HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Justification for Space Program
Date: 31 Dec 92 01:19:14 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <1992Dec25.135425.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>Reasons for Space Program: Well maybe with the technology provided by the Space
>Rpogram we can better predict the future climatic changes and more and help
>Somalia and other places to stop being such a pain on the resources.. Not to
>say Somalia deserved what they have, but with out some major changes of their
>culture or atleast basic ideas of agriculture and more, they will be back where
>they are in a few years. Remember Ethipia next door, it was less than 15 years
>since they had the same problems that Somalia has.. 

Somalia's problems aren't climatic. They've had periodic droughts 
throughout history. Their problem is political. Ethiopia is the same, 
a Marxist government that decayed into civil war and anarchy.
The local culture was tuned to this drought cycle in both nations,
but it was disrupted by Marxism and the resulting decay of the
nation into war and chaos. Space offers no solutions to these
political problems.

>Maybe the Space Program is expensive, but is that becuase they are not doing
>anything or is that because of poor management? I believe the benefits they
>provide are benefitial toa ll, including Somalia.. Maybe the Shuttle is to many
>things and can't get any done wuite right, well maybe we need to change our
>expectations and build more specific space vehicles..

Space is expensive because of the one G field and air resistance we
fight to get from being stationary on the ground to travelling 17,000+
miles an hour 200 miles up. Travelling 200 miles, even straight up, 
isn't that energy intensive, but doing that while accelerating to
orbital speed in atmosphere is very energy intensive, and energy,
especially compact lightweight energy, isn't cheap, nor is the equipment
needed to harness it.

Sure NASA is inefficient, as is any government endeavor, but the problem
is simply hard, and will remain so until some radically different method
of reaching orbit is developed.

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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 03:25:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <19077@mindlink.bc.ca> Nick_Janow@mindlink.bc.ca (Nick Janow) writes:
>... 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...

Probably workable, although pressurant injection will have to be smooth
enough not to disturb the surface too much.  (This is something that can
be a problem with some other kinds of pressurization, e.g. pressurizing
LOX with GOX -- there can be substantial mixing that cools the pressurant
gas considerably.)

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

That's my impression too... but aluminum's pussycat reputation is mostly
due to its oxide film -- it *is* a fiercely reactive metal.  Probably
okay, but if I were head of the design bureau :-), I'd like to see this
checked before committing to it.
-- 
"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: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: "DC"
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:17:29 GMT


-From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
-Subject: Re: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
-Date: 23 Dec 92 16:58:35 GMT
-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

-In <!jt240c@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
->	In reality it sounds more like you are talking about DC-10,
->DC-12, etc.
->	Unless you are saying that a 747 is the same plane as a DC-3
->was.
->	If your claims are about 50 years from now, or even 20
->eyars from now, I'll buy them.  

-Do you have any idea how many DC-3s are still flying?  After 50
-years?

This "wraparound" of the DC designation is getting confusing! :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 21:55:25 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec28.172113.26071@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>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.

Well, there are engineers and engineers.

Suffice it to say that Kelly Johnson probably in the SR-71 for less
than your DoD-approved methods would budget for development of an 
electric toothbrush.

The difference is, he spent most of the money on engineering, rather
than paperwork.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Comparative $/lb to LEO (Was: Stupid Shuttle Cost ArgumZ
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: 30 Dec 92 16:08:44 -0600

In article <72599@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>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


Below is a table listing the shuttle payload weight for non-classified
flights.  The weight given is the combined weight of the attached and
deployed payloads in the payload bay.  It does not include the weight of
the mid-deck experiments.

  10K - 20K#      20K - 30K#      30K - 40K#      40K - 50K#         50K# +
  -----------    ------------    ------------    ------------    ------------
   1 - 10,823     52 - 20,132      8 - 30,076    51I - 43,988    51L - 52,308
  48 - 17,144     39 - 21,413    51B - 31,407     41 - 44,107
  45 - 17,683      3 - 22,710    61A - 31,861    51G - 44,477
   2 - 18,778    41G - 23,465      5 - 32,080     44 - 44,637
                   4 - 24,492    61C - 32,462    51A - 45,306
                  32 - 26,488     50 - 32,477     30 - 45,930
                  47 - 28,092     49 - 32,809     26 - 46,478
                  40 - 28,114      9 - 33,264     34 - 48,643
                  53 - 28,346    41B - 33,868     43 - 46,712 
                  46 - 28,585    51F - 34,400      6 - 46,971
                  42 - 28,663    51D - 35,824    41D - 47,516 
                  31 - 28,673     37 - 36,800    61B - 48,041
                  35 - 29,806      7 - 37,124                      
                                  29 - 38,097    
                                 41C - 38,266         

Total weight launched in 45 flights = 1,519,336 pounds
Average payload weight per flight   =    33,763 pounds

Note:  This does not include the following DoD flights: 51C, 51J, 27, 28,
       33, 36, and 38.

-- 

Pat Oliver -  	Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
		OLIVER@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
		All standard disclamers apply.
From: 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Speculation
Date: 31 Dec 92 00:21:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C03L01.8I2.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>The most straightforward way to impart a delta-v to Ceres is to install
>a large number of nuclear reactors on it, and use the energy to expel
>fragments of Ceres in a desired direction and at an appropriate velocity.

Gives you some perspective on the "Delta Clipper 
can/will/should/may/won't work" controversy, doesn't it?  ;-)


Karl
sold my soul to Uncle Sam . . . now marked down for resale.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:50:35 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec22.160715.28828@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>No, it's NASA who is being creative by ignoring billions in cost. BTW,
>if a private company ran their books the way NASA does they would be
>thrown in jail for fraud.

Private companies are also bound by their own charters.  NASA's 
charter restricts it to research and development.  Running an
operational space transportation system is patently illegal.
(Even NASA Administrator James Beggs admitted this, back in
the days when NASA was still talking about selling the Shuttle
to Boeing.)

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:25:46 GMT

In article <ewright.725648029@convex.convex.com> 
             ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
[stuff deleted]
> There is no reason to believe that there will be more practical
>technical problems involved in building DC than in building the B-777,
>except that you *want* to believe that is true.

I think that there are quite a few reasons to believe that an SSTO
vehicle will have more "practical technical problems" than the B-777:

1. The B-777 is one in a series of airliners built by the same
engineering organization.  No one has built a man-rated space vehicle
with the design goals of the DC-1 project, and certainly not at MacDac.

2. There is limited experience with composite airframes in routine
operational use.  Certainly less with composite cryo tanks, if that
route is taken. (The exceptions to this lie in the B-2 program and the
kitplane market, but the B-2 is very early in the flight programs. There
may be some data from "black" programs that MacDac has access to.)

3. The throttled RL-10 with nozzle extender is a new and essentially
untried engine. Engine development is more art than science and has a
history of being subject to delays.

4. The servicing goals and rapid turnaround requirements of the vehicle
are doable on paper, but have been held out as very risky by an
independent study.

5. The weight margins on the vehicle are very tight, a historical source
of problems in spacecraft and aircraft design.

Even given all that, the DC-X, DC-Y, DC-1 progression is a valid and
prudent way to develop this class of vehicle.  There is one other source
of risk that is hard to quantify at this point: MacDac is an ailing
company, in substantial risk of major cutbacks.  Given that the company
is throwing a lot of IR&D money into the project, it could founder on
the rocks of a major financial crisis in the company.  I also give
MacDac high marks for the management approach, which I have heard the
project manager give a talk on.  It is modeled on the Lockheed "Skunk
Works" approach.

Hopefully, the incoming administration will see the value of the
vehicle, there will be a safe and successful flight test this summer and
it will proceed with the DC-Y.  I consider the DC development program a
prudent use of the government's risk capital.  However, we need to keep
an eye on alternatives in case the DC program stubs its toe.
-- 
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
"You know, I think we're all Bozos on this bus."
"Detail Dress Circuits" "Belt: Above A, Below B" "Close B ClothesMode"
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Article on DC
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:38:36 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec23.185210.27466@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>... Can someone explain in more detail Aerojet's
>proposal for the DC-Y, the "integrated modular platelet engine"?

If I'm not mistaken, this was a scheme to build an aerospike engine as
a ring of semi-independent segments, each looking like a flat (well,
slightly curved) plate overall.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sea floor
Date: 31 Dec 92 03:23:27 GMT
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: jmd@bear.com (Josh Diamond)
-Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
-Date: 30 Dec 92 16:01:58 GMT
-Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST

-Did it ever occur to anyone out there to consider the environmental
-impact of large scale disruption of the sea floor?  I could result in 
-severe problems with algal blooms and plankton die-offs, with effects
-all the way up the food chain...

You're right that any extensive mining of the sea floor will have to take
environmental concerns into account.

Another problem - there are many organisms in the sea floor material (dormant
or in spore form) that are otherwise extinct. Bringing the bottom ooze to the
surface could possibly revive the populations of some of these organisms. 
And it's not necessarily guaranteed that the predators that formerly kept
these populations under control are still around.

I'm not attempting to evaluate the level of risk, but it's something that
should be considered.

It would probably be a good idea to be careful with the first couple of
subsurface Mars samples returned to Earth, on similar grounds.

By the way, before I forget - I recently saw an old (1960s) clip on NASA
Select, discussing the sterilization of unmanned probes for exploration of
planetary surfaces (so as to avoid contaminating possible native life before
studies could be conducted). The plan at that time was to sterilize the
probes by exposing them to ethylene oxide gas. Items such as sensors that
might be sensitive to ethylene oxide could be sterilized by other means,
and covered during exposure to the gas.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov (Bob Koehler)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: CSC System Sciences Division
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:11:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.205940.28699@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes...
>In article <72597@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
> 
>>>Considering that there are no heavy payloads to return to Earth, this
>>>cannot be considered an advantage. Especially for the billions it costs
>>>us.
> 
>>    GRO and UARS are both candidates for return to earth. 
> 
>Doing that would cost more then they are worth. It would be cheaper to
>build new ones and launch them commercially.
> 

Can you show that was also true for SMM?  Part of the MMS on UARS is from SMM,
having been brought back after a successfull mission, after earlier being
repaired in orbit.  SMM isn't planning to reuse itself, and neither UARS nor
GRO may be either, but there has already been cost savings on UARS due to the
return of SMM.  Only the shuttle (product of politics more than NASA's
technical or mangement expertise IMHO) could repair SMM, and only the shuttle
could bring it back.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Koehler                     |   Any illusion to these opinions being other
rkoehler@author.gsfc.nasa.gov   |   than just mine alone is just that.

 " Life is life, and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die. "
                         - Blixie
From: davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aurora chase planes (was Re: Aurora)
Date: 23 Dec 1992 00:21:46 GMT
Organization: CERFnet Dial n' CERF Customer Group
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: nic.cerf.net

I think people are getting a little too hung up on the "chase" word.
If I recall right, what started this was that an observer said he
saw this unidentified plane being chased by an F-15 or F-16.  As
an observer, how can you tell if one plane is "chasing" another or
accompanying it?  (Mary's definition of "chase plane" is the standard
one for testing aircraft but we're really talking about an "accompanying
plane")  Unless there was some major manuevering going on you can't say
that the F-15 was "chasing" or attempting to intercept with the intent
of shooting it down or identifying an unknown plane rather than accompanying
it as a "chase plane".
-- 
David L. Smith
smithd@discos.com or davsmith@nic.cerf.net
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Acceleration
Date: 22 Dec 92 05:47:01 GMT
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: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_)
-Subject: Re: Galileo's atmospheric probe
-Date: 17 Dec 92 23:37:51 GMT

-In article <ZOWIE.92Dec16182405@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
-] If you drop a Timex watch (``takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'\ '') from
-] a height of 1m onto a cement floor, carefully holding it so it falls flat,
-] and it stops in 1mm, then it underwent 1000G's of acceleration!  

-  I think there's a bit of a difference here. You're talking about forces
-  and accelerations experienced for milliseconds at a time. This probe
-  will be experiencing this accleration for several minutes! Things
-  can be damaged to prolonged exposure to acceleration!

- Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

That applies to things that are somewhat resiliant (like humans with their
limbs not locked), because if deformation continues throughout the period
of acceleration, then the entire body is not really subjected to the full
acceleration. (For another example, putting rubber feet or a springy internal
suspension in a piece of equipment can greatly reduce the maximum shock if
you drop it.)

But other than that, and factors such as prolonged stress on human hydraulic
systems, the greater problem can be with rapid changes in acceleration, which
are of course associated with short bursts of acceleration. (I believe the
usual term for the time derivative of acceleration is "jerk".) These rapid
changes can cause very high internal stresses that are not found with slow,
steady increases in acceleration.

Just as an example, compare your body lying in a bed with a downward 
acceleration of one gravity, or being clamped in a device that repeatedly
shakes your body back and forth, with a maximum acceleration of half a gravity.
Which do you think would be likely to place more stress on your body, and
which would be quicker to cause discomfort? :-)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Depleted uranium
X-Xxdate: Thu, 24 Dec 92 12:49:36 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 18:53:16 GMT

In article <BzqvvI.Mv3.1@cs.cmu.edu> John Roberts,
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov writes:
>The antimissile Phalanx guns on warships use uranium slugs. I don't know
>about other weapons.

Also used by the Gau-8 Anti Tank Gun.

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
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: I thinI see our problem. (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 06:08:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <72335@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>>Do you have any idea how many DC-3s are still flying?  After 50
>>years?
>
>        How many Mercury or Vostok are still flying?

Vostok-derived unmanned return capsules *are* still flying.  (And apart
from modest changes in upper stages, the boosters that launch them --
also Soyuz, Progress, etc etc etc -- are the same type that launched
Sputnik.)
-- 
"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,sci.physics