HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:33:28 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <ByuqKM.F2@access.digex.com> <1992Dec7.173321.2812@ke4zv.uucp>
  <BywyEy.7uE@access.digex.com> <1992Dec9.140455.6628@ke4zv.uucp>
  <ewright.724092627@convex.convex.com>

>True, a passenger version of the DC-1 couldn't carry more than
>about 20 people.  Of course, the Shuttle can only carry 7-10.
>What's your point?

  I missed what this discussion is about but the above needs a
  few qualifiers.
  DC-1 would only be able to carry 20 people if it used a special
  passenger module in the payload bay. If you built such a module
  for the Shuttle, you'd get alot more than 10 people in it. Maybe
  50 or so. Of course, *I* don't want a ticket in the thing.
  
  -Brian
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:27:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Well why did the HGA have to be cloed up in the first place? If it is too
>big, then couldn't they have used a more powerful transmitter? I would
>have rather tried to avoid such a chance for failure. If thay don't get
>that HGA open then %30-%40 of the mission objectives will be lost. Or is
>the radio frequncy have something to do with he size of the HGA???
>
>
>        -- Ryan Korniloff
>        -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu

  Ryan...
   
  Galileo's umbrella-type High Gain Antenna was left in the folded
  position because it was thought that the high temperatures it would
  encounter during the Venus flyby portion of the mission could warp
  the antenna. They attempted to open the antenna only after the Venus
  flyby, when Galileo flew farther from the Sun. It was jammed.
   
  Cassini, I think, will have a standard hard HGA, similar to the
  Voyager and Magellan antennae. I hope the Galileo problem does not
  prevent future spacecraft from using the folding antenna design. It
  worked quite well on the TDRS satellites.
  
  -Brian
  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Why have both manned and auto capability on DC-[XY1] & Buran?
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:06:53 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 <1992Dec18.011309.12639@bby.com.au> gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:

>I understand the DC-X will, like the xUUSR Buran shuttle, have
>capabilities for both unmanned automatic operation and piloted
>operation.  I suspect similar capability is expected for DC-Y and DC-1
>should they be built.

No, DC-X is unmanned and not large enough to carry a pilot. 


>Given that the thing can fly automatically, why add pilots?

McDAC has said that operational flights will be controlled 
automatically, and the flight crew will be passengers rather 
than pilots.  Of course, they said the same thing about
Project Mercury once, too.  I don't expect it will true
today any more than it was then.


>I'm not sure what manned piloting means in this context, and what it
>gains over auto operation; especially since providing space, controls,
>seats, life support etc for the pilots is very expensive on the mass
>budget.

Machines break.

A Boeing 747 is capable of taking off from an airport runway, flying 
from Los Angeles to Sydney, and landing. Automatically. But airlines
still have pilots.












Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:49:36 GMT

In article <xhk2syn@rpi.edu> kentm@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>That a DC-X and a Titan IV launch could be had for the cost of a Shuttle
>mission I believe.  

Oh this is over and above the DC-X. DC-X doesn't answer all the open
questions but the effort I talk about would. It would include finishing
the tests of prototype cryogenic tanks and test the composite structures.
In addition, it would verify most of the engine components needed to 
build the DC-Y engine.

DC-X development was actually a lot cheaper. Put the cost of a Shuttle
flight in a CD for a year and the interest you earn will pay for the
DC-X development effort.

>What I don't believe is that you'd get any knowldgeable
>volunteers to fly a Spacelab mission on a Titan IV.

Well we will launch that 400 pound Italian satellite. You remember, the
one NASA spent half a billion launching instead of putting it on a $10M
Pegasus?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------130 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:33:02 GMT

In article <ewright.724094906@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>It's amazing that things we did routinely in the 1960's are considered
>challenging today.  I guess we've lost a lot of technology since then,
>right?

It's not that so much as we have become too timid and risk adverse.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------134 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:10:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.134936.15434@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>In article <xhk2syn@rpi.edu> kentm@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>It would include finishing
>the tests of prototype cryogenic tanks and test the composite structures.

Are these the same cryo tanks that McDonnell Douglas is building for NASP?

>>What I don't believe is that you'd get any knowldgeable
>>volunteers to fly a Spacelab mission on a Titan IV.

>Well we will launch that 400 pound Italian satellite. You remember, the
>one NASA spent half a billion launching instead of putting it on a $10M
>Pegasus?

Could NASA have put the IRIS upper stage on that Pegasus too?  While I have
not heard it stated explicitly, I suspect that launching IRIS was every bit
as important to the Italians as launching LAGEOS.  (They sunk several hundred
million into its development only to have its intended market banned from the
Shuttle.)  Was the development effort of integrating Pegasus and IRIS also
included in that $10 million?

What about Mephisto?  The Lambda point experiment?  The United States Micro-
gravity Payload (which carried the two aforementioned experiments)?  What 
about the Space Vision System and all of the rest of the CanEx payloads?  
Could these all have been launched on the Pegasus?  The same $10 million
Pegasus?  Could they also have flown the Lower Body Negative Pressure appar-
atus and several astronauts to wear it?  Could that Pegasus have returned the
robot arm, USMP, and our brave Pegasus-riding astronauts?

Can't you just admit that a lot more happened on STS-52 than the launch of
LAGEOS so we can put this issue to rest?

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
Flight Test Engineer                           Tute-Screwed Aero '92
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
These views are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker)
Subject: Re: What is a VSAT?
Organization: Me, at The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:21:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.142557.600@rsd0.rsd.dl.nec.com> dave@rsd.dl.nec.com (Dave Rogers) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.175249.21479@athena.mit.edu>, mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock) writes:
>|> 
>|> Does anyone know what does VSAT (Very Small Aperature Terminal) mean 
>|> in the context of satellite communications?
>|> 
>
>A VSAT is a C-band system which provides one-way, two-way and broadcast
>capabilities for audio, video and data.  Data rates up to DS-1 (1.5 M
>bits per second) are available.  Dishes are typically 1-3 meters in
>diameter.  Complete systems (one-end) sell for $6-15K.  You must lease
>time on a transponder from one of the many companies which do this (AT&T
>Spacenet, GTE Skynet, Comstream, Vitacom). 
>

Furthermore, a company can get a "satellite network" up for cheap.  The
design of a satellite system traditionally had the basic tradeoff:  Should
it have its brains in the satellite (expensive satellite, but cheap ground
station) or in the gfround station (expensive ground station versus cheap
satellite).

The VSAT approach sidesteps it all.  The "HUB" of the network is a ground
station with all the works.  It transmits/receives via some transponder on
a satellite, which does not have to be too souped up.  Then the signals
are passed/received from the very cheap VSATs throughout your network.  
(My source, W. Stallings "Data Communications", (1991), says that individual
VSAT stations can be leased for $400/month.)

So the far-flung ground stations don't need a lot of power, and the satellite
doesn't devote a lot of resources, either.  The "hub" has most of the 
resources that run the network.

tombaker
--------------------------------------.--------------------------------------
 Net - tombaker@world.std.com  __     | National Space Society is a nonprofit
uucp - uunet!world!tombaker   /  \  / | public organization dedicated to
 BIX - tombaker              /  O  /  | promoting the eventual establishment
 AOL - TABaker@aol.com      /  \__/   | of a spacefaring civilization.
______________________________________|______________________________________
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: LGA-only mission (was Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?)
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:15:20 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <20100@ksr.com>, clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) writes:
> In article <246900039@peg.pegasus.oz.au>, wlmss@peg writes:
>>This is astonishing! Surely to NOT chase the thing is too costly! Dosen't
>>the media, public & govt understand?
 
[Very good explanation by Chris deleted, giving reasons to be hopeful about 
Galileo, including:]

> 1. The attempts to succeed in opening the antenna may still succeed.  [...]
> 
> 3.  [...] the descent probe mission is unaffected by the lack of an  HGA

I have a small nit to pick with:

> 2. A combination of beefing up the Deep Space Network on earth and improving
> the compression software on the spacecraft should allow 
> 70% of the science data
> to be returned over the Low Gain Antenna even if the HGA deployment fails.

It's not "should allow 70% of the science data to be returned," it's
"should allow 70% of the `scientific objectives' to be met."  Weasel
wording, but the project scientists carefully explained the
distinction in their press conference last 11 June.   Major objectives
include direct measurement of the Jovian atmospheric structure and
composition (the descent probe), satellite science (mostly a series of
brief flybys, with many weeks in between to send back recorded data
slowly), magnetospheric studies (data rates are not very high compared
with imaging, can get much of original science), and remote-sensing
studies of the Jovian atmosphere.  This last objective takes a big
hit, since it relies on movies of the "weather--" lots of images (like
many tens of thousands), therefore lots of bits.  

They're cutting back on the planned acquisition of data in all these
areas and the final accounting the Galileo folks announced went like
this:

	Science objectives summary

	    Atmospheric - 80% (probe mission unaffacted)
	    Satellites - 70% (don't need that many pictures)
	    Magentosphere - 60% (continuous coverage available)
	    Mission total - 70%

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | The restaurant's architect
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | said every effort had been
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | made to build McDonald's
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | 15th outlet in Italy 
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | in harmony with Pompeii.
                                       | --Reuters story in *Chicago 
                                       |  Sun-Times*, 18 June 92
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:17:11 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 <71520@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>  DC-1 would only be able to carry 20 people if it used a special
>  passenger module in the payload bay. If you built such a module
>  for the Shuttle, you'd get alot more than 10 people in it. Maybe
>  50 or so. 

Nope.  You might get more than 10 people in it, but it would
never get off the ground.  NASA studied this idea years ago.
It was dropped because it couldn't meet minimum safety requirements.

Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
as the entire DC development program.


Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
From: axeman@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (Samir Chopra)
Subject: Need information on Infinite Universe Models
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:52:43 GMT
Followup-To: poster

I would appreciate any information on cosmological models that
consider the universe to be infinite i.e not just infinitely
expanding but actually existing in infinite space. Would
the FRW flat space model and the Hoyle_Narlikar
steady state model be considered examples of such cosmologies?

Book references, pointers to online sources of information, article
refrences, archived discussions are all welcome. If someone feels
like enlightening me via E-mail please do so.

Thanks in advance,

Samir
-- 
"You guys are gonna smoke in the other room, the smoke will come drifting in
here..it'll look like rose stems, but there's tiny nooses hanging from them.."
Support the Freedom of Choice Act | 11/3/92: Restoration of Democracy Day
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:33:48 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 <3kf2v=-@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>Delta Clipper's projected 2-day on-orbit time is too short for Spacehab
>work, especially if you have a space station.  

The two-day endurance is based on consumables.  You could extend it
considerably by carrying extra consumables in lieu of some cargo (or
docking with a second DC acting in a consumables-tanker role).
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:32:12 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <1992Dec16.195416.8422@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom
>space stations

without shuttle, you might not have ONE Freedom space station.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:13:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.144135.14439@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I agree that not all conflicts will be as easy as the Gulf War and that
>satellite recon is very valuable, especially for strategic recon. But the
>origninal message that I questioned said that the Space Command commander
>during *Desert Storm* said he needed tactical satellite recon *for that
>conflict*. 

That is correct. He said that his satellite coverage wasn't as good as
he would have liked. With a DC like spacecraft, he could have had much
better coverage.

>And yes, A10s and Tornados doing low level attacks were lost
>to ground fire in Desert Storm as well as a few other operational type
>aircraft like an AC130, but as far as I know, no recon aircraft were lost.

I don't think much if any recon was flown. The Air Force had better things
to do with its aircraft.

BTW, flying recon is one of the most dangerous types of flying in wartime.

>But this was exactly my point. LEO satellites pass over the same ground
>track twice a day. 

With a DC like vehicle you could put in a constelation of satellites to
provide fresh updates every half hour or so. It would take about a week
to put it in place compared with months today. This is an order of mganitude
faster than aircraft can provide the same information. The data is also
an order of magnitude fresher.

>Then unless
>you have realtime downlink in the footprint of the satellite, very close
>to your target, you wait for the satellite to pass over your downlink station
>and download the image. 

DoD owns lots of communication satellites. With DC, they can launch more
and larger ones. This will allow the tactical satellite to dump its data
in seconds.

>You can
>launch ramp ready recon aircraft in 10 minutes if necessary, though 

You don't ramp launch recon aircraft. You only ramp launch aircraft
for the defense of the airfield or similar emergencies.

>normally you'd schedule recon as part of an operational timetable.

Which BTW, takes 12 to 24 hours to plan (my last defense job was
working to automate NAVY strike planning). Not good in a rapidly
changing situation.

>You can get back immediate Mark I eyeball reports during the mission

Generally you maintain radio silence during a mission. No point in 
telling the bad guys where you are.

>and photos as soon as the aircraft returns.

Hours after you got your satellite update.

    Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------131 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: jmr@cs.anu.edu.au (Mike Robson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 12/08/92 (Earth Flyby)
Date: 18 Dec 1992 14:57:53 +1100
Organization: Computer Science Department, ANU, Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: nunki.anu.edu.au
Keywords: Galileo, JPL

baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:

>Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager

>                            GALILEO STATUS REPORT
>                                Earth Flyby
>                              December 8, 1992

>     The Galileo Spacecraft is operating normally in the dual-spin mode and
>is transmitting coded telemetry at 115.2 Kbps (115,200 bits/second).

>     Yesterday, part 2 of the EE-11 Earth encounter memory load sequence
>was uplinked.  Moon closest approach occurred at approximately 7:58 PM PST.

[...]

>     Today, December 8, 1992, Earth closest approach occurred at approximately
>7:09 AM PST.  Real-time commands are being sent to enable the Sun algorithms,
[...]

11 hours and 11 minutes from the moon to the earth! Is this a record?

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 21:10:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <246900038@peg.pegasus.oz.au> wlmss@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>Why not send a craft along behind Galileo to relay information back to
>Earth at a suitable rate?

Because it would have required putting that craft and its launch together
in a considerable hurry, starting a couple of years ago, and funding for
doing that could not be found.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aurora
Date: 16 Dec 92 15:43:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzCzo5.76z.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Dec15.141754.9124@spider.co.uk> colint@spider.co.uk (Colin Tinto) writes:

   [Aurora sightings off Scottish Western Isles, speculated Aurora
    range of 5000 miles]

   Hang on - 5000 miles - that means it can just reach Scotland from the East
   Coast USA before having to turn back ?   Something not quite right...

Assuming that it's launching from the continental USA. Seems much more
likely to me (given the sightings over the Netherlands as well) that
one of the long-runway US bases in the UK or Germany is `home' to an
Aurora.

(Btw: is there _any_ basis for the name `Aurora' except that
unexplained budget line back in the mid-80s?)

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Freeman Dyson biographies...
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:58:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz42F0.F0.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

\Check out some work that Freeman Dyson did.  He proposed genectically 
/altering tress so that moiture loss could be controlled and then
\planting them on comets.  (Hey Nick, have I got a job for you! :-)

/Also, for a good read, check out "The Starship and the Canoe" a biography
\of both Freeman Dyson and his son Chris.  Talks about Freeman's work on
/Daedelus.

I've read it. It's passable in most parts, but altogether it's horrible.
The author feels so much more morally superior to both Dysons but
apparently especially to Freeman Dyson himself.

I was also disturbed by the general attitude its author seemed to
have towards people working in the physical sciences and/or engineering.

If you want to read a good biography of Dyson, that is fair and
still (IMHO) doesn't pull any punches, try the biographical parts
scattered through his own works. They're better written, more fun,
and also have a lot of good ideas, _firsthand_.

-- 
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...