HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: What is this ?
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:24:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvI3E3.9FE.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

Dale Amon writes (Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:47:26 BST):

>       21            290                       990       1000
>       22            300                       990       0000
>       22.5          300                       980       0000  Break
lock
>
>                                                   I'd say it looks
>like test data for a fire and forget air to ground missile. There are
>some interesting features         . I assume altitudes in MSL rather
>than AGL and airspeed rather than ground speed.

Could not be an air to ground missile since nothing fell to the ground.
Since the altitude displayed on the F-16's Westinghouse APG-66 radar
display screen (upper right hand corner) has only two digits, 00 on
this screen, and 0000 in the quoted report, means anything between
0 and 500 feet (I think 0 = ground level, not sea level). The speed is
the absolute value of the real 3-D vector speed (air speed ?), not the
absolute value of its 2-D vector projection on the ground.

>The low initial speed and altitude makes me think of some sort of
>helicopter launched anti-tank or antiradiation weapon. (I just don't
>see an F15 gallumphing along at 150kn at FL70 to launch any sort of
>ordinance...) Whether 7000 is low really depends on whether it is MSL
>or AGL, and if MSL then on the ground level MSL altitude. Antitank
>choppers would not usually attack at that altitude unless they were
>long range stand off weapons.
>
>I do not believe it is an RPV unless it was either one whose wings
>fell off at 11000 MSL or an unusual new government method of
>ploughing furrows in a field. (Not all that less efficient than
>agricultural subsidies... :-)

Nobody knows what it was (I mean, those who know keep silent...). In
its SUMMARY REPORT ON OBSERVATIONS 30-31 MARCH 1990, Colonel (now
General) De Brouwer, of the Belgian Air Force, writes:
"...............
 A total of 9 interception attempts have been made.
 At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air
 interception radar. Lock-on distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On
 all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and
 break-locks occurred after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between
 150 and 1010 knots. At 3 occasions both F-16 registered simultaneous
 lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 F-16 were flying +- 2 NM
 apart. ............."

J. Pharabod
Xref: sparky sci.space:13624 sci.astro:10164 talk.politics.space:1292 alt.politics.bush:6797 alt.politics.clinton:7340
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:23:48 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <BvEEwK.Joz@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Fifteen years ago today, for the first time, NASA deliberately switched off
>instruments on another planet that were still returning good data and gave
>every prospect of continuing to do so for years.  It was done to save money.
>
>On 30 Sept 1977, the surviving Apollo lunar surface instruments -- left by
>Apollos 12, 15, 16, and 17 -- were turned off by ground command, because
>money could no longer be found to receive and record their data.

Obviously, we should have asked Canada for money to keep them running.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: another sad anniversary
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:48:00 GMT

In article <5OCT199216173458@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Mfsc.Nasa.Gov writes...
>In article <1992Oct5.133115.10677@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes...
>>In article <1OCT199219492037@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:
>>>
>>>The dowlink path loss is -278 db from the moon.
>> 
> 
>>Anyone willing to spend a couple of thousand dollars could receive
>>a 1 watt signal from the Moon with sufficient margin to decode digital
>>data, or copy analog voice. An EME grade station is probably still
>>required to pick up video, or high bandwidth data.
>> 
>>Gary KE4ZV
> 
>Gary my figure if from the Lunar Observer mission baseline published at JPL
>in 1991.  This is the baselne for all future missions and the link margin
>is discussed extensively in there.  What is your source? I will look it up
>in the ARRL hanbook just to see what they have.
> 
>Dennis
> 
>KD4ETA former WB4KSF


Oh well I went back to check up on my sources and it looks like I was off
by 100 db.  The real figure for the path loss at 2.4975 Ghz is 177.2 db. I
am reading this and it is for a 7500 km path. I know I have a document s
somewhere that shows the path loss of 278 db. Oh well. If I find it I will
post the link margin parameters.  

The book i was referring to is:

Lunar Observer:
A Comprehensive Orbital Survey of the Moon
Mission and System Definintion Summary

April 15, 1991
JPL D-8607

Thats for you Bill

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: platforms
Date: 29 Sep 92 00:05:45 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


>  It is my understanding that the LP does support withdrawl from the UN.

Just to keep things in context, the LP supports any action that decreases
tha amount of force used to push policies in other countries.  Take a look
at the general impression of Americans in Latin America, for a good
example of the failure of pushy foreign policy.

There's pretty good evidence that 'spreading democracy and freedom'
could be better served by allowing citizens of other countries free
access to America, and vice versa.  Meeting other citizens is always
more effective than propaganda.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Specs needed for Rocketdyne RS-27 engine (Delta launcher)
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:06:53 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

        I have spent a somewhat frustrating session in the library trying to
get information on the Rocketdyne RS-27 engine used in the core stage of the
Delta II launch vehicle.  So far I know:

Propellant:        LOX/kerosene
Thrust:            912 kN  (unclear whether sea level or vacuum)
Expansion Ratio:   12:1  (up from the 8:1 of an earlier version)

Does anyone have a Rocketdyne brochure or other source listing:

Sea Level Specific Impulse
Sea Level Thrust
Vacuum Specific Impulse
Vacuum Thrust
Mass
Dimensions
Chamber Pressure

Thanks in advance!






--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Socialist myths about investment
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:19:29 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <BvEGt1.KtG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.075012.13357@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>...the pioneers often go broke and it is those who stand on their shoulders
>>who profit. You are like someone belittling Goddard because it was
>>Von Braun who capitalized on his work...
>
>Although I agree with Gary's general point, this is a poor example.  The
>early practical development of rockets in both Germany and the US did not
>owe much to Goddard except a few bits of basic concept and inspiration,
>because Goddard published hardly anything about his later work.  Von Braun
>drew much more on the early experimental work of the VfR -- which he was
>personally involved in -- than on Goddard's more advanced but little-known
>efforts.

I had the impression from reading several histories of rocketry that
Goddard and Oberth carried on a lively correspondence through the 
BIS. Thus I assumed that Von Braun benefited from Goddard's work.
I'm not suggesting that the V2 was a lineal descendant of Goddard's
little rockets, just that various  "tricks of the trade" passed
between the two. If that's wrong, I'd like to know.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mikew@kpc.com (Mike Wexler)
Subject: Re: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Reply-To: mikew@kpc.com
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computers Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:00:40 GMT

anita@astro.as.utexas.edu (Anita Cochran) writes:

It goes with out saying that A single-purpose craft won't be able to 
study the systematics as well as a more expensive multipurpose craft.
I think the more important question is whether several simple, quick &
dirty craft are more cost effective than a single expensive craft.

>Well, if we agree that we want to study the system as a whole, this
>puts certain requirements on the instrument complement.  It suggests
>one needs an imaging instrument, IR and UV spectrometers, and
>fields and particle experiments.  A probe for Titan's atmosphere
>is a nice thing to have too, once you have a spacecraft going that
>way.  So, add these together and what do you have?  You have
>a Mariner Mark II class mission.  And once the spacecraft is going,
>you might as well send a full spacecraft.

Imagine instead of a Mariner Mark II class mission you have a series of
missions starting with a relay satellite and following up with separate
craft with imagine, IR, UV and fields and particle instruments. And with
the quick turn around you can send updated instruments based on knowledge
gained by early instruments. You can afford to try more risky techniques
like ion propulsion and aerobraking. How about a Titan probe that uses
aerobraking in Titan's atmosphere instead of slowing down with a rocket, 
for instance.

Could someone with a better idea of the costs involved come up with a
quick estimate of the previous two approaches for a similar set
of overall goals. Note, that it might be possible to launch more than
one of the above craft at the same time.

--
Mike Wexler (mikew@kpc.com)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: "jeff sumner" <jeff.sumner@canrem.com>
Subject: help?
Reply-To: "jeff sumner" <jeff.sumner@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:09:39 EST

to: archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov

help


                +-----------------------------------------+
                |     Jeff Sumner - ZORAC Development     |
                |            Oakville, Ontario            |
                |         jeff.sumner@canrem.uucp         |
                +-----------------------------------------+

                   Coming to you live on OS/2 2.0!!!
---
  DeLuxe 1.21 #10003  
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: 1 Oct 1992 22:00:46 GMT
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Organization: Academic Computing

In article <Bv9tM0.LwC@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) wrote:
> 
> 
> But if you decide tomorrow to abandon SRB recovery and refurbishment,
> you're *still* stuck with the O-rings and the segmented design.  You can't
> just wave a magic wand and get rid of the joints.  

Why not? The magic wand is as simple as a welding rod. If your talking
about not recovering the SRBs, simply stack 'em up and weld the joints all
the way around. Instant one-piece casing.

--_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Chuck Shotton                      |    
Ass't Director, Academic Computing |       "This space for rent."
UT Health Science Center Houston   |  
cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu       |         
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
From: colombo@bronco.fnal.gov (Rick Colombo - Fermilab)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:15:13 GMT
Organization: Fermilab Computing Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: bronco.fnal.gov

In article <1992Oct1.160937.22609@lsil.com>, gascan@dcst16.dc (Bill Gascoyne) writes:
> In article 4939@news.eng.convex.com, dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) writes:
>> 
>> Are you counting the lunar flights?  They all went into earth orbit, and
>> all but Apollo 13 entered lunar orbit as well.
> 
> I take it you don't count once around as an 'orbit'.  Apollo 13 did go around the
> moon; they certainly didn't stop halfway there and come back.
> 
> ---
> 1. Bill Gascoyne

Looks like semantics here, but what the hell.  I looked up orbit in the
dictionary and I get the distinct impression that to orbit you must
circle the object in question.  Apollo 13 did not circle the moon, it
went around in a slingshot fashion and headed back to earth without
completing a single orbit.  Kinda like Voyager I/II, they went around
the outer planets in a similar manner without orbiting them.

-- 
 ___________________________________________________________________________
 *****  *   *  From the e-net desk of: Rick Colombo CD/DCD/DSG    *    *
 *      **  *  Fermi Nat'l Acc'l Lab   708-840-8225 Fermilab     * *   *
 ***    * * *  P.O. Box 500   MS 369   Feynman Computer Center  *****  *
 *      *  **  Batavia, Ill. USA 60510 Colombo@fnal.fnal.gov    *   *  *****
 *  Sure to get `Flamed' if I didn't cross all my i's and dot all my t's ;-)
From: nabel@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Derek Nabel)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Summary of problems with tether exp.
Summary: A .25 inch bolt blew it. :-(
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:19:03 GMT
Followup-To: Reasons for the failure of recent tether exp. (???) (Short)
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Here is a summary of the reasons for the trouble with the recent
tether experiment.  It has been brought to my attention that 
a previous posting already disclosed this information.  But I
promised to summarize so I will keep it short.

The trouble was caused by a .25 inch shear bolt.  The engineers
decided to add the bolt as extra protection under launch loads.
The spool had a mechanical feeder that moved back and forth during
winding and unwinding to produce an even tether thickness along the 
length of the spool.  The bolt protruded enough from its mounting to
block the back and forth motion of the feeding mechanism.  The
sources implied that the winding mechanism was never tested after
the installation of the bolt.  However, it must be noted that 
the experiment was not a total failure.  The astronauts did manage
to reel out the satellite far enough to generate 33 volts (???)
and thus prove the general concept valid.

I received input

From: (William E. Smith)
From: (James B. Pettengill)
From: (Kevin Brown)

and I wish to thank them publicly.

Derek Nabel
CSU Lifer
nabel@lamar.ColoState.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: gnb@duke.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Space Shuttle
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 02:06:51 GMT

[more rubbish deleted]

Why does this guy remind me of Zippy the Pinhead?
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
``USL has never sold long distance.  You're going after the wrong men in black 
  hats.  (Or, in the case of Plan 9, black space suits)'' - Tom Limoncelli
From: hendrick@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Heath S Hendrickson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:11:39 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1992Sep30.221912.13364@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> manacsa@l13ff.jsc.nasa.gov (Gerry Manacsa) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.235747.15039@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
>> 
[stuff about O-rings deleted}
>
>The proposed (currently dead?) ASRM design does eliminate several of the 
		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
From what I heard, the ASRM is fully funded for FY93..

>field joints... this safety enhancement was one of its original selling
>points.
>
>=====================================================================
>Gerry Manacsa
>Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>These are my opinions... nothing to do with my company whatsoever...
>=====================================================================

Heath

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heath S. Hendrickson                         "For what is man without
hendrick@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                    his dreams?"
Aerospace Engineering at Purdue University
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: robin@pencom.com (Robin D. Wilson)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Reply-To: robin@pencom.com
Organization: Pencom Systems Incorporated
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:53:07 GMT

In article <Bv9tM0.LwC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)  
writes:
> But if you decide tomorrow to abandon SRB recovery and refurbishment,
> you're *still* stuck with the O-rings and the segmented design.  You can't
> just wave a magic wand and get rid of the joints.  The things are made in
> Utah and shipped to the Cape by rail; you can't *do* that with a one-piece
> design.  The production machinery makes them one segment at a time.  The
> cranes in the VAB stack them one segment at a time.  And *there is no
> one-piece design* available off the shelf -- at the very least, after
> setting up new production facilities and modifying cranes and etc., you'd
> have to test-fire a few one-piecers to make sure that casting that big
> a charge in one operation works consistently.  This isn't a simple change.

Actually, Lockheed and Martin-Marietta (I think it was MM) submitted an SRB  
design that was pretty much as you describe (the one you said "can't" work).   
I don't think they planned on shipping by rail tho'.  

--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|These are MY views, nobody where I work even knows I have views  ;-)       |
|Internet: robin@pencom.com                                                 |
|US Mail:  8-6 Brooke Club Dr.                Home Phone: (914) 923-4093    |
|          Ossining, NY  10562                Work Phone: (212) 513-7777    |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Barge access to MSC (was: More 0 ring problems....)
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: barge
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:46:22 GMT

I, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov, wrote:
>>That was also one of the original siting requirements for the Manned
>>Spacecraft Center (now the Johnson Space Center): easy access to a
>>deep water port.

In article <1992Oct2.205426.7293@illusion.chi.il.us> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes:
>OK, so why was this considered important for JSC?  So that the Saturn 5
>that is rusting on display there could be shipped there??

It was important for MSC (it wasn't JSC back then) because they didn't
really know WHAT was going to be done here in Houston, but they knew it
was probably gonna be BIG.  Barge transportation has been used to bring
in some of the truly enormous things we have here, like the Saturn V
and other fossils in Rocket Park, the Skylab trainer, pieces of the
huge vacuum chamber (the door is 32' across) used to test the entire
lunar module at once, and (recently) full-sized Space Station Freedom
module mock-ups and pieces for use in the WETF (Weightless Environment
Training Facility, or swimming pool).

There are probably more examples; my knowledge of JSC's Transportation
Division's history is spotty at best.

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

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."
From: manacsa@l13ff.jsc.nasa.gov (Gerry Manacsa)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:29:57 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Oct1.141139.9024@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, hendrick@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Heath S Hendrickson) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep30.221912.13364@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> manacsa@l13ff.jsc.nasa.gov (Gerry Manacsa) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep23.235747.15039@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
> >> 
> [stuff about O-rings deleted}
> >
> >The proposed (currently dead?) ASRM design does eliminate several of the 
> 		^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> From what I heard, the ASRM is fully funded for FY93..
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Heath S. Hendrickson                         "For what is man without
> hendrick@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                    his dreams?"
> Aerospace Engineering at Purdue University
> 

Oh?  Has it been revived?  I thought that funding was deleted after Jamie 
Whitten fell ill...

===========================================================================
Gerry Manacsa (manacsa@l13ff.jsc.nasa.gov) 
Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company       
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions... nothing to do with my company whatsoever...
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle