HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV and...
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:59:57 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug20.115651.6968@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>>after PMC will only occupy 1/4th the Shuttle fleet at any given time. 
>>The Shuttle flies eight times a year and four of those are needed for
>>Fred resuply. Thus Fred uses 50% of Shuttle...
>The Shuttle has flown 8 times a year without Endeavor and with Columbia
>down for update mods. NASA is taking about 2 months at it's current
>leisurely pace, one shift, no overtime, to stack and launch a Shuttle...

Children, children, simmer down. :-) :-)

Having been involved in such debates before (although the subject then was
the Saturn V, not the shuttle), I would observe that it's easy to argue
past each other endlessly.  The fact is, we *don't know* what the readily
sustainable shuttle launch rate is, because we don't have enough experience
with it yet.  Too much of the experience to date is spoiled by various
problems that one can easily argue are non-recurring.  Station resupply
is also a rather different flavor of mission from the ones done so far;
we don't have much relevant experience to judge things like preparation
times for such missions.  (Sure, it *ought* to be less... but NASA has
made hash of that kind of seemingly-reasonable prediction before.)

I'd say there is reasonable evidence that, with the post-Challenger
improvements in infrastructure, NASA can do 8/year easily... if there
are no more major one-time problems lurking in the wings.

Big increases in that rate do not seem to be in the cards.  (You really
don't want to rely on overtime work on a sustained basis, for example --
that was one of the pre-Challenger problems.)  Or at least, big increases
are not in the cards without a massive organizational shakeup, which won't
happen.  I suspect it could be done -- merely firing half the inspectors
and hiring workers instead would boost output a lot and would probably
*improve* quality in the long run -- but it won't be.

However, even a small increase, say to 10/year, would make a big difference
in what you have left after deducting 4/year for Fred.  There is some hope
that small increases might be had.  On the other hand, it's far too early
to confidently say that they *can* be had without major changes.
-- 
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: wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM (Rick Wagoner)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo Video Clips
Date: 26 Aug 1992 23:24:08 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: georwell.ebay.sun.com

The famous feather and hammer trick is on the PBS special "For All Mankind". This special
was just broadcast about two weeks ago.  There is a Laser disk set by the same title, but
I don't know if this clip is on it.

---
+-----------------------------------------------+
+ Rick Wagoner					+
+ Sun Microsystems Education Dept.		+
+ 408-276-5658					+
+ 						+
+ email Rick.Wagoner@EBay.Sun.COM		+
+ or	rick.wagoner@Ebay 			+
+ or	rwagoner@sun.com			+
+						+
+ or whateverthehell the DNS server mangles my	+
+    address into!				+
+						+
+-----------------------------------------------+
+ Opinions: MINE!	Systems: Theirs!	+
+-----------------------------------------------+
+  Everybody likes to stir the excrement        +
+  but nobody likes to clean the paddle...	+
+-----------------------------------------------+

Xref: sparky sci.space:12276 sci.astro:9294
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Ulysses Update - 08/28/92
Keywords: Ulysses, JPL, ESA
Date: 29 Aug 92 01:03:51 GMT
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                         August 28, 1992

     Spacecraft and science operations continue to be carried out
as planned.  A routine Earth-pointing maneuver was performed on
Wednesday, Aug. 26, with another maneuver scheduled for Saturday,
Aug. 29.

     The spacecraft reached maximum distance from Earth -- 938
million kilometers or 583 million miles -- on Wednesday, Aug. 26,
and will now begin to close that gap.  Presently Ulysses is still
at about the maximum distance, traveling at a heliocentric
velocity of about 30,000 kilometers per hour (19,000 miles per
hour).  The craft is beginning to move slowly away from the
ecliptic plane and is about 9 degrees south relative to the sun.

      A reduction in the number of ranging passes continued
during this reporting period to improve the spacecraft signal.
The 34-meter (111-foot) ground stations are in use to support
flight operations, with at least one 70-meter (230-foot) station
pass per week to support ranging.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Size,Mass,and velocity....
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:38:29 GMT
 <1992Aug28.173002.19958@lsil.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0d56@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Aug28.173002.19958@lsil.com>
sispas@lsil.com (Steve Ispas) writes:

> I don't mean to flame, but this seems to be a big waste of bandwidth.  You
> can find things like this just about anywhere. 

Grrr. If you're really so concerned about the extra bandwidth, why keep
posting about it?

I feel an duty to education in my field. True, I was not about to type
in all those numbers myself, but did I e-mail the original poster some
references to look up in the library. Anyone who asks so clueless a
question should be helped out!

That's ALL, folks,
Fred
Xref: sparky sci.space:12387 news.answers:2750
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:37:54 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
-Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
-Date: 26 Aug 92 07:07:16 GMT
-Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

-In article <rabjab.39.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes...
->Is the Pioneer Venus orbiter still functioning?  

-Yup, but it is running out of propellent and is due to burn up in the
-atmosphere of Venus this December.

Will the trajectory of Pioneer Venus as it burns up provide useful
information for the planning of the Magellan aerobraking experiment?
(Density and drag at various altitudes, etc.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from?
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 23:54:20 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.192748.23240@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald) writes:
> spark@spuddy.uucp (Steve) writes:
> > Where is the speed of light measured relative to? 
> That is EXACTLY the punchline:
> 
> The speed of light is CONSTANT in ALL inertial reference frames. This
> is REGARDLESS of direction.

I think it's important to point out that the basic formulas of Special
Relativity follow from this fact. For instance, the time dilation
formula can be worked out by considering a clock that "ticks" by
firing a light beam off a mirror, and considering the path from
another intertial reference frame.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Tour ad in Final Frontier mag.
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:14:30 GMT

In the last issue of Final Frontier (October 1992) on page 60, there is an
ad from Space Tour Corporation.  They (effectively) say that they are going
to attempt to build an "assisted-single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle, and it 
looks like the are offering a ride on it as a prize for zome contest.
The address they give is in washington D.C., and the fax number is a 202 area
code.  They do however mention something about the Third Millenium in the ad.
This name seems to stir memories of something very flakey that I saw something
about on the net mebee 2 years ago, but I can't pin it down.

So, the questions are:  Has anybody heard of these guys?
			Are they on the Internet?
			Are they for real?
			What kind of funding do they have so far?
			Do they have any real technical names in thier
				credentials?
			If they are not really for real, who at Final Frontier
				is responsible for checking out the ads, and
				seeing that they don't get published?
			On the other hand, if they are for real, why didn't
				final frontier do a real article on them?

	Any info?, anybody?...

			John.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: faught@redfox.ssc.gov (Ed Faught)
Subject: Re: Laser distance record?
Reply-To: faught@redfox.ssc.gov
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:38:38 GMT

In article <26059@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <rabjab.77.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)  
writes...
>>To date, what is the farthest that a laser has been seen from?
>> 
>>I recall a successful experiment sending a laser beam from the
>>Earth to a Surveyor lander on the Moon in the sixties.  That would
>>make the current record approx. 384,400 km?
>
>If you allow masers, then the answer is best measured in parsecs.  Oh... you
>want man-made lasers.  Never mind.
>
>-Scott
>--------------------
>Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
>				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
>				had been definitely settled, I think I would
>				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

I seem to recall reading something about natural lasers in the atmoshere of  
Venus??????
--
Ed Faught  WA9WDM  faught@psychosis.ssc.gov
 Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: "For All Mankind"
Date: 30 Aug 92 02:06:23 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

\Incidentally, if anyone knows where the video of this can be found, I'd
/love to know.  I saw it two(?) years ago when it was in theatrical
\release and I thought it was way boffo cool.

Yes. It can be found on the shelf about 10 feet from where I am sitting.

Seriously, folks, I would like to get some discussion on these things
started, with some comments from me Monday when I can really post.

L8r..........

I mean, discussion on _For All Mankind_...


-- 
Phil Fraering pgf@srl0x.cacs.usl.edu where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: 318/365-5418
SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560

If seven maids with seven brooms swept it for half a year,
do you think, the Walrus asked, that they could make it clear?
I doubt it, said the Carpenter, and shed a bitter tear.
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Global positioning sys
Date: 25 Aug 1992 21:46:31 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu



>Jeff you'll need to contact the Air Force for GPS information.

  Yes, the Air Force just sent me:

         "Technical Characteristics of the NAVSTAR GPS"
          June 1991

  It's good technical introduction for public release, obtainable from:

          Department of the Air Force
          Headquarters Space Systems Division (AFSC)
          Los Angeles Air Force Base, PO Box 92960
          Los Angeles, CA 90009-2960

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
 
  

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: RES_DFULLER@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU (I'll get you my pretty and your little dog too!!!)
Subject: Whales and Dolphins...again...
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:07:19 GMT

Guys, I don't mean to flame, but this is the Space digest and not the
PETA/ALF list.  I don't think discussions on the intellegence of whales
and the ethics of their use in experiments belong on here.

Thanks,

Deb
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: HST Update - 08/31/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  HST
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:01:01 GMT

Forwarded from the SpaceLink BBS

                       HUBBLE STATUS REPORT
                         August 31, 1992

HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE (HST):  HST operations have returned to
normal following the recent safehold entry and recovery. Starting
on July 30, a chain of events caused HST first to enter an
inertial hold safemode followed by a hardware sunpoint safemode.
The first was caused by an incorrect ephemeris table that was
loaded into the spacecraft computer, and the latter by a problem
with an onboard computer software macro. Science observations
that were scheduled for execution during the safemode events are
being rescheduled. HST launched April 24, 1990 aboard the Space
Shuttle Discovery.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Opinions on NLS
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:38:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BtD3vI.66G@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>I've been noticing a distinct lack of discussion on the New (or is it National?)
>Launch System in this group, which kind of surprises me given the number of 
>other topics that are discussed.  

NLS gets mention occasionally.  You won't see very much about it as long as
it remains a paper program.  All the public-relations posturing about it has
been heard before, repeatedly.  There is no indication that more will come
out of it this time than all the previous times.

>... They discussed the lower costs, high reliability, and the Keep It
>Simple Stupid aprroach ...

NLS, and its predecessor ALS, has always been All Things To All Customers.
Sure, they talk big about reliability and simplicity... but when one of
the ALS competitors proposed an approach focussing heavily on improving
manufacturing processes to reduce variability and improve reliability,
they were dropped from the next stage of competition, on the grounds that
they were supposed to *know* how to build ALS before starting.  ALS/NLS
has made a few decisions right -- notably, they aren't using the staged-
combustion cycle of the SSMEs, despite its performance advantages, because
it's such a bag of snakes in practice -- but I've seen no signs of truly
fundamental change.  If it ever flies, expect it to be expensive, complex,
and not particularly reliable.
-- 
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: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sizing of launch vehicles (was Saturn Class)
Date: 29 Aug 1992 23:47:04 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: whirlwind.berkeley.edu

In article <1579@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes:

>Now, for the space station delivery job alone, you have a need to
>deliver 75 tons per year (5 Shuttle loads), for say 10 years.  Thus
>you have a total delivery requirement of 750 tons, or 750,000 kg.
>To find total cost, we need to add recurring and development costs,
>with the development cost spread over the launched mass:

>[Numbers based on his launch/development cost model.]

>So, considering the Space Station delivery job only, the optimum
>size seems to be around 10 tons payload. 

This neglects  the use of pre-existing systems (e.g. ones where the
development costs have already been paid for.)

But more importantly, you are treating the Space Station as a constant-mass
payload, which need only be delivered to orbit. Assembling the pieces
will also be required, and clearly assembly of 75 10-tonne pieces is
much harder than assembly of (say) 15 50-tonne pieces. 

I suspect the difference in costs (which was only around a 10% difference
between 10 and 25 tonne payloads) would be overshadowed by the changes
in on orbit assembly costs.

					   Frank Crary
					   CU Boulder

(By the way, does anyone know how to get usenet access here at Boulder?
My new account is on a machine that doesn't seem to connect, and remote
logins to my old Berkeley account are getting to be a pain...)

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Interplanetary launch capability of the Delta II?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 12:14:34 GMT

In article <rabjab.47.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes...
>What would be a good formula be to compute payload to Earth escape+Vinf
>using a Delta II launch vehicle?  I believe the vehicle can put 11 Klb
>in a 100 nm reference orbit.  (The Delta I can put up 5.5 Klb)
> 
>What would a typical solid fuel upper stage weigh?  Given the delta-V
>a solid upper stage could give me, how could I then compute the payload
>capacity left after burnout?  My objective is to design a Venus orbiter,
>launching with no bigger than a Delta II.  Has anything interplanetary ever
>been launched with a Delta II before?
> 

None of the planetary missions in the past have used the Delta II as a
launch vehicle, but the MESUR mission is planning to use it.  Here are
some quick numbers for the Delta II launch capability:

       Launch Energy, C3     Payload Mass
        (km^2/sec^2)           (kg)
       ------------------    -------------
            10                   1000
            20                    850
            30                    650
            40                    550

In MESUR's case, it has been determined that a launch energy of 17 is 
required for Mars.  Four spacecraft are being sent on a single Delta II.
Current estimates say that each spacecraft will weigh 145.6 kg and the 
launch adapter mass weighs 40 kg, so the total payload mass is 622.4 kg.  
At C3=17, Delta II can send a payload of 922kg, leaving a 300 kg margin.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Xref: sparky sci.space:12325 sci.astro:9346
From: ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:59:44 +0100
Organization: Dundee Institute of Technology

In article <munk.715246928@prles6b>, munk@prl.philips.nl (Harm Munk) writes:
> 
> Because it supposedly was a military airplane, the KNMI contacted the military
> airbase Aurora in Scotland, but the spokesperson at Aurora did not know
> of any observation of a supersonic, military aircraft that evening.

Can't say I've ever heard of a military airbase called Aurora in Scotland.
Sounds a very unlikely name for an RAF base in any case.
-- 

Alan Greig                            Janet: Alan@UK.AC.DUNDEE-TECH
Dundee Institute of Technology	      Tel: (0382) 308810
Scotland, UK
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:14:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <8780.2339210127@kcbbs.gen.nz> Simon_Demler@kcbbs.gen.nz (Simon Demler) writes:
>> [It bugs me that there are people like H Ross Perot, who
>> themselves have enough cash to finance their own space
>> programs, but that none, so  far, has underwritten one.]
>
>Does it also bother you that these people could be spending some money 
>on the drought problems in Africa rather than on some space program...
>Come on get real...there are MUCH larger problems that need solving 
>on this planet before trying to get peoples private wealth for space ...

How much of *your* private wealth have you spent on those problems lately?
Organizations like Oxfam will happily tell you just how much even a small
donation will buy; it's a lot more than you think.  Surely people dying in
Africa is more important than you having a beer when your throat is dry.
Have you done *anything* for the poor and unfortunate of the world lately?
If not, why are you criticizing people like Perot?  (They may have lots
of money by our standards, but even a typical third-world government has
much more; it's not as if HRP could single-handedly wipe out hunger and
suffering.)

"He who gives no thought to what is distant will find sorrow close at hand."
Concern for the problems of today should not preclude spending modest amounts
on longer-term projects.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Single Stage to Orbit - How does it work?
Keywords: SSTO Energy
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:00:47 GMT

In article <BtpEMH.3KC@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Nugent       ) writes:

>From what I understand, 5 years ago you could not get into space without
>stages.  

Depends. With expendables it looks like getting to LEO with a single stage
has been possible technically for some time.

Reusable SSTO's are likely just now possible. The Aerospace Corporation
study (done before SSRT Phase I) used Max Hunters design. They concluded
that the vehicle could now just barely be built with a payload of between
20,000 and -600 pounds (the latter means it is 600 pounds too heavy to
lift off).

They said engine improvments of a few seconds of impulse and materials
only a few % lighter make it possible. SSTO is a game of inches.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------234 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.optics