HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: COSTAR
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: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:24:17 GMT


-From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
-Subject: Re: COSTAR
-Date: 19 Nov 92 21:58:23 GMT
-Organization: Johns Hopkins University

-roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
->Somewhat more plausible scenario - the mirrors only partially deploy,
->blocking the original light paths, but not implementing the new light paths,
->and efforts to retract them fail. (I presume they'll try to deploy while
->HST is still attached to the Shuttle - if all else fails, a couple of burly 
->astronauts can try to yank the whole assembly out of HST.)

-What if they're not burly enough?  Is there a contingency plan to retrieve
-HST from orbit if all fails, or, would it be jettisoned, even if that meant
-leaving it in a non-usable configuration?

I believe it would take a special cradle to carry HST, which may well take
up the entire cargo bay. Since several bulky new parts have to be brought
along, there probably wouldn't be room. Even if COSTAR somehow screwed up 
all the axial instruments, HST wouldn't be useless - WF/PC II and the
fine guidance sensors wouldn't be affected.

I attended the HST lecture on Thursday (I'll try to post some notes soon), 
and saw photographs and detailed diagrams of COSTAR. The mirror assembly
is much smaller than I had pictured, so if it did get stuck, I imagine
it wouldn't be too hard to yank out. If that didn't work, it might be
possible for the astronauts to remove one or more of the other three axial
instruments to provide a direct access to the assembly. In any event, the
COSTAR extensions are designed to be retractable.

By the way, the mirror arms are very precise pieces of machinery, designed to
move the mirrors into exactly the right position, but they each have many
degrees of freedom, to allow for adjustments if necessary.

Isn't COSTAR on the JHU campus (or at least pictures of it)? Would it be
possible for you to go take a look and report?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
Organization: UDSI
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 05:08:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.015422.6155@engage.pko.dec.com> moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:
>In article <18741@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes...
>>Rad-hard SRAM, 50 bits of ECC for each 32 bits of memory, *and* a background
>>scrub cycle every two seconds.  They didn't buy this at "BACK OF THE TRUCK
>>PEECEES, LIMITED", nosir!
>
>Interesting.  Would you happen to know how many errors this memory can detect
>and correct?
>
>-Mike

Gut feel,  12 bits and detect errors to 16 bits.  that may be a little optimistic..i just dont have the formulas  handy.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:28:52 GMT

labmas@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Andersson) writes:

>In article <1992Nov19.144441.5498@col.hp.com> dag@col.hp.com (David Geiser) writes:
>>> The same thing is happening, much more slowly, to the earth --
>>> friction with the tides and within the "solid" earth is slowing the
>>> rotation rate by something on the order of 1 sec every century. We can
>>> actually measure it (the slowdown) nowadays. Love those atomic clocks!
>>
>>Do you know if that rate is constant?  Say around 63M years ago,
>>around the time of the end of the dinosaurs, the day would have
>>been 175 hrs longer!

>No.  If the rotation is slowing, then days used to be shorter.

Right, so the rate obviously isn't constant or the Earth would have been
spinning at relativistic speeds shortly before our astraulopithic ancestors 
appeared.  Since the rates depends on tides and gravitational fields it's very
likely that there are exponential terms in the equation.  If I recall correctly,
you have cubics in the formula for tidal forces, which results in a much
different curve than trying to plot it linearly.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

	"Why put off 'til tomorrow what you're never going to do anyway?"
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:13:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.144842.23088@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
>launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
>government can build them.

Then why do you propose that the U. S. government build Delta Clipper?

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Tute Screwed Aero Class of '92                              Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Hubble
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 03:42:02 GMT

Henry Spencer writes:
#The really interesting space
#telescopes are the small ones, not the megaprojects.

While small projects certainly have their advantages, it is hard to
have sensitive instruments on small packages. 

A mix of small and large projects is certianly the best. Determining
the best mix can cause lots of fun arguments. :^)

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: sasdhb@lizard.unx.sas.com (Doug Brann)
Subject: Re: Space Station Freedom.
Originator: sasdhb@lizard.unx.sas.com
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 14:39:09 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1e9gmdINNpfq@silver.ksu.ksu.edu>, wwxiong@silver.ksu.ksu.edu (Weize Wade Xiong) writes:
>
>Does anybody know if Rassia is being considered to be a possiable partner of Space
>Station Freedom? Are we going to use some of their technology?

According to Goldin at the recent Town Meeting in Raleigh, Russia is not 
CURRENTLY being considered because it will be a good while (he said 
about 10 years) before their economy would be stable enough to spend 
money on a venture like FREEDOM.

-Doug
-- 
=======================================================================
Douglas Brann               | "Building an atomic bomb is a simple
<sasdhb@lizard.unx.sas.com> |   recipe, once the needed ingredients 
QA Host Systems - TOOLKIT   |   are acquired."
V411 (919)677-8000 X6270    |                 --  Tom Clancey
=======================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:35:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov20.201023.22268@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
>The question is whether or not there's enough profit to recoup that kind
>of up-front development.  In the space market, I sincerely doubt it,
>unless the launch rate goes *way* up (see below)...

Anybody considering sinking a bunch of cash into developing a much cheaper
launcher is automatically assuming new markets, not existing ones.  The
existing markets aren't badly hampered by existing launch prices -- they
shop for lowest price, sure, but they don't object to paying the going
rate if it buys them things they care about, like reliability -- and are
not going to respond to lower prices with great increases in volume.

This is one of the bigger obstacles to novel launcher development:  it's
not enough to build the launcher, you also need to have the resources to
hang in there while patiently nurturing a new market to use the new
capabilities.  If there was an assured market that you could point to,
commercial launcher development would be underway all over the place.
It's not an accident that the more farsighted schemes for encouraging
commercial launchers focus on guaranteeing a market, not on providing
direct support.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2815 sci.space:16240
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 19:07:09 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <ewright.722117294@convex.convex.com> <1992Nov19.150400.24961@iti.org>
  <ewright.722280003@convex.convex.com>

>In <1992Nov19.150400.24961@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>>Hmmm... this gives me an idea. Maybe the way to sell SSTO to Gore is
>>to emphasize the non-poluting fuel it uses. Deltas and Titans burn
>>nasty stuff which wold cause problems in large quantities.
>
>Actually, the biggest polluter is the Space Shuttle.  (Hydrochloric
>acid and other byproducts from those big SRBs.)
>

Yep, lots of nasty stuff in those SRBs. But I can say from observation
that the wildlife at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, surrounding
Launch Complex 39, doesn't seem effected one bit. If pollution from the
SRBs were a serious threat, it should show up there first, right?
More Bald Eagles and alligators there than most places. Not to mention
all those fish, snakes, birds, and insects inhabiting the place.
 
I grew up around there too, and there's nothing wrong (hack hack) with
me (cough) either. ;-)

-Brian
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:12:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.203236.13184@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I suspect Shuttle returned a handsome profit for Rockwell. 

Irrelevant. That's like saying that American Arilines is profitable
because Boeing is profitable.

>It has cost
>the US Government billions to develop and maintain Shuttle capabilities,
>but the US Government isn't a profit making institution. 

The principles can still apply (as indeed the original poster intended).
NASA charges people for Shuttle even if it is just moving money from
one account in NASA to another. Shuttle costs FAR exceed prices charged
which means it looses money.

>It considers those costs fully sunk. 

I'm not talking about development costs. NASA doesn't even get enough to
cover OPERATIONAL costs.

>At $350 million per launch *operating* expense,

Nope. Shuttle flights cost half a billion each minimum.

>the Shuttle is giving launch capabilities unmatched by any other system
>at bargain rates per fractional payload.

Sure. Whenever I want to spend half a billion to recover a $150 million
satellite I use Shuttle. Granted I loose a third of a billion $$ for
each satellite but NASA accountants assure me that I will make up for it
in volume. :-)

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:23:00 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov19.073340.27278@netcom.com> hage@netcom.com (Carl Hage) writes:
>: This BTW is a source of trouble for SSTO.
>
>A source of trouble? HL20 won't win any arguments claiming to be better
>because it's more expensive...

Remember that money = jobs; being a lot cheaper is *not* an unmixed political
blessing.

The big problem HL20 presents for SSTO is that a lot of NASA people see
HL20 as work for them and SSTO as work for somebody else... and NASA is
the established source of expertise on spaceflight, so any space project
that NASA dislikes has an uphill battle ahead of it.  (This isn't a new
problem, by the way.)  All the more so because SSTO challenges NASA's
credibility, not just its turf, by being (if it works) a vastly-superior
system built at low cost with off-the-shelf technology.  This is bad news
if you've spent your career defending very expensive projects as "the only
way it can be done".

>Claims of $1M or even $10M launch costs seem too low to be believable.
>... Does your info kit offer clear and complete
>information that will convince a skeptic?

Nothing short of a flight demonstration will convince really skeptical
observers.  A successful on-budget DC-X, especially with a demonstration
of rapid reflight with minimal refurbishing, will help a lot.

>It seems like it is a matter of a few simple calculations to show that
>it is theoretically possible/impossible given some basic assumptions
>about current rocket technology like, weight, engine efficiency, fuel
>weight, etc. Presumably you have shown that it is possible.

It's been (theoretically) possible at least since the 60s, perhaps earlier.
(Ed Heinemann, Douglas's military-aircraft miracle-worker, sketched an
expendable SSTO launcher in the late 40s...  Pity he never got the chance
to build it.)
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:48:42 GMT

In article <BxxDL7.9Ly@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
>>launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
>>costs by a dime.

>Actually, this isn't a very sound argument.... [Henry goes on to say
>that it hasn't been tried and examples from China and Russia show it
>CAN be a lot cheaper]

Allow me to rephrase: NASA has shown that it cannot execute large multi-year
multi-billion $$ projects in a cost effective manner. Some blame for this
goes to Congress, and some to NASA. Asking them to do it again will simply
waste more money and delay the creation of a spacefaring civilization.

I don't doubt that much cheaper expendables CAN be build (Zenith Star
launchers for example cut costs in half). I simply don't believe that the US
government can build them.

   Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:57:54 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov23.185809.4267@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>It's not an accident that the more farsighted schemes for encouraging
>>commercial launchers focus on guaranteeing a market, not on providing
>>direct support.
>
>The problem with a 'Kelly act for space' is that the Government can
>no longer be trusted to maintain the program long enough...

Unfortunately true.  One can think of ways around this, but they're not
things the government is likely to be willing to do...
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Answer to 104%/109% Thrust Quest.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:51:10 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov19.175804.29085@news.duc.auburn.edu> forrepr@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>I see now why I'm not a linguist. What I meant with the above question
>is why aren't all three SSMEs throttled to 109% nominally ?? 
>i.e. - off the pad and through MECO (with the exception of Max Q throttle-down)

It's considered somewhat hard on the engines.  Originally the engines were
to be qualified for only a small number of 109% cycles in their lifetime,
strictly for emergencies.  There were later moves toward clearing them
for fewer and fewer limitations on 109% power, but after Challenger
some doubts were raised about this, and current missions use only 104%.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:09:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <HUGH.92Nov19200718@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson) writes:
>Henry> Gary Hudson claims that you could put six SSMEs on a shuttle external
>Henry> tank, without SRBs, and get it into orbit carrying a payload about 50%
>Henry> greater than the shuttle's...
>
>This sounds a lot like Shuttle-C...

Not very closely related, actually, since Hudson's design deletes the SRBs
and doesn't put engines+payload in a mock-orbiter.

>...whatever happened to that idea?

Too little demand and too much politics.  It quietly died.

>...idea was to take a normal stack (an ET and 2 SRBs) and bolt on a
>fairing containing the payload and some SSMEs in place of the shuttle.

That's right.  The fairing started out to be a stripped-down orbiter,
but it didn't take long to figure out that if you're throwing it away,
there are cheaper ways to build it.

>... Some of the pictures I saw had 4 SRBs.

There have been a wide variety of shuttle-derived heavylift-booster
designs over the years.  It looks like a sensible thing to do if you've
got a few heavy payloads to lift and don't want to invest in developing
a whole new launch system (including new pads etc.) just for them.  The
idea has been revived once again by Griffin's how-to-launch-the-space-
station "red team".
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: orly@sal-sun132.usc.edu (Mr. Nitro Plastique)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle Landing Schedule
Date: 23 Nov 1992 13:05:37 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sal-sun132.usc.edu

Could someone please send me a Shuttle Landing Schedule? I'd like to plan a
trip to Edwards for a big group, and need dates for scheduled Edwards landings.



        Thanks in Advance,


*       * ***  *******  *********  *******  ********   *********************
 *     *   *  *       *     *     *       * *       * *                     *
  *   *    *  *             *     *       * ********  *   FIGHT             *
   * *     *  *       *     *     *       * *     *   *        ON           *
    *     ***  *******      *      *******  *      *  *          TROJANS!   *
                                                      *                     *
 *******  ********  *      *     *                    *     *  *****   ******
*       * *       * *       *   *                     *     * *       *
*       * ********  *        * *                      *     *  *****  *
*       * *     *   *         *                       *     * *     * *
 *******  *      *  *******   *                        *****   *****   ******



-- 
|Victor R. Orly               | "Try to imagine all life as you know it,      |
|aka "Mr. Nitro Plastique"    |  stopping instantaneously, and every molecule |
|Univ. of Southern California |  in your body exploding at the speed of light"|
|Internet: orly@aludra.usc.edu|    -Egon Spengler, from "Ghostbusters"        |
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: forrepr@eng.auburn.edu (Philip R. Forrest)
Subject: Re: Answer to 104%/109% Thrust Quest.
Reply-To: forrepr@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:58:04 GMT

In article 4032@phred.UUCP, petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.231120.4271@news.duc.auburn.edu> forrepr@eng.auburn.edu writes:
>>
>>Here's another trivium...Why do Shuttle Flight Rules state
>>that an engine may be throttled to 109% ONLY if the other
>>two engines are down ?
>>
>For obvious reasons. The only engine left would need max thrust to get
>at least an AOA or TAL abort. 
>
>Peter Jarvis..........

I see now why I'm not a linguist. What I meant with the above question
is why aren't all three SSMEs throttled to 109% nominally ?? 
i.e. - off the pad and through MECO (with the exception of Max Q throttle-down)

---
Phil Forrest - Ascent FDO wanna be
Auburn University Mechanical Engineering
Auburn, AL




Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 02:55:37 GMT

In article <s#s1_2@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>
>NASA will not set a date to end Shuttle missions until a replacement system
>is online, but current thinking is that the Shuttle will fly through 2005.
>The flight rate will remain at about 8 flights per year, maybe slightly
>lower.  However with a reduced flight rate the per mission cost goes up.  A
>Rockwell consultant stated that the orbiters will likely last far beyond 
>their design lifetime of 100 flights each.
>
>There are currently two major ideas for the replacement.
>
>...
>
>The Shuttle is a very versatile, albeit expensive, system.  It can launch
>satellites, retrieve them, ferry a crew and experiments to a space station,
>serve as a space station, serve as an orbital repair facility, and serve
>as a technology testbed.  In order to replace it you need to replace all
>of these functions with newer (hopefully better and less expensive) systems.
>
>Since designing a new vehicle to perform all of these functions will create
>a vehicle with nearly the same qualities as the Shuttle, this path should
>be avoided as unlikely to reduce costs enough to justify its development
>cost.  Gains can be more cheaply made by improving the current system 
>instead of building a new one.  However, each individual function can be
>performed at reduced cost, and newer systems should be designed to do just
>that.  When all of the fuctions of the Shuttle have been off-loaded from
>it to other systems, the Shuttle will have been replaced.  But not until then.
>
  What about the SSTO DC-Y?  It's my understanding that the DC-1 should be
able to do just about everything that the shuttle can do (with the possible
exeption of carry the SpaceLab).  And a lot cheapter to boot.


  ##########################################################################   
  ##   /   ##               Progress Before Peace!               ##   /   ## 
  ##  //   ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ##  //   ## 
  ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
  ##   //  ##        Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN       ##   //  ##
  ##   /   ##           myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu            ##   /   ##
  ##########################################################################

Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2757 sci.space:16039