HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: What is SSTO? Thoughts on Space.
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:48:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan25.184843.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

If there is no arket for SSTO, then why is there three contractors??
I know the GOV might not be excited about any new projects..
Maybe we need to concentrate more on lobbying.. What is Clintons views on
NASA? on Private Space? Multi-NAtional Space? 

Ever heard of Poker Flats in Alaska, I might have an address for someone if
they want to ask about it.. (I know of it already)..

If the US Defense can let go some its budget we might be able to get the DC-X
up, I think the Japanese are working on alot of things, after all the have the
money.. A combo Gov/Private Corp effort..

Was the Russians working on a SSTO before the fall?


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSF & Mir & Energia
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:43:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C1G5An.JJ5.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris Blask)
-Subject: Re: Freedom's orbit
-Date: 25 Jan 93 19:10:22 GMT
-Organization: Sea Change Corporation, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

-'scuse me if this has been covered, but Buzz Aldrin apparently has been
-advocating using the Energia boosters (larger and cheaper than enything we
-have, yes?) to boost US payloads, and possibly putting Freedom into Mir's
-orbit to take advantage of both Mir and the leftover Russian lifting
-capability (OMNI Jan '93).  

-I'm sure there are lots of great arguments why it isn't that simple, but
-still, if it comes to having or not having a platform (which is really
-where we are now) we need to have the damn thing.  Combining the two
-services seems like a brilliant idea to me, with the shuttle and our
-high-tech experience and know-how and the Russian workhorse lifters, Mir
-(for what it's worth) and their experience with 'just do it' engineering,
-we could be in business within my lifetime.  Current scheduling doesn't
-seem to have a chance in hell of actually _getting_ the thing up there any
-time soon.

I can't find the official numbers at the moment, but I believe assembly
in orbit is scheduled to start sometime around 1997 - I hope your lifespan
extends that long.

Mir would serve very nicely as a "construction shack" in the early stages
of SSF assembly, and the new station could then be maneuvered to a lower
inclination orbit using an ion engine if desired. Russia has a lot of
experience boosting payloads into orbit, but very little experience with
Energia (it's only flown twice). The main problem with choosing these options
at this point is that if they are to be used, the decision should have been
made several years ago. This close to scheduled launch of the first
components, the redesign required could very easily *increase* the time to
assembly, which was your principal objection to the status quo.

Cooperation between the US and Russian space programs is still a good idea.
Adapting Soyuz as an SSF emergency return vehicle (ACRV) appears to be the
most favored ACRV option at this point.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: lunar base/life-support on freedom
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:25:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C1Bxv7.Ln8.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: wools@athena.mit.edu (Aaron M Woolsey)
-Subject: lunar base/life-support on freedom
-Date: 23 Jan 93 19:17:25 GMT
-Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

-	o.k., I'm not an aerospace engineer, just a biology major, but I was
-wondering what the outlook is, in the near future, for establishing a lunar base.
- It seems logical to me that before we start planning a manned mission to Mars,
-we ought to start planning a permanent base on the moon.  Is NASA devoting any
-time or resources toward this direction?  

There's some low level of effort in that direction. Galileo did some lunar
science on the recent flyby, Clementine is apparently scheduled to launch
early next year, and there are proposals for further lunar science missions
and some work on planning manned missions. Some of the work done on SSF should
be applicable to establishing a lunar base. We'll probably have a better idea
of how much interest the new Administration has in a lunar base (and if there
is interest, how much they'll be able to sell to Congress) in 100-200 days.
My impression is that a lunar base is of more near-term interest than a
Mars mission.

-	also, does anybody know how the life-support/environment control systems
-will operate on the space station Freedom (or how they operate on mir)?  I
-suppose that these technologies will come in handy when we establish a base on
-the moon.  How is oxygen replenished, what's the waste managment program,
-and how will they replenish the water supply.  

This was discussed in May 1992. According to Henry Spencer, there are plans
to recycle the water (though perhaps mainly for washing, etc.). Dani Eder
says that SSF is scheduled to import all its oxygen for a few years, then
eventually start recycling its CO2 to recover some of the oxygen. Also
according to Henry, the "last-but-one" design of SSF was to use excess water
as reaction mass for reboost and orbital maneuvering, but this was called off
due to design cost constraints.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gallas2@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Sean Michael Gallagher)
Subject: Re: SSF & Mir & Energia
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:00:42 GMT

roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>Energia (it's only flown twice). The main problem with choosing these options
>at this point is that if they are to be used, the decision should have been
>made several years ago.

Yes, but several years ago we were too busy worrying about whether the Soviets'
more advanced booster technology would be used to lob a couple of hundred
nuclear missles our way.  The Russians are offering us help (for a fee), so
why are we so unwilling to accept it?  Goldin's NASA is supposed to work
smarter, faster, and cheaper, and Energia is a heckuva lot faster and cheaper
than Shuttle, and that seems like a smart idea to me.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jarnis@mits.mdata.fi (Jarno Kokko)
Subject: Re: Galileo update?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:33:36 GMT

In article <27JAN199316252809@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.133908.16401@prime.mdata.fi>, jarnis@mits.mdata.fi (Jarno Kokko) writes...
>>Have people thought about combining hammering with the orbit insertion?
>>I think hammering when whole spacecraft is vibrating due to motor
>>firing would shake loose about anything :-) .. Or is it impossible
>>due to some minor technical detail? 
>
>I don't think that would be a wise thing to do.  The motor firing has be
>done at a precise time with the spacecraft in the proper attitude.  If the
>hammering was done during the motor firing, and the antenna was to pop
>open, it could change the spacecraft attitude enough to really mess up the
>orbit insertion.  Besides, the spacecraft will very busy as it is during
>the orbit insertion, collecting the probe data, performing a 1000 km Io flyby 
>and collecting science data on Jupiter.

I suspected that the spacecraft would be busy doing something FAR more 
important than the antenna motor hammering .. so forget that..  I guess
a VERY high rate data compression routines would be more helpful to this
mission than ideas how to open the antenna... :-)

- Jarnis
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:30:01 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Handling Antimatter
Distribution: sci
 <1jh3umINN276@bigboote.WPI.EDU>

Neither antimatter nor nuke-thermal are very good for launching
to orbit(not if we expect to use that part of the planet again),
so perhaps antimatter will turn out to be an easier system to
loft?

Anyone doing anything on mon-atomic hydrogen as an escape fuel?

Graydon
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:35:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1993Jan21.110438.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>I always thought this technology [gas-core nuclear engines] was a trifle 
>advanced to be ready in only 2001, 

That depends on the type of gas core.  I believe that NASA's 1976 "Forecast 
for Space" said the light-bulb variant, at least, could be ready well before 
that time frame.  (Assuming development starting in 1976, that is.)


>but remember that Kubrick's people were busy little beavers
>in the 34 years following 1967-- they had dug out underground hangars
>on the Moon for their spacecraft, with elevators, had started regular
>Pan Am service to orbit, had built half a space station.

>It is sad to think that *they* were supposed to be *us*. :-(

On the other hand, remember that Forbidden Planet, in the 1950's,
began with the narrator's voice saying, "In the last decade of the
21st Century, Mankind reached the Moon."  Rober Heinlein was a bit
more optimistic in "The Man Who Sold the Moon," placing the event
in 1979 but, of course, no one believed *that*.
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:09:01 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Distribution: world
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.jpl.nasa.gov

In article <ewright.727724117@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> On the other hand, remember that Forbidden Planet, in the 1950's,
> began with the narrator's voice saying, "In the last decade of the
> 21st Century, Mankind reached the Moon."  Rober Heinlein was a bit
> more optimistic in "The Man Who Sold the Moon," placing the event
> in 1979 but, of course, no one believed *that*.

Just watched the circa 1940 movie of Wells' "Shape of Things to Come,"
and they depicted the first moon-shot in *2036*.  I don't remember
what it said in the book, but the movie makers were certainly at
liberty to use their own date if they wanted.

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:18:10 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1993Jan26.030319.11373@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <24JAN199320503892@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>Also for your information, NASA has been flying station precursors for
>>over ten years now. They are called Spacelab.
> 
> Spacelab is an experiment carrier. It will tell us nothing about
> building large scale structures in space and cannot be considered a
> station precursor.

So what?  You are wrong on this one, Allen. Fred is supposed to be
some kind of laboratory.  Therefore it's important to develop a
program of experiments and useful techniques, make mistakes, etc. Then
when experiments are flown aboard Fred, they won't be starting from
scratch and they will have a greater chance of success. Spacelab has
been the testbed for Americans, Japanese, and Europeans to gather
experience in microgravity and space science experiments.  In that
sense it is certainly a precursor to the space station.

Does Spacelab cost too much to operate?  Sure.  Does it give
experience in assembling large-scale structures?  No. But your
assertion that it "cannot be considered a station precursor" is
erroneous.

>>These experiments are all important as precursors to SSF because we can get
>>all of the bugs out of the experiments
> 
> I would rather get the bus out of the station first and then worry about
> the experiments.

Launchers and payloads must develop together; without abundant
payloads and a user community, new launchers (such as you-know-what)
don't have a chance of succeeding financially.  If the Revolution ever
happens, those lucky people flying *more* payloads *more* often are
going to be very glad to have Shuttle, Spacelab, Salyut, Mir, and
Skylab experience to guide their engineering.

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey         | "I'm gonna keep on writing songs
Fermilab                          | until I write the song
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | that makes the guys in Detroit
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | who draw the cars
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS  | put tailfins on 'em again."
                                            --John Prine
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo update?
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:25 UT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan27.133908.16401@prime.mdata.fi>, jarnis@mits.mdata.fi (Jarno Kokko) writes...
>Have people thought about combining hammering with the orbit insertion?
>I think hammering when whole spacecraft is vibrating due to motor
>firing would shake loose about anything :-) .. Or is it impossible
>due to some minor technical detail? 

I don't think that would be a wise thing to do.  The motor firing has be
done at a precise time with the spacecraft in the proper attitude.  If the
hammering was done during the motor firing, and the antenna was to pop
open, it could change the spacecraft attitude enough to really mess up the
orbit insertion.  Besides, the spacecraft will very busy as it is during
the orbit insertion, collecting the probe data, performing a 1000 km Io flyby 
and collecting science data on Jupiter.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Every once in a while,
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | try pushing your luck.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker)
Subject: Re: Making Orbit 93 - The Delta Clipper Program
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:53:34 GMT

In article <20004@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>Regarding my posting in which I related the Delta Clipper landing sequence
>as:
>1) start engines
>2) flip to base-first attitude
>
>
>> Larry Wall writes:
>> How do they guarantee they don't get upside-down-spraycan syndrome?
>
>
>
>I checked my notes again, and the notes give the start engines, then flip
>sequence.  It is possible that I misheard the speaker (Gaubatz from McDonnell
>Douglas).  I expect the most likely explanation is that I have
>mis-interpreted the sequence.  An alternate possibility is that the "engines"
>started are the RCS thrusters, which run on gaseous hydrogen and gaseous
>oxygen.
>--
>Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca

According to one of the pilots for Delta Clipper, there are four
different methods they plan to test for the "flipover".  I am no
expert, so any questions on these have a fair chance of being answered,
"I dunno.."

1. The "death swoop" - use the momentum and body flaps to do a
zoom climb (think of the bottom half of an inside loop).

2. Use the engines to power the bird around.

3.  There is a point on entry when the bottom-heavy clipper becomes
unstable in a nose-down attitude.  Let gravity do the work and when
the bottom points down, catch it with the RCS.

4. Shove a pilot chute out the nose.

DC-x is scheduled to try all of these as part of the flight test program

++rich
-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com
                         < Do Not Write In This Space> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: edm@gocart.twisto.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:18:43 GMT
	<1993Jan21.110438.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>
	<ewright.727724117@convex.convex.com> <1k16rdINNc7h@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp

>>>>> On 25 Jan 1993 17:09:01 GMT, pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott) said:
PJS> NNTP-Posting-Host: euclid.jpl.nasa.gov

PJS> In article <ewright.727724117@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> On the other hand, remember that Forbidden Planet, in the 1950's,
> began with the narrator's voice saying, "In the last decade of the
> 21st Century, Mankind reached the Moon."  Rober Heinlein was a bit
> more optimistic in "The Man Who Sold the Moon," placing the event
> in 1979 but, of course, no one believed *that*.

PJS> Just watched the circa 1940 movie of Wells' "Shape of Things to Come,"
PJS> and they depicted the first moon-shot in *2036*.  I don't remember
PJS> what it said in the book, but the movie makers were certainly at
PJS> liberty to use their own date if they wanted.

Hmm, it's been a while since I saw this one, but wasn't there
a war that knocked most of the planet into anarchy?  I thought
that was why it took so long.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@twisto.compaq.com                                   _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Precursors to Fred (was Re: Sabatier Reactors.)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:02:17 GMT

In article <26JAN199319493864@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>Allan if you have looked at any of the information that has been put out
>about SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of
>SSF is to be a laboratory in space.

Actually, if you look at the information that has been put out about
SSF in the last decade you will see that the PRIMARY mission of SSF is...

A. Life science (at least to the life science community).
B. Microgravity (at least to the microgravity people)
C. Assembly point for Moon/Mars (At least to the manned space crowd)
D. A mechanism to teach us how to live and work in space (at least to
   the space colonization crwod)
E. Well paying jobs for your district (at least to Congress).
F. (insert your favoriet special interest here)

In short, Fred was to be everything to everybody. Your belief that
a particular one of these was actually (we mean it this time) the
primary mission requires very very selective reading of history.

>Allen building SSF or any other large structure in space is a mere engineering
>exercise that we learned long ago. 

So why is the truss work package over a billion over budget and still
out of control? No Denis, since nothing like this has ever been build
in space before it cannot be called 'mere engineering'. 

>There are no mysteries involved in the process. 

Except for why in hell it takes twice as long and costs three times
what it is supposed to. (Although given NASA's poor performance in
almost every aspect of cost estimating and management maybe this
isn't that strange).

>Your analogy of the 
>house is an apt one. A house may keep you warm and dry, but if it is empty
>or the television does not work and the bed is broken and the lights don't 
>work you only have an empty shell which does nothing for the occupants or
>the people in general.

You mean aside from keeping them warm and dry? Most would consider a
house which keeps you warm and dry a resounding success. I myself would
prefer the above to a house which is cold and wet but has a working
television. Especially when you realize that the TV won't last long
in the wet house.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------140 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kjenks@gothamcity.uucp (Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] (713) 483-4368)
Subject: Re: Znamya: Orbiting mirror.
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:49:04 GMT

In article <30262@castle.ed.ac.uk>, ntc@castle.ed.ac.uk (N T Clifford) writes:
> 
> A report carried in `The Guardian' (Thursday  January 14) detailed an
> upcoming Russian space event.
> 
> Apparently a recent Progress cargo ship (1992-71A?) currently docked
> (or station keeping) with Mir is due (maybe next month) to unfurl a 65
> foot  'space mirror' constructed from aluminium coated plastic film, in
> an experiment known as `Znamya' (Banner).
> 
> Apparently this is an attempt to extend the daylight hours of the
> Siberian regions by reflecting sunlight to the required areas.

I hope everybody here recognized the obsurdity of thinking that a 20
meter mirror could "extend the daylight hours of the Siberian regions."
'The Guardian' clearly doesn't.  (Typical newspaper science writing.)
The most the mirror would do is make a bright spot in the sky.

But, as my .sig notes, journalists don't have a monopoly on stupidity.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "Even considering the improvements possible... the gas
      turbine [jet] could hardly be considered a feasible application
      to airplanes because of the difficulty of complying with the
      stringent weight requirements."
	-- US National Academy of Sciences, 1940

     "It may not be possible to build a vehicle with single-stage-
      to-orbit capability in the mid 1990s."
        -- US National Academy of Sciences, 1990
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Subject: Scientists' Deaths
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 19:27:17 GMT

Several years ago (don't ask me how many) there were *several* postings, 
including excerpts from British newspapers, about the spate of "suicides" and 
"accidental deaths" of British space scientists in comp.risks.  If anybody is 
really interested in doing the research, instead of just sarcastically 
dismissing them as crackpot conspiracy fodder, they can look it up in the 
Risks archive.

Rick Kitchen
kitchenrn@ssd0.laafb.af.mil