HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost Argum
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:14:12 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Maximum payload weight for a safe abort is
>40,000 lbs, and the shuttle rarely carries that much weight.

     Not true in either statement. 40,000 lbs. is about the average, if I
     reckon correctly. However I'll have to dig up copies of the Shuttle
     Press Kits for each mission to get an accurate figure. Many missions
     have been above the 40,000 lb. mark (STS-29, STS-30, STS-34, STS-41,
     STS-37, STS-43, STS-44, STS-50, all since return-to-flight.) Many of
     the military missions used the IUS, making them candidates for
     40,000+ payloads. The next 40,000+ mission is in two weeks: STS-54.
     
     The "abort" figure you cite appears to be based on the safe return
     weight (about 35,000lbs) but this has not been a factor in limiting
     Shuttle payload capacity, as the above examples testify.

     -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: jls2@teal.csn.org (Jeff Stoner)
Subject: Denver NASA Meeting
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 23:07:43 GMT

In recent postings by Ron Baalke of the Space Calendar, there's a
"NASA Town Meeting" listed for Denver, Colorado in January 1993, with
no other information or specific date.

Does anyone else know more about this? I'm especially interested
since I live in the area.

Thanks!

-- 
====== Jeff L. Stoner === Boulder, Colo. ============ /\ = /\ ========== |
                                                 /\  /  \ /  /\  /\    --*--
   Home: jls2 @ bearhug.boulder.co.us         /\/  \/    /  /  \/  /\    |
   News: jls2 @ csn.org                    /\/  \   \  /\  /    \    /\
From: tmm@asns.tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tim McCaffrey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Biosphere 2 update
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:52:35 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Unisys Corporation, Devon Engineering Offices

Since B2 gets most (all?) of its power from solar, through the 
glass, I just gotta ask the obvious question:

	Does anybody/anything clean the windows? (outside)

					Tim McCaffrey
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:21:13 GMT

In article <ewright.725152125@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec23.114601.22583@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Of course the SR-71 was a black program funded by clandestine government
>>agencies to the tune of we don't know how many billions of dollars. 
>
>Well, we do know that Kelly Johnson had no more than 100 engineers
>working on the project.
>
>How many billions can 100 engineers manage to spend in just 18 months?

How many billions have you got? It takes almost no time at all to add
zeros to a check. Engineers can spend money faster than a woman with
a gold card in Saks if you let them.

>Like most government reformers, you refuse to recognize that
>the conditions you decry are the *results* of your reforms.  
>You simply ascribe the worsening conditions to the fact that
>your reforms have not been implemented thoroughly enough.

That's rich. Not only am I not a government reformer, I'm enough
of a practicing engineering manager to know that projects only come 
in on time and on budget when you've throughly done your homework 
and made allowances for the contingencies that always come up during
development. This has nothing to do with government, as incompetent
an exercise in mismanagement as I've ever seen. This has to do with 
sound engineering management of high risk development programs with 
real schedules and real budgets. Cutting corners up front on the
assumption that everything that works on paper will work in metal
usually bites you in the rear. How that affects your project's
schedule and budget depends entirely on how well you've planned
for such failures and how well you've developed alternative
strategies.

Gary

-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
From: apryan@vax1.tcd.ie
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: two-line element info needed
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:32:46 GMT
Organization: Trinity College Dublin

Is there a FAQ detailing the fields in the two-line element sets?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:52:28 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <19069@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>> No, some of the S-IVB-based SSTO proposals were reusable...
>
>        I stand corrected, although somewhat puzzled. If you have the details
>handy Henry, could you inform us how it was planned to recover a cylindrical
>stage without having it break up the way the Shuttle ET breaks up when it
>hits the atmosphere?  Presumably this must involve some mechanism for keeping
>the stage oriented and tumble free during re-entry.  What heat shield
>materials were planned in this era prior to the Shuttle tiles and blankets?

I don't have a lot of detail.  The proposal I recall was in three phases.
Phase one recovered an S-IVB with minimal modifications (ocean recovery
using parachutes and retrorockets) as a demonstration, using the stage's
existing RCS system plus three steel-mesh ballutes for nose-first
stabilization, and ablative thermal protection.  Phase two switched to
land recovery, using landing legs plus crushable honeycomb behind the
heatshield.  Phase three did a substantial rebuild of the engine area
to use an aerospike engine, which doubled as a liquid-hydrogen-cooled
heatshield for tail-first reentry.  After phase three successfully
demonstrated an engine suitable for SSTO operations and a fully-reusable
recovery mechanism, an operational SSTO vehicle would be developed
using lighter structures etc.  (The version I saw sounded like they
weren't sure a direct S-IVB derivative could achieve SSTO itself.)
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Why have both manned and auto capability on DC-[XY1] & Buran?
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:37:23 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <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.
>
>Given that the thing can fly automatically, why add pilots?
>
>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.
>
>In what sense is the Shuttle piloted?  What about Apollo?
>
>[I'm not talking here about the capacity to _carry_ people, and I
>certainly don't want to start the manned-vs-unmanned flamewars again;
>I'm strictly refering to the actual driving of the craft.]

Theoretically, Shuttle has had autoland from the beginning, but it's
never been used. Similarly, in space rendezvous and docking is handled
manually. Normal ascent, descent, and station keeping are handled 
automatically. With Apollo, the state of the art in automatic flight 
controls of the time would have put Eagle in a boulder field rather than 
Tranquility base. The docking between the LEM and the command module was 
also a manual eyeball operation. Fully automatic operation for routine 
flights should be fairly easy today. Like with modern airliners, the pilot 
is just along as an exception handler. The ex-Soviets have been doing 
routine Progress flights for some time. 

Gary
From: monta@image.mit.edu (Peter Monta)
Subject: Re: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
Organization: MIT Advanced Television Research Program
	<2JAN199323293310@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<93Jan03.000619.18712@acs.ucalgary.ca> <C094sx.Gqo@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:19:18 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> The on-board computers don't have the horsepower to do serious compression
> at 100-odd kbps.

Perhaps the DSN improvements currently in the pipeline would increase
the HGA raw data rate, so that the processors would just have to send
the data faster.

Speaking of which, as I understand it, the claim is that the link
capacity can be increased 10-fold.  For HGA, that would give some
1+ Mb/s (assuming the better code could be run at that rate).  That is
remarkable.  Where does it come from?  The Gaspra briefing notes say
that the system noise temperature will drop to 12K, 4K better than
current; that's a couple dB.  This means that maybe 8 dB has to come
from more aperture, better coding, or out of the link margin: is there
that much reserve in the DSN?  Such a state-of-the-art system would be
hard to improve more than incrementally, I would have thought.

How will the arraying be done?  Is it real-time or recorded,
combined offline?  What coding is used?  Leech's notes mention
a "50% higher data rate", plus "several magnitudes better" error
rate; this might be another 2 dB.  That's a large jump, and the
natural question is why the new code wasn't used in the first
place.

A previous poster suggested chirping the motor:  does the spare
HGA on the ground show any such useful mechanical resonances?

I think many of us here in non-JPL-land are watching all of this
with intense interest and excitement.  Best of luck.

Peter Monta   monta@image.mit.edu
MIT Advanced Television Research Program
Xref: sparky sci.space:18465 talk.politics.space:1650
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:59:03 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester

In article <1992Dec30.230013.4102@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>>You have to be careful with polls.  A poll in which people are asked
>>"do you want a manned space program?" will ellicit a generally
>>positive response.  However, similar questions on other issues, like
>>education, health care, and so on, ellicit much more positive
>>responses.  The *relative* support of the space program is not very
>>high.

> Another Dietz assertion-without-proof... Please
> provide data which shows the relative support.


Well, Doc, I can't, because I do not recall where or just when this
poll was conducted (it was some years ago).  However, if you wish to
call me a liar about it, I shall try to cope.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Date: 30 Dec 1992 16:24:49 GMT
Organization: UDSI
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com


Henry.

	Given the opinion of the science community on ASTP,
	why didn't we have the  ASTP mission meet at Skylab?

	Then a Full-up CSM  could have been used to give
	skylab a push,  the vehicle could have been flown
	fora fourth mission,  and the soviets could have
	docked on the other end.

	Was skylabs orbit too low in inclination for them to hit it?
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Date: 25 Dec 1992 20:43:02 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <BzqBvs.J8H@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.111923.22269@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>... A ten year life zero defects
>>GEO comsat like K2 is much cheaper than a 1 year life package
>>that costs 20 times less. That's because most of the investment is
>>not in the satellite, it's in the Earth based terminals that use it.
>
>I don't grasp this argument.  It's the same Earth-based terminals either way.
>If you're providing a service, you plan to do so over more than one satellite
>lifetime, either way.  Twenty years of service is cheaper with mass-produced
>short-life satellites, even with your (fairly unfavorable) assumptions.
>

Actually, henry.  both of you are sticking to the clarke orbit model.

Most of the effort in the Telecom industry is oriented towards
LEO comm sats.  store and forward or multiple fast relay satellittes.

in this case,  the degree of investment in the ground terminals  becomes
very small,  terminals costing under $1,000.00  and satellittes being
cheaper,  because they are smaller, lighter and need less powerful elements.
Obviously,  for a 72 sat constellation, like motorolas  or Inmarsats 21
sat config,  you want to try and keep the lifetimes up,  but if launch
costs drop significantly,  then you can deal with replacing birds
on a regular basis.


>>... Since the satellite represents a single point failure node...
>
>This is your assumption, not a self-evident fact.  Communications networks
>normally have redundancy to cover predictable single-point failures.
>Even today's gold-plated satellite networks do, despite the expense.
>

Actually,  most comm sats,  have lots of extra solar cells,  spare
gyros and thrusters  and spare transponders to handle loss of units.

now if there were some cheap way to go up and refurb these birds,  then
you would be talking some real savings.  
>>... and since for most orbits
>>the satellites aren't retrievable or repairable, and DC won't change
>>that...
>
>Again, your assumption, not a self-evident fact.  Cheap launches change
>almost everything, including the feasibility of retrieval and repair.


Oncve again,  for LEO  commsats,  rendevous is quite feasible.

you could even use the shuttle to  grab them up.



pat
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 12/30/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords:  Mars Observer, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:27:00 GMT

Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project

                     MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT
                         December 30, 1992
                           11:00 AM PST
                         Launch +96 Days

The Spacecraft Team reports that spacecraft subsystems and instruments
are performing nominally.  The spacecraft is in Array Normal Spin; the
downlink data rate is at 250 bps while the uplink data rate is 125 bps.

C5 A execution began on December 19.  C5 is the outer cruise transition
sequence which is marked by the spacecraft attitude being changed from
an off sun orientation to direct pointing at Earth.  The Mission Manager
reports that we are on schedule for transition to outer cruise operations
on January 2 and to High Gain Antenna operations on January 4.

Today the spacecraft is 38,335,379 km (23,820,500 miles) from Earth,
traveling at a velocity of 9.4083 kilometers per second (21,046 miles per
hour) with respect to Earth.  One way light time is approximately 128
seconds.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in your life. 

Xref: sparky sci.space:18548 sci.astro:13573
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: Fri,  1 Jan 93 01:46:23 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

I heard on Paul Harvey radio two days ago that former Gemini and Apollo 15
astronaut David Scott had been charged with fraud.  No further information
was presented.  Does this auction of the piece of tape have something to
do with the story report on P.H./ABC News?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 23:25:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

I wrote:
>... the docking adapter was tiny, weighing only 2 tons.  The
>combination weighed about as much as Apollo 7's CSM, and only about 800kg
>less than the Skylab CSMs...

Oops, for "less than", read "more than".
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Subject: Re: What is DC ??
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:09:17 GMT

>>>>> On Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:59:04 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:

Henry> Note that Atlas did it with a stage and a half -- dropping two
Henry> engines but nothing else -- in 1958.  Using 3000m/s exhaust
Henry> velocity, too.

How did Atlas drop its engines?




--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 00:57:34 GMT

Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

> I think the fundamental problem with this [MHD pumps] is where to get the
> large amounts of power needed.  Even moderate sized rocket engines use
> turbopumps generating several thousand kilowatts of power.

Yah, I thought of that this morning.  You could generate it with an MHD
generator in the nozzle, but the mass of the whole system would probably be
too high.

> Paul Deitz has pointed out in E-mail to me that molten aluminum would
> be an ideal candidate for pressure feeding.

Yah, that sounds like a better idea; much simpler.

> A useful technique might be to have the molten aluminum stored in a
> spherical steel tank pressurized by injecting liquid nitrogen into the tank
> (which because of the heat will immediately vaporize).  Is nitrogen
> available from the moon?

Not according to the books I have.  Lots of oxygen in the minerals, but only
a trace of any other normally gasseous elements.  I suppose nitrogen--or
other inert gas--would have to be imported.  It could be mixed with oxygen,
since molten aluminum forms an oxide slag cover.  Does anyone know what level
of oxygen partial pressure is dangerous during aluminum casting?

To Henry: I've never heard of aluminum being very reactive with nitrogen.
Titanium is unusual.

As for the other problem (nozzle degradation), could oxygen be vented at the
perimeter of the reaction chamber and nozzle throat to protect the (ceramic)
surfaces from abrasion and clogging?  The engine is supposed to run with
excess oxygen; why not make use of that?  Has there been any research into
nozzles protected by a gas layer?

--

Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Subject: Re: Apollo 13 book
Reply-To: martin@space.ualberta.ca (Martin Connors)
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:44:26 GMT

In article <BzJ7ou.7tG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry  
Spencer) writes:
> In article <72000@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart  
Thorn) writes:
> > "Houston, We've Had a Problem" is a NASA/Government Printing Office
> > non-technical account of the Apollo 13 accident. It is about a ten
> > page magazine-sized booklet.
> > 
> > I only know of one other "book" about the accident, that being
> > "13: The Flight That Failed". I think the author was Henry S.F.  
Cooper...
> 

You might try these others as well. The first of them is quite  
entertaining but I have not seen the second.

CALL NO:     TL   795 P38 1985                         type k for copies  
info  
   LOCATIONS: SCI
 TITLES:        Chariots for Apollo: the making of the lunar module/ /1st  
ed.-- 
 AUTHORS, ETC.: Pellegrino, Charles R.
 PUBLISHERS:    Atheneum,  New York:  1985.
 SUBJECTS:      Lunar excursion module
 NOTES:           PUBL.DATES: 1985.   AUTHORS: by Charles R. Pellegrino  
and Jos 
  hua Stoff. --   COLLATION: xiii, 238 p., <16> p. of plates : ill. ; 24  
cm.
  BIBLIOGR: Bibliography: p. <234>-238.
 OTHER AUTHORS: Stoff, Joshua.
 OTHER TITLES:  The making of the lunar module.
 OTHER NUMBERS: 39884694
 ISBN/ISSN:     0689115598
 LC CARD:       84045629


 CALL NO:     TL   521 U58SP no.4205                    type k for copies  
info  
   LOCATIONS: SCI
 TITLES:        Chariots for Apollo: a history of manned lunar spacecraft/
 AUTHORS, ETC.: Brooks, Courtney G.
 PUBLISHERS:    Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National  
Aeronauti 
                cs and Space Administration, Washington:  1979.
 TITLE SERIES:  NASA SP.    /  4205              NASA SP;  4205
 SUBJECTS:      Project Apollo- History. / Astronautics- Accidents- 1967
 NOTES:           PUBL.DATES: 1979.   AUTHORS: by Courtney G. Brooks,  
James M.  
  Grimwood, Loyd S. Swenson, Jr. --   COLLATION: xvii, 538 p. : ill. ; 25  
cm. - 
  -   UNT.SERIES: The NASA history series   GENERAL: Includes index.    
BIBLIOGR 
  : Bibliography: p. 485-502.
 OTHER AUTHORS: Grimwood, James M. / Swenson, Loyd S.
 OTHER NUMBERS: 39498749
--
Martin Connors         |
Space Research         | martin@space.ualberta.ca  (403) 492-2526
University of Alberta  |