HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 22:02:35 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Distribution: sci
 <1992Dec30.180058.28938@cs.rochester.edu>
 <ewright.725755862@convex.convex.com>
 <1992Dec31.015157.14864@cs.rochester.edu>
 <ewright.725820847@convex.convex.com>

Ed, having opinions about as tractable as an iridium lump does
not help convince people, you know.

What I understood Bruce to be proposing/discussing was the idea of
building a bottom stage for a DC-1 for those occaisons when a 'heavy'
payload needed launch.  (Heavy - either something that grosses out
long before it bulks out the cargo bay, or something that is going
higher than LEO on one launch (for whatever reason)).

This would seem to make a lot of sense; I did *not* understand him
to be advocating *all* launches as being two stage, just those that
would benefit from it.  (Or are you arguing that there will never
be any payloads that weigh too much for a DC-1?)

Graydon
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LEI financing
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 26 Dec 92  17:38:18

You are absolutely correct - that NASA does not necessarily have to be the
agency that purchases lunar science data from the private sector. Other
agencies, such as the US Geological Survey, are also under consideration. 
 
However, political realities may force NASA (and one of its field centers,in
particular) to be the agency with the responsbility to purchase the data,
under the final version of the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act.
Besides,  NASA is *already* purchasing science data from space from a private 
vendor.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development)
Subject: Re: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:17:40 GMT


In article <22DEC199214155306@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes...
>Also I have been doing some sleuthing and have found a few details abou the
>Saturn I series. There is actually three distinct vehicles in the Saturn I
>series. The Saturn C-1 was basically a 2 stage vehicle that used the Centaur
>first generation as its second stage. I do not know yet whether this is the
>six engine configuration Henry talked about or not. 
> 
>Then there is the Saturn 1. This beast had several changes relative to the C-1.
>This including adding the fins that you see on the televised Saturn 1 launches.
>This vehicle had the stage mentioned before, whether a six engine centaur or 
>whatever, and the Command and service module as the payload to to a suborbital
>trajectory. This combination was unable to boost the 45,000 lbs CSM to orbit.

Uh, no. The original Saturn C config was three stage, using Von Braun's Saturn
booster as the first stage. The second stage (S-IV) was to have had 4 LR-119
(may have that number wrong, it was to be a growth version of the RL-10, aka
LR-115) engines. The third stage (S-V) was to have been powered by 2 RL-10
engines. The S-V was NOT Centaur. They both were designed around a pair of
RL-10s, but had very different avionics and structure.

The S-IV evolved to use 6 RL-10s, thus avoiding the cost of developing a new
engine.

The 'C' designation was dropped somewhere along the way, with the Saturn C-1
becoming simply Saturn 1. FWIW, the Saturn A and B proposals used conventional
propellants in their second stages, and both had a third stage similar to the
S-V.

The first Saturn 1s flew with dummy second and third stages, and no fins. The
first block 2 Saturn 1 flew with a live S-IV stage and a dummy S-V (and tail
fins). Subsequent block 2 Saturns had dummy Apollo CSMs instead of the dummy
S-V.

The original intent was to fly the two stage Saturn 1 for LEO and the three
stage variant for lunar/planetary missions (unmanned of course). Remember that
the Saturn program predates Apollo. It was originally intended to produce a
family of general purpose ELVs.

>Finally there is the famous Saturn 1B that carried the manned Apollo CSM/LM to
>orbit. This configuration also carried the Saturn V, SIVB stage, which is the
>third stage of full up Saturn V. This combination was able to boost the
>full Saturn V payload to LEO altitude of 105 nautical miles. 

The Saturn 1B, aka Uprated Saturn 1, was developed to meet the increasing mass
of the CSM. As you said, the CSM grew beyond the original Saturn 1 LEO
capability. The Saturn 1B could lift the CSM or the LM, but not both (i.e. it
could not carry the full Saturn V payload to LEO).

>This is the booster
>that was used for the Apollo 7 mission. I forget whether it was used for 
>Apollo 9 or whether that was a full up Saturn V. 

The only manned Saturn 1B flights were Apollo 7, Skylab 2,3,4 and ASTP.

gary
From: waterman@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re:Aerospike engines/SSTO/DC-?
Date: 20 Dec 92 01:19:00 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

On the subject of DC-? , SSTO and Aerospike Engines the following
observation could be made to the question Why Aerospike Engines
are not used.

Lets make an assumtion here that the military has a super secret
spy plan (Aurora?) that can go (atleast) mach 8 to 10.  
An engine such as this would need to be built to support a SSTO
vehicle. The military could not have some non classified project
stumble on their working design. What then is the goal of the
military as it comes to SSTO research?

The military will oversee the research in this area. Any designs
which could work (or would lead to the program developing the
same engine) will be discouraged or lobbied as non workable
designs. In short the objectives of the military is to assure
that this country does not have a working civilian SSTO craft.

or atleast thats how I see it

Bob
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:33:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzyFFL.DwM.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain)
-Subject: Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter
-Date: 27 Dec 92 18:56:46 GMT
-Organization: Florida State University Geology Dept.

->In article <1992Dec24.193342.29953@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, 
->billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
->> My definition of asteriod is: any body that orginated in the
->> "asteriod belt" (between Mars and Jupiter). etc etc

-	Help! It would be useful to learn what are the "official" uses
-of the words according the IAU (and IUGG?). I have a hard enough time helping
-students try to keep meteor, meteorite, and meteoroid straight when
-there seems to be general disagreement on the distinctions between the
-meaning of the words asteroids, comets and, yes, planets. I posted
-this question recently in sci.astro but so far no one has come to the
-rescue. 

I posted a quote from a (1960s-1970s) astronomy textbook last week. 
Basically, "asteroid" and "minor planet" are considered synonyms.
The speculation that some comets eventually become covered with tar, dust,
etc. and become icy asteroids has tended to blur the distinction. 
Asteroids appear to have a variety of compositions.

-	Is anyone willing to demote Pluto/Charon to asteroid status,
-change Chiron from "asteroid" to comet, buck public sentiment to
-avoid naming a body orbiting mostly a little beyond Pluto "Planet X", or
-think about the use of the term "worlds" that some seem to favor for
-large bodies even if not orbiting the Sun?

Fitting things into definitions is an attempt to simplify one's model of
the universe. I'm not sure that's particularly useful in this situation.
It seems more practical in this case to not take definitions too seriously -
just treat them as a sort of loose and informal classification, and 
evaluate individual objects on a case-by-case basis. If you want to be
more formal, you have to divide "asteroid" into at least three categories.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn lift capabilities
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 21:11:00 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: na
  <1992Dec29.175754.24170@samba.oit.unc.edu>


>A question: was a fully fueled CSM, flown in the ASTP launch inclination,
>capable of reboosting Skylab?  Was it structurally feasible?  If so, when
>was the decision made not to reboost after the AST-part of the mission was
>over?
>---
>Gerald Cecil

  Structurally feasible, yes, at least on the SkyLab side of the dock.
  The TRS was supposed to reboost Skylab using this port.
  
  The decision not to send an Apollo to reboost SkyLab was made almost
  entirely on the premise that Shuttle would be flying long before
  Skylab deorbited. But Shuttle was late and atmospheric expansion in
  that Solar Maximum was greater than expected. End result: chunks of
  Skylab in the Australian outback.
  
  -Brian
  
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Clueless Shuttle Questions
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:33:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <YfEm2I600WB24DpYEj@andrew.cmu.edu> lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio) writes:
>1) Why is the tank so blunt? Isn't the shuttle a super-sonic vehicle?
>Shouldn't this be sharper, say one of theose secant ogive numbers?

These things are complex compromises.  A more pointed shape would have
lower drag, but also would be heavier for the same internal volume...
and the shuttle does most of its accelerating at extremely high altitude,
where air drag is negligible and weight is all-important.

>2) Why is the tank so rough? Not only is the texture less than smooth,
>but there are a number of grooves near the front as well.

The surface is relatively smooth, but surface smoothness doesn't matter
that much on such a large object, which will inevitably have a turbulent
boundary layer over most of its length anyway.  The grooves you see near
the front are actually ridges, external reinforcements for the intertank
ring; they add some drag but moving them inside or doing without would
add weight.

>3) The struts that hold the shuttle to the tank are apparently naked
>cylenders. Shouldn't these be streamlined in some way?

They're in pretty turbulent air anyway, and it doesn't matter that much.
Again, streamlining would add weight.  Even more conventional supersonic
aircraft have a strong tendency to rely on brute-force engine power rather
than aerodynamic elegance, as a close inspection of most any jet fighter
will reveal!

>4)On the side od each SRB, there is a piece of metal running lengthwise.
>Is this a strap to hold the segments together? 

No, they're held together by pins at the joints themselves.  What you're
seeing is probably the wiring tunnel that runs the length of each SRB,
carrying cables and the linear destruct charge.

>5) Wouldn't the SRB segments mate more reliably if the propellant grain
>from an upper segment extended into the next lower segment? That way,
>the propellant segments wouldn't coincide with the chamber segments and
>the infamous O-rings wouldn't take as direct a blast. No? 

So long as the propellant grain has a joint in it, there's always the
possibility that gas will get through that joint to reach the casing
joint.  It wouldn't help much, and it would complicate handling and
transport.  The post-Challenger joints do have a number of features
to reduce the amount of gas reaching the O-rings.
-- 
"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: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: averting doom
Date: 30 Dec 92 23:46:20 GMT
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory

In article <1992Dec30.213649.28398@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>Newsgroups: sci.astro
>Path: cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
>Subject: Re: averting doom
>Message-ID: <1992Dec30.194139.27331@cs.ucf.edu>
>Sender: news@cs.ucf.edu (News system)
>Organization: University of Central Florida
>References: <1992Dec30.165411.25838@cs.ucf.edu>
>Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 19:41:39 GMT
>
>In article <1992Dec30.165411.25838@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas  
>Clarke) writes:
>> In article <JMC.92Dec29211051@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John  
>> McCarthy) writes:
>> > By the way, it seems to me that if the above idea is sound, it settles
>> > the question of the stability of the solar system - in the negative.
>> ... In the most recent Sci Am or Sky and Telescope 
>
>It was Sky and Telescope Feb '93 ppp 13-14.
>I remembered wrong.  A one millimeter perturbation of Mars' orbit
>eventually caused a 500,000 kilometer difference in the position of
>Pluto after 100 million years.
>
>Gerald Sussman and Jack Wisdom used the Supercomputer Toolkit at MIT
>to simulate the solar system.

McCarthy has been discussing the tame-asteroid proposal with Sussman
et al.

.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: lunar military position
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 23:15:29 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <93003.144037SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
>If you want a 'hard' satellite, you can do three things - stealth it...
>... give it defenses (a hard problem), or armor it ...
>...  The Moon has a real advantage when
>it comes to shipping inert mass to an Earth orbit, in terms of energy.

I'm sure the Moon colony would be the main supplier of armor for armored
military satellites.  That doesn't mean they'd own them, or that they
would have a monopoly on them.  Sure, it's more expensive to launch the
mass needed for armor from Earth, but it *can be done* -- the cost is
not prohibitive under the assumptions necessary for a lunar colony to
exist at all.  And the lunar colony is not going to be able to afford
Earth-sized military budgets for a very long time.  Their advantage,
while noticeable, is nowhere near enough to put them in a commanding
position over a much bigger and richer neighbor.

>Taking out a radiation hard satellite with a nuclear weapon, particularly
>one that is behind several meters of lunar regolith, isn't all that
>easy...

Direct hits are already-demonstrated technology.  You don't really need
nuclear weapons for this kind of thing; a direct hit from a ton of sand
will punch through that regolith layer pretty easily.  Knocking out
satellites is *easy* -- they can't maneuver very much (especially if
they're hauling many tons of armor around), reaching orbital altitude
is much easier than reaching orbital velocity (a Scud with suitable
guidance and course-correction systems would be a workable antisatellite
weapon), and their own orbital velocity makes warheads almost superfluous.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Poker Flats, Alaska UAF
Date: 2 Jan 93 02:06:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan1.180631.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

Does anyone know anything about "Poker Flats" in Alaska..
Up near Fairbanks, AK.. If I remember right it is run by the 
University of Alaska Fairbanks.. Mostly does atmospheric (northern lights, etc)
research.. 


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:40:16 GMT

Another source of information is the External Tank Study published
by the Space Studies Institute. Cutting up ETs for their aluminum
was listed as an option. Impulse of such an engine would be in the
330 second range. Very viable as a Lunar based fuel source.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------116 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Subject!! (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Date: 21 Dec 92 11:48:06 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

Has it occurred to *anybody* in this thread to change the damn subject
line? We are now ranting about the costs of EVA time, which seems to
me to have very little to do with the terminal velocity of DC-X, hmm?

That goes for the rest of you in other threads, too!

(Pretty cranky for Christmas week, eh?  Blessings of the holidays to
you all.) 


     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: MOL (and Almaz)
Reply-To: ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 00:42:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.111817.24990@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
> 
> A mockup station (really just empty Titan tankage somewhat similar in 
> size to a real station) and the first test capsule (which I believe 
> was the refitted Gemini 2 capsule (with the new hatch in the heatshield)
> were launched around 1970.  
> Spaceflight magazine did a good history on MOL many years ago.  The flight 
> was interesting since during launch the second stage first put the Gemini
> capsule on a suborbital trajectory to test the heatshield during reentry,

What were the results of the "heatshield with a hatch in it" tests?
Did it work?  That sure would be one door that you wouldn't want to
open at the wrong time. :-)

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Doug Davey        ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com         bcr!iscp!ddavey

Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Justification for the Space Program
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 14:03:25 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 20:07:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.145537.9264@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>prevented from some action.  The government doesn't subsidize mountain
>climbing; why should it subsidize much more expensive space escapism?

The fact that you can equate these two things just shows how
out of touch with reality you really are.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.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, 22 Dec 1992 16:11:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.163212.20944@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu 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.

Nonsense. The Russians have no problems building space stations without
their Shuttle.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:34:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.023353.10922@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gcoleman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George Coleman) writes:
>>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in
>> space spin offs.

>Maybe, just maybe private firms have a hard time marketing new advances but
>with a 7/1 return they should be able to find a way.

The 7:1 return doesn't go to the agency which spent the money -- it goes to
society in general.  If NASA got a 7:1 return directly, we wouldn't be having
so much trouble funding Space Station Freedom.  :)

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                        These views are solely those of the author.
Flight Test Engineer                <Looking for Internet access in St. Louis.>
McDonnell Douglas, St. Louis
kentm@pro-applejacks.cts.com        Tute-Screwed Aero       Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 02:57:44 GMT

> David Smith writes:
>
> There's an advantage (I believe) of SSTO vs multi-stage systems that's
> getting left out here.  When launching a DC-1 all the engines are started
> and then throttled up.  This means that if an engine refuses to start,
> OR if there is a major fuel system problem such that none of the engines
> will start you can abort the launch on the pad.  With the two-stager
> enough engines have to start at separation time to assure that the DC-1
> can at least abort.

     Agreed.  Failure of second and third stage engines of conventional
launchers to ignite after staging has historically been a common cause of
launch failures.  However, I presume that the DC-1 will have the capability
of surviving at least 1 engine failure when at near maximum fuel load
(otherwise failure of any one out of multiple engines would cause a crash in
the period immediately following an SSTO takeoff).  If the DC-1 can survive
an engine shutdown after launch in SSTO mode, it seems to me that it should
be able to survive the failure of an engine to start after separation from a
booster.  Remember that since the DC-1 already has considerable upwards
velocity, it has time to burn off fuel, even with only some of the engines
operating, to get its weight less than its thrust.
        I grant that no amount of engine out capability will help a DC-1 if
it separates from the booster and none of the engines fire because of a fuel
problem.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary