HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dumoulin@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (Jim Dumoulin)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Two pads??
Date: 28 Jul 92 23:17:46 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

In article <1992Jul27.125338.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov>, oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
> In article <92209.044513PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu>, PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
> ...(lead in discussion deleted)..................
> was mothballed.  Pad 41A is now used to support Titan IV launches.  I do seem
> to remember that the funding for the refurbishment of pad 41B was canceled.
>                     Pat Oliver - 

  There seems to be much confusion about Launch complex numbers starting
 off with the original poster confusing the Shuttle Launch complexes
 39A and 39B with the Titan Launch Complexes.  Further postings refered to
 these as Launch complex 41A and 41B.  They are actually Launch Complex
 C-41 (Just south of LC-39A) and originally used for the Titan-III-Centaur
 and Launch Complex C-40 which is just south of C-41.   These pads are
 used for the Titan IV (one for military and one commercial).  Works is
 going on at both of these pads.

 Pads at the cape can be very difficult to understand.  For the most part
 they got their number by the start date of construction and some complexes
 were built on top of previous complexes.  Kennedy space center was
 originally surveyed out to have 4 Apollo pads (LC-39A,B,C and D).  Pads
 C and D were never built (they would have been to the north of the 
 current pads) and the Titan complex was planned later but finished sooner
 because they were simpler and funded seperately. They were built to the south
 of LC-39 and their first launch occured in 1965.  The first launch from 
 LC-39 was the unmanned Apollo 4 in 1967. Most of these pads were built
 on reclaimed land dregged from the Banana river.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jim Dumoulin                      INTERNET: DUMOULIN@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV
   NASA / Payload Operations      SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::DUMOULIN
   Kennedy Space Center
   Florida, USA  32899
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 04:45:13 EDT
From: <PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Two pads??

There was an argument  that two shuttles could be launched from 41A and B.
Is it my imagination or did I hear that budget cutbacks will result in the
mothballing of pad B?  I believe that the mothballing is in the works for the
near future, kind of throws a monkey-wrench in the idea of (quasi) simultaneous
launches.  So Henry, what would be the turn-around time for pad A?

-- curious (Phil at PSU)

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Emergency Evac/Reentry Vehicle
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:42:56 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul23.061116.10969@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes:
>Presumably there two reasons for emergency return from the space
>station - medical emergency and The Green Slime.  As for the former,
>might a Mercury or Gemini capsule do?

Actually, there are three major reasons:  Medical Emergency, Catastrophic
Equipment Failure, and Oops The Shuttle Is Grounded Again.  Each of these
imposes slightly different constraints.  For M.E., a fairly gentle reentry
ending up precisely at a well-chosen site is desirable, and it would be
nice if there was more than one lifeboat so the whole crew doesn't have to
come down with the sick guy.  For C.E.F., there has to be enough lifeboat
capacity to evacuate everyone, and it has to be available on short notice,
but in most cases it will be possible to hang on and wait for a shuttle
mission if really necessary.  For O.T.S.I.G.A., there is more time to stop
and think, but no backup plan.

Mercury and Gemini are too small.  There has been serious consideration of
reviving the Apollo capsule.  One problem with all of these craft -- as
with Soyuz -- is that they are not designed for a long in-space shelf life
before use.  A secondary problem is that a good deal of re-engineering and
re-development would be needed to build any of them again, because tooling
and subcontractors are missing.  (We're talking stuff that was last built
nearly a quarter century ago.)

>It might be cheaper to pay the Russians to keep their station
>operational and fly Freedom nearby, close enough to provide the
>desired redundancy.

The orbits are entirely incompatible, unfortunately, and you still need
some way to get from one to the other.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Double flight ?
Date: 27 Jul 1992 14:30:27 GMT
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston

In article <81@newave.mn.org> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes:
>
>Speaking of which, when I was last at JSC two years ago, the upper control
>room was still classified.  Now that the shuttle is no longer flying
>classified missions, what is being done with the second control room?
>Is it being declassified, can it be made available for regular shuttle
>flights, or is it just sitting unused?

It was only pseudo classified compared to "regular" MCC.  It is smaller,
has no big gallery and supposedly had better EMI control.  Both control
rooms are heavily used for training.  It was not uncommon to see both in
use on the same day supporting sims.  It is being used, mainly for
training and sim support.

-- 
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
|   **** Papoon for President! You Know He's Not Insane!! ****
From: wtjones@hpnmdla.sr.hp.com (Bill Jones)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:20:25 GMT
Subject: Cape name changes
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle

For a novice reader, can someone give me a short rundown on the
name changes of Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy and back again to 
Cape Canaveral?
From: aero@titan.ecn.uoknor.edu (Aero Student Account)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Life Boat
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:40:37 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

sef@drutx.ATT.COM (Scott E. Farleigh) writes:


>Has there been any consideration on building a small "shuttle bus"
>that would be able to fly between Freedom and Mir? It would not
>have re-entry capability. It would only be used to get between
>Freedom and Mir. Therefore, one of its abilities would be a Life
>Boat for either Space Station.

Unfortunately, this isn't feasible.  An earlier post discussed
keeping Mir close to Fred, but it was pointed out that Mir
is in an orbit with a 57 degree inclination while Fred will
be in an orbit at about 28 degrees.  The amount of fuel needed
to change the plane of an objects orbit is tremendous, so you're
not going to be able to make it small.

--------
Jonathan A. Bishop
aero@neptune.ecn.uoknor.edu

"Yippee!  That may have been a small one for Neil,
 but it was a big one for me."
                            --Pete Conrad
From: dkrause@noiro.acs.uci.edu (Doug Krause)
Subject: Re: What's the date on the moon?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:03:57 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.113709.1@bronco.fnal.gov> colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab) writes:
#But then, when did WWII start, on Dec 7, 1941 or (in Japan) Dec 8, 1941?

Neither of those two dates.

Douglas Krause                      One yuppie can ruin your whole day.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
University of California, Irvine    Internet: dkrause@orion.oac.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine:  Yuppieland USA  BITNET: DJKrause@uci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears)
Subject: Re: shuttle computer FAQ
Reply-To: bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 13:05:25 GMT

In article <memo.549745@cix.compulink.co.uk>, shemminga@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stuart Hemming) writes:
|> In-Reply-To: <1992Jul29.200229.24621@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears)
|> 
|> > .................... It turned out to be a slight difference between the
|> > orbiters and hardware installed in the SAIL.  There were a set of switches
|> > that operated a little differently than the ones on the vehicle.
|> 
|> [more deleted stuff]
|> 
|> I thought that the whole point of a simulator -- especially one like
|> this -- is to reproduce *exactly* the actual kit. So how is it that
|> this set of switches operated differently? In this case the simulator
|> acted to exibit a problem which didn't occur on the real kit, but
|> what would have been the consequences if it had been the other way
|> around?
|> 

1) It is impossible to *exactly* model a flight vehicle in a simulator.
   You start off with as much flight hardware as you can and then you
   make those changes necessary to support a simulated environment.  No
   matter how hard you try, you will have differences.

2) I don't know the exact failure mode that caused these switches to behave
   the way they did. Possibly they were from a different manufacturing lot
   than later flight units.  Maybe someone erroneously decided that there 
   was no functional difference between product A and product B and went
   with the cheaper one.  Remember, simulators are subject to budget
   constraints too.  

3) There were, are, and will continue to be differences between flight
   vehicles and simulators.  That is why flight tests are so important.
   I always cringe when someone says they don't need to test something
   because they simulator checked out fine.  There is not a simulator 
   anywhere in the world that can claim to be 100% accurate in what it
   models.  

-- 
Brad Mears
bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov                      No disclaimer, no quote
From: oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Two pads??
Date: 27 Jul 1992 18:53:38 GMT
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center

In article <92209.044513PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu>, PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
> There was an argument  that two shuttles could be launched from 41A and B.
> Is it my imagination or did I hear that budget cutbacks will result in the
> mothballing of pad B?  I believe that the mothballing is in the works for the
> near future, kind of throws a monkey-wrench in the idea of (quasi) simultaneous
> launches.  So Henry, what would be the turn-around time for pad A?
> 
> -- curious (Phil at PSU)

Launch complex 41, located on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, is used to
launch Titan unmanned rockets.  In the past, pad 41A was used by the Air
Force to launch Titan III's, while pad 41B was used by NASA to launch Titan
III/Centaur missions.  When NASA moved their operations to the Shuttle pad 41B
was mothballed.  Pad 41A is now used to support Titan IV launches.  I do seem
to remember that the funding for the refurbishment of pad 41B was canceled.

Launch Complex 39 is a part of the Kennedy Space Center and has two active
Space Shuttle launch pads.  The launch pads are refurbished and modified
every few years.  Pad 39A is scheduled to begin a five month mod period in
April 1993 following the STS-56 launch.

-- 

Pat Oliver -  	Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
		OLIVER@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
		All standard disclamers apply.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Emergency Evac/Reentry Vehicle
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:58:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Jul22.195944.7431@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jeb2q@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (James E. Bryant) writes:
>Are there plans in the works or in development for an emergency evacuation
>re-entry capable vehicle?  Might it be like an escape pod, which could re-enter
>the earths atmosphere or would it be like a lifeboat in that all it does is
>get the occupants up and away from the space station?

There is little point to just getting them away from the station; that can
be done more conveniently by just making it possible to partition the
station into several independently-habitable sections (which physically
remain together).  That's what NASA originally planned to do.

Now, there is general consensus that a re-entry-capable lifeboat is needed.
However, NASA's cost estimates for it are large and Congress has consistently
balked at funding it.

For a while, the Europeans were proposing a modified Hermes for the job,
but with the near-demise of Hermes that's probably a dead idea.

One idea that is being taken seriously right now is using a pair of Soyuzes.  
There are problems -- Soyuz isn't quite big enough and it isn't certified
for years in space -- but people are looking into it.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Preliminary two-line elements STS-46
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:39:00 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

The following two-line elements were determined from information
contained in the STS-46 press kit and are in no way official.
They are to be used for planning purposes only.

STS-46 Day One
1 00046U          92213.70350000  .00025000  00000-0  00000-0 0    13
2 00046  28.5000  30.9500 0000000 270.0000  90.0000 15.46834000    03
STS-46 Day Three
1 00046U          92215.70350000  .00025000  00000-0  00000-0 0    26
2 00046  28.5000  17.0100 0000000 311.9300  48.0700 15.92130000   159
STS-46 Day Six
1 00046U          92218.70350000  .00025000  00000-0  00000-0 0    30
2 00046  28.5000 354.6200 0000000  56.1800 303.8200 16.135730000  627

-- 
 __________________________________________________________________________   
|wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.com|    "Another Case of too many scientists and     |
|Bruce Watson            |     not enough hunchbacks." -- Gary Larson      |
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby)
Subject: Cooling hats
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:59:57 GMT

OK, those of you with access to the old pictures:  What was the color
pattern for the cooling headgear worn in space?  Was it back on the edges
and white in the middle or white on the edges and black in the middle?

Very foggy memory says "white in the middle."  Also, did the (then) soviets
wear these or did the americans or both?  

Thanks!

Neil Kirby
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: What's the date on the moon?
From: wds!schmitz@nuts.almanac.bc.ca  (Wayne Schmitz)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 12:43:37 PDT
Organization: Wayne's World -- Duncan, BC Waffle Site
Keywords: Apollo11 moon

michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann) writes:

> The newspapers and broadcast media were celebrating yesterday, July
> 20th as the 23rd aniversary of the first moon walk by Armstrong and
> Aldrin of Apollo 11.

I was watching television the other night and National Geographic
Explorer had a program on the moon walk. It brought back some wonderful
memories of the event.

Even more so, now that some time has passed it amazed me even more of
the accomplishment and courage of those men who visited the moon. It is
still a great achievement today to fly in space but look how much
technology has changed since 1969.


Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: zonker@telebit.com (David "Zonker" Harris)
Subject: NASA Select retransmission on ATV in SF.Bay Area scrubbed...
Followup-To:  sci.space.shuttle
Summary: not this flight...
Keywords: Nasa Select ATV retransmission
Organization: Telebit Corporation; Sunnyvale, CA, USA
Distribution:  ba
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:30:56 GMT

      Just a quick note to this in the San Francisco Bay Area who
    usually watch the 2.4 GHz ATV retransmission of the Shuttle
    video (NASA Select video) on the Black Mountain repeater...

      It won't happen this flight. The repeater isn't on the hill.

      The problem has been isolated to an electrical failure of
    the high voltage power supply module wich runs the TWT (the
    microwave "finals"...). A quick repair isn't possible. But,
    we *have* given the Flight Director our Green Light to go
    ahead for launch anyway, as we have determined this failure
    of non-mission-critical hardware should not adversly affect
    the launch or the mission. ;-)

      I have talked with the folks who are working on the repeater,
    and they are optimistic that they can return it to service in
    3-4 weeks. (we'll see :-)  They are replacing much of the gear
    in the repeater, and the new transmitter is already undergoing
    bench testing into a dummy load, and doing just fine. A new
    controller system is being explored, and programming for the
    test pattern and switching circuitry is underway in bay 1 of
    the TEL. Meanwhile, the failed power supply is being reverse-
    engineered to make a schematic, and determine the failure, and
    possibly repair the damage.

                                                                 .^.
   David K. Z. Harris   N6UOW    NetBlazer Technical Support     |_|
                                                                 |||
  voice: 408-734-5200  fax: 408-745-3848  rf:444.500 (PL 100)   /|||\
                                                              /  |-|  \
                  "Ever onward, ever upward!                 {__(|||)__}
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: shemminga@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stuart Hemming)
Subject: Re: shuttle computer FAQ
Reply-To: shemminga@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:17:44 +0000


In article <1992Jul29.200229.24621@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov (Brad Mears) writes:

[some stuff deleted]

> .................... It turned out to be a slight difference between the
> orbiters and hardware installed in the SAIL.  There were a set of switches
> that operated a little differently than the ones on the vehicle.

[more deleted stuff]

I thought that the whole point of a simulator -- especially one like
this -- is to reproduce *exactly* the actual kit. So how is it that
this set of switches operated differently? In this case the simulator
acted to exibit a problem which didn't occur on the real kit, but
what would have been the consequences if it had been the other way
around?

Stuart

--
These opinions are mine -- let's face it who'd want them

Send me mail -- No reasons, just send it.

stuart@cix.compulink.co.uk            Tel +44 778 426444
[Stuart Hemming]
From: chris@alderan.sdata.de (Christoph Splittgerber)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: shuttle computer FAQ
Date: 26 Jul 92 11:26:52 GMT
Organization: C. Splittgerber Datentechnik, Denkendorf, Germany

In article <1992Jul10.153815.17618@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> bmears@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>   Unfortunately, there is a small (very small) chance that the transition
>   from PASS to BFS will not succeed.  That is, the PASS machines will be
>   disabled AND the BFS machine will be disabled.  If this happens, the
>   vehicle will be uncontrolled and uncontrollable.  The odds of recovering

And what could be the reason for this *not very nice* behavior ?
I mean it sounds strage to me that they accept such a behavior.

    Just would like to know,
                                   Chris
-- 
************************ Brain fault (core dumped) *************************
Replies-To:  chris@alderan.sdata.de    UUCP: uunet!mcsun!unido!alderan!chris 
Phone:       +49 711 344375            Fax:  +49 711 3460684
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Our Friends the Russians
Organization: secure_comm
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:24:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.003253.9598@nebulus.ca> dennis@nebulus.ca (Dennis S. Breckenridge) writes:
>3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes:
>
>>Most Shuttle flights are at 28 deg inclination and do not
>>overfly Russia.
>>  Might be useful for some of the 57 deg missions though.
>
>Have you ever pondered the idea of why they launch in a counter 
>orbit rotation. More time over Moscow!

I don't understand what your saying.  Typical Russian manned flights
are at 51.6 degrees inclination.  This is due to the usual range
safety reasons, and the desire not to land aborted missions in China.
Only Vostok, Voskhod missions, and Soyuz 22 flew at about 65 degrees.

Dennis Newkirk
Motorola Inc, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
From: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: window's
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:42:41 GMT
Reply-To: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems

In article F00001@csource.oz.au, John.Bennett@f301.n670.z3.fidonet.org (John Bennett) writes:
>
> Giday All
>            
>   Can someone explain please just exactly what is meant by 'Window'.
>I know that it's a hole but that is about all I really properly 
>understand.
>            
>             ...JOHN...
> * Origin: Tassie DataBank Line #03, D'bridge Tasmania 2800mb PEP (3:670/301)


It's much more than that.  It's actually a device that allows one to see 
through walls. B-]

Are you refering to a "launch window"?  If so, I can give you a layman's
response: it's the time frame during which a rocket may be launched for
a particular mission.  There may be factors, such as the location of other
orbiting bodies, or a requirement to be at a certain place at a certain time,
that would make a mission useless unless launched within a "window".

In the event the rocket is launched when that window is closed, you hear a
loud *bang*, and there's falling glass everywhere.

--f2

----------------------------------------------------
  The amazing thing about a dancing bear is
  not how well it dances, but that it dances at all. 
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: Pauli.Ramo@hut.fi (no, I don't repeat it!)
Subject: Re: Emergency Evac/Reentry Vehicle
Reply-To: Pauli.Ramo@hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<1992Jul23.061116.10969@omen.UUCP> <82@newave.mn.org>
	<aero.711992609@titan>
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:05:49

In article <aero.711992609@titan> aero@titan.ecn.uoknor.edu (Aero Student Account) writes:
   I'm not sure how much could be stripped out of the original CM.  What was
   removed for the Skylab flights?  Plus, you're
   going to need a power system (presumably fuel cells) and an engine to de-orbit.

I think we could do just with the de-orbit engine, maybe like the one
used in Mercury capsules. The CM had it's own power supply (accumulators)
that lasted several hours, it's own attitude control thrusters and life
support system. The SM had to be jettisoned much before re-entry in any
case.

Maybe an Apollo capsule could be launched as a secondary payload in some
shuttle flight having some extra payload capacity? Would it fit into the
payload bay?

	Pauli
--
Disclaimer fault - lawyers dumped
From: dumoulin@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (Jim Dumoulin)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Cooling hats
Date: 28 Jul 92 22:37:38 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

In article <1992Jul28.195957.12453@cbnews.cb.att.com>, nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby) writes:
> OK, those of you with access to the old pictures:  What was the color
> pattern for the cooling headgear worn in space?  Was it back on the edges
> and white in the middle or white on the edges and black in the middle?
> 
> Very foggy memory says "white in the middle."  Also, did the (then) soviets
> wear these or did the americans or both?  
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Neil Kirby

  You're memory is correct.  The Snoopy caps used by the Apollo astronauts
  were black on the sides and white in the middle. 
 
  The photos I've got of soviet caps showed them to be all black.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jim Dumoulin                      INTERNET: DUMOULIN@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV
   NASA / Payload Operations      SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::DUMOULIN
   Kennedy Space Center
   Florida, USA  32899