package) UKST: United Kingdom Schmidt Telescope USAF: United States Air Force USMP: United States Microgravity Payload UT: Universal Time (a.k.a. GMT, UTC, or Zulu Time) UTC: Coordinated Universal Time (a.k.a. UT) UV: UltraViolet UVS: UltraViolet Spectrometer VAB: Vehicle Assembly Building (formerly Vertical Assembly Building) VAFB: Vandenberg Air Force Base VEEGA: Venus-Earth-Earth Gravity Assist (Galileo flight path) VHF: Very High Frequency VLA: Very Large Array VLBA: Very Long Baseline Array VLBI: Very Long Baseline Interferometry VLF: Very Low Frequency VLT: Very Large Telescope VMS: Vertical Motion Simulator VOIR: Venus Orbiting Imaging Radar (superseded by VRM) VPF: Vertical Processing Facility VRM: Venus Radar Mapper (now called Magellan) WD: White Dwarf WFPC: Wide Field / Planetary Camera (on HST) WFPCII: Replacement for WFPC WIYN: Wisconsin / Indiana / Yale / NOAO telescope WSMR: White Sands Missile Range WTR: Western Test Range WUPPE: Wisconsin Ultraviolet PhotoPolarimter Experiment (Astro package) XMM: X-ray Multi Mirror XUV: eXtreme UltraViolet YSO: Young Stellar Object #!/usr/bin/perl # 'alt', An Acronym Scrambling Program, by Larry Wall $THRESHOLD = 2; srand; while (<>) { next unless /^([A-Z]\S+): */; $key = $1; $acro{$key} = $'; @words = split(/\W+/,$'); unshift(@words,$key); $off = 0; foreach $word (@words) { next unless $word =~ /^[A-Z]/; *w = $&; vec($w{$word}, $off++ % 6, 1) = 1; } } foreach $letter (A .. Z) { *w = $letter; @w = keys %w; if (@w < $THRESHOLD) { @d = `egrep '^$letter' /usr/dict/words`; chop @d; push(@w, @d); } } foreach $key (sort keys %acro) { $off = 0; $acro = $acro{$key}; $acro =~ s/((([A-Z])[A-Z]*)[a-z]*)/ &pick($3, $2, $1, ++$off) || $& /eg; print "$key: $acro"; } sub pick { local($letter, $prefix, $oldword, $off) = @_; $i = 0; if (length($prefix) > 1 && index($key,$prefix) < 0) { if ($prefix eq $oldword) { $prefix = ''; } else { $prefix = $letter; } } if (length($prefix) > 1) { local(*w) = substr($prefix,0,1); do { $word = $w[rand @w]; } until $word ne $oldword && $word =~ /^$prefix/i || ++$i > 30; $word =~ s/^$prefix/$prefix/i; $word; } elsif (length($prefix) == 1) { local(*w) = $prefix; do { $word = $w[rand @w]; } until $word ne $oldword && vec($w{$word}, $off, 1) || ++$i > 10; $word = "\u\L$word" if $word =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/; $word; } else { local(*w) = substr($oldword,0,1); do { $word = $w[rand @w]; } until $word ne $oldword && $word =~ tr/a-z/A-Z/ == 0 || ++$i > 30; $word; } } -- Mark Bradford (bradfrd2@ncar.ucar.edu) <> To err is human, to moo bovine. "It's an ill wind that gathers no moss." ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 00:28:45 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Atlas rocket questio Newsgroups: sci.space In article <5441534@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: >HS>This is what you get when you really lean on rocket engineers to make >HS>a lightweight rocket stage, instead of having them build a heavy-duty >HS>tank with rocket engines attached. Which is why Atlas made it into >HS>orbit on 1.5 stages in 1958, a performance unequalled to this day. > >What would it take in materials technology to make an Atlas into a SSTO >with return to Earth capability; i.e., where could weight be saved? You might not need very much to recover the orbital part, if you used one of the ballute/plume aerobraking schemes rather than a brute-force reentry, and then made a vertical landing. The stainless-steel tank is pretty durable. Getting into orbit without dropping pieces on the way up is a bit harder. But there is this peculiar myth that we need lots of sexy modern materials technology to save weight for SSTO. The fact is, we don't. The Atlas might be a bit difficult to retrofit, but let's look at another piece of historical hardware: the S-II, the second stage of the Saturn V. When you look at the numbers on the S-II, something interesting emerges: this thing was an SSTO-capable vehicle! It had the thrust to do a vertical launch, and the mass ratio to take itself and a few tons of payload all the way into orbit. The takeoff acceleration would have been a bit low, and you might have wanted to either soup the engines up a bit or add some small solid strap-ons... but the basic level of performance that the belittlers say is oh-so-difficult was achieved in an operational, production stage 25 years ago. There were proposals to adapt the S-IVB, the Saturn V third stage, for recovery, using nose-first reentry stabilized by ballutes, ablative thermal protection, and parachutes plus crushable honeycomb. I imagine you could do the same with an S-II. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 00:16:21 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Atlas rocket question Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1pkiv1$ost@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >I always thought the nozzles were the combustion chambers. >Is this a semantic difference, or does it vary in engine >design. They're two separate parts of the engine, by normal usage. The combustion chamber is the part where almost all of the combustion occurs, at quite low velocity. Below it is the throat, which belongs to either chamber or nozzle depending on who you're talking to; the exhaust reaches Mach 1 as it passes the throat. Below that is the nozzle, where the gas gets faster and thinner quickly as internal energy is converted to kinetic energy. In the combustion chamber, aerodynamics are fairly unimportant -- the velocities are too low -- and combustion behavior and cooling dominate design concerns. The nozzle is an aerodynamic device above all, although cooling remains an issue. >The SRB's for SHuttle are one giant CC, but i thought in liquid >fueled engines, the combustion started at teh top of teh nozzles. No, the combustion is essentially complete by then. One of the standard approximations for combustion-gas behavior -- "frozen flow" -- assumes no chemical reactions whatsoever after leaving the combustion chamber. That isn't realistic, but the numbers that come out are not that far off the truth. (The usual first-cut method is to compute that case and the "shifting flow" case, where the gas is in chemical equilibrium at all times, and assume that the right answer is in between, since the actual reaction rates are neither zero nor infinite. Those two cases are not usually very far apart. I'm told that assuming shifting flow to the throat and frozen flow after that is often a very good approximation.) -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 00:08:36 GMT From: "Donald H. Locker" Subject: lie low netters! UFO's want you! Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <1993Apr1.182335.29872@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors) writes: >... Banesh Swura, research >director, claims that monitoring computer networks allows aliens to target >individuals with knowledge or talents which interest them. ... AHA!! Now I know why lurking is so popular! Safety in silence. >Swura has found cases of people who stop participating >for a period of time and then return. In many cases, he claims, there is >no valid reason for this and an abduction is suspected. I noticed that Tom van Flandern was absent for a while. How about it, Tom? Will you tell us about it in your book, or is that too far afield for the current tome? (BTW, how is your book coming?) >=== >This news leaves me shaking at my keyboard. I have been having strange >dreams recently. Has anyone noticed if my posts were unexplainedly >interrupted for a while? 'Scuze me; someone at the door ... gotta go. Back in a few weeks :) >-- >Martin Connors | >Space Research | martin@space.ualberta.ca (403) 492-2526 >University of Alberta | -- Donald. Speaking only for myself. FREE! Well-behaved, housebroken, .sig file to good home. Contact dhl@msl.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 02:29:58 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: NASA (dis)incentives Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >Nick Szabo writes: >>... >>lobbyists, there is no group of space activists that come anywhere close to >>meeting these lofty demands, and thus no effective way of holding NASA >>responsible for failures, or rewarding it for successes. >> >> [Boring "send-up" by wingo deleted, except for] ... >postulation. However when private industry that is doing cometary resource >utilization work is contracted the entire solar system benefits? Why, you the Actually, it looks like a lot of it's being done by the DOE. One of these weeks I'll be able to do (MAYBE) a writeup on the comet workshop that was just held at USL, which was full of DOE people. I don't think DOE's private enterprise... [sample of wingorant included for reference] >gentle reader may ask? Because it is clearly evident to even the most >casual observer that the government could never ever figure out the difference >between black and white. At most the question will devolve into one of how >white is black and how black is white? At most this will become a grey >area of study. >It is a given however that NASA nor the military, whose competence in >differentating black from white is well known (remember the black and >white paint on the Saturn V rocket?) That nothing will occur here either. >When black and white are used by congress, who cares nothing for results, >just more money for pork barrel jobs brought about by the black/white >controversy. Also this is good for NASA and its contractors who by the >look of things could turn this into the technology development of the >century thereby helping the Clinton administration in its bid to >develop new technology to fight the incursion of the Japanese and their >grey area tactics. >Note: This makes as much sense as the first part of this post. Both parts made more sense than a lot of your previous posts. Nick was being nice. He went to a special effort to be polite while posting. To be cognent while posting. I even suspect he sobered up. What do you do? Make fun of him. Do you think you could try replying to his specific points instead of mumbling on Distribution:world? Because you are probably capable of responding. And you seem to have the time to... if you have time to write the above... >Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville -- Phil Fraering |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff. pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man ------------------------------ Date: 5 Apr 93 07:15:46 GMT From: William Reiken Subject: nuclear waste Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar31.190728.8937@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: > > 'It has been proposed' by *who*? Sounds like someone need s a science > lesson or three if they think that is feasible -- or does having the > magic initials in it (SDI) somehow make it workable contrary to > physical constraints? > It is in one of my data sheets I will look it up. Will... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 04:14:04 GMT From: Jonathan Thornburg Subject: nuclear weapons and power-reactor plutonium (was: Re: the call to space) Newsgroups: sci.space In article henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: | reprocessed | power-plant plutonium, [...] is *not* generally a good bomb material | due to contamination with higher isotopes. I hate to correct a net.god :-), but I think Henry may have left an incorrect impression here re the usability of power-reactor plutonium for nuclear weapons. Plutonium of *any* isotopic content can be used to build a militarily useful nuclear weapon. Due to greater predetonation problems caused by higher spontaneous-fission neutron background rates, engineering such a weapon becomes more difficult as the plutonium is made less isotopically-pure Pu-239, and the weapons become larger and heavier and thus militarily less-ideal, but the engineering problems remain tractable even for power-reactor plutonium. Essentially, modern (chemical) high-explosive technology suffices to assemble a core fast enough to beat predetonation even with large non-239 isotope fractions. This topic is discussed in detail, with actual numbers for critical masses, spontaneous-fission neutron background rates, and a first-cut treatment of the required core-assembly rates, in Amory B Lovins "Nuclear Weapons and Power-Reactor Plutonium" Nature 283, 817-823 (1980) (Unfortunately, this paper contains a number of typographical errors, but I can't find my reference to the errata published a few months later :-( ...) - Jonathan Thornburg or [until 31/Aug/93] U of Texas at Austin / Physics Dept / Center for Relativity "One million Americans have two homes; four million Americans have no homes." ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1993 23:21:29 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Portable Small Ground Station? Newsgroups: sci.space If you want to watch TV, you can get a 5 Meter, elliptical segmented antenna on a trailer (C-Band) for a few hundred dollars a day rental. add a receiver and you can channel surf anywhere assuming you have some batteries. ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1993 19:57 CDT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Prefab Space Station? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr4.234656.13996@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes... >In article <1993Apr4.135748.2944@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes: > > Both Martin Marrettia and McDonnell douglas have >proposed Titan and Delta variants easilly developed for far less than >Shuttle. We could build and operate BOTH these options for Freedom >assembly and save billions. > > Allen >-- Uhhh may I point out that the current Heavy lift launch vehicle by one of the above vendors spends so much time on the pad that they have to hire extra people just to clean the rust off. Seriously Allen I am convinced that the SSTO way is the way to go IF and this is a big IF, the technology can be scaled above that projected for DC1. Titan IV launches ain't cheap and if you take the middling Shuttle cost marker, which is appropriate due to the infrastructure that is required then the costs are a wash NOW with STS. With heavy lift we might as well go with the baby Saturn and get some labor savings. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1993 23:29:38 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Prefab Space Station? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Apr4.234656.13996@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: |First of all, Shuttle is so expensive that a Shuttle-C using brand new |SSME's would still be much cheaper than Shuttle. Even doubling the cost |of Shuttle C would still result in multi-billion $$ savings for Fred |construction. Of course, allen you are missing the details of acctng. Hating to disagree with you, but Shuttle-C missions are serious dollars. NASA drops 4 Billion for 8 STS missions, most of that is fixed costs. very little is variable costs. Wingo keeps shouting how it only costs 27 million for a mission. He's right, in that's the fuel's and consumables costs. To do a C launch, you need to buy 3 engines @ 100 million per. Build an airframe 200 Million lets say, and then still do all the operations of a typical STS mission. Now even assuming you don't de-manifest an orbiter mission, you are talking about adding 500 Million into the Shuttle Ops budget per shuttle C mission. The problem is the first shuttle mission essentially costs about 3.9 billion dollars. that gives us 8 missions, maybe 10. although given the current performance, id say 8 is about max. SHuttle C is not a win for NASA. for that money, we could manifest 4 Energiya launches. pat ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1993 23:31:18 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Prefab Space Station? Newsgroups: sci.space Why does Baby Saturn, save Labor? pat ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1993 18:26:25 GMT From: CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON Subject: pushing the envelope Newsgroups: sci.space > A friend of mine and I were wondering where the expression "pushing > the envelope" comes from. Anyone out there know? If you have the opportunity, try to look at a Pilot's Operating Handbook of any aircraft. In the case of a CESSNA 152 for instance, Section 6 of the Handbook discusses the weight and balance limits of the aicraft. For instance, if you plot the loaded airplane weight against the location of its Center of Gravity, you will find that it is safe to fly the airplane only within a certain region in the graph. This region in the graph has the resemblance of an envelope and flying outside it may be unsafe. So "pushing the envelope" means to increase the region within this graph where it is still safe to fly the airplane. The same applies whenever you plot the loaded airplane weight against the loaded airplane moment. C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV ------------------------------ Date: 4 Apr 1993 23:36:28 -0400 From: Pat Subject: Sky Surfing Safety. What if you bite the wave! Newsgroups: sci.space It's probably not a good idea to take a dog on the space shuttle. He might stick his head out the window during re-entry and his face might burn off Jack Handy ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 420 ------------------------------