HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Galileo's atmospheric probe
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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:46:50 GMT


-From: j_butler@ponil.enet.dec.com
-Subject: Re: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
-Date: 15 Dec 92 21:39:37 GMT
-Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

-In article <1992Dec15.170442.1866@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, 
-baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
->     Entry into Jupiter's atmosphere is the most hazardous in the
->solar system because the planet's immense gravitational pull
->creates tremendous speeds.  At maximum deceleration, as the craft
->slows from 115,000 mph to 100 mph, the probe will hurtle against a
->force 350 times Earth's gravity.

-I have always wondered what was done to the instrument package to allow it to
-survive such forces. I have some awareness of "ruggedization" necessary to
-allow various electronic components to survive launching from an artillery
-piece, and tactical missiles/rockets. I also have some knowledge of the
-accellerations experienced by the Sprint system and HIBEX experiments...
-none of which came CLOSE to 350G! 

-How does NASA and JPL expect the probe to survive the deceleration? It must
-be pretty close to slamming into a piece of boilerplate! 

-John B. 

"Smart" artillery shells experience accelerations *much* greater than 350G -
tens of thousands of gravities might be considered typical.

Striking an immovable object at even modest velocity also results in 
acceleration greater than 350G.

What was the acceleration of Sprint? I seem to recall it as being around
100G.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:23:55 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Well we will launch that 400 pound Italian satellite. You remember, the
>one NASA spent half a billion launching instead of putting it on a $10M
>Pegasus?
>
>  Allen

 LAGEOS-II? It weighs 900 lbs (405 kg.) not 400 lbs. Besides, it went
 to high orbit (not GEO, but higher than LEO) and the upper stage it
 needed to get there weighed another 4,000 lbs. The Shuttle was overkill
 for LAGEOS, but Pegasus would have been pressed. A Delta II would have
 been fine. A loaded Shuttle including LAGEOS would have been okay,
 too. But a mission carrying LAGEOS and one pallet? Bad idea! 
 
 (On this point I totally agree that the NASA brass in this case has
 its collective head up its... um, you know. All that bull about 'the
 crew was very busy', gimme a break. If Columbia had gone the way of
 Challenger on that mission, NASA could NEVER have justified it.)
  
 -Brian
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (and Almaz)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 21:01:19 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <phfrom.413@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
  <1992Dec18.111817.24990@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>


>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.

>Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)


   The Titan III / MOL launch took place in 3 November 1966.
   -Brian
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:44:23 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1gasfqINNkpa@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>
>Look, it's pretty clear (at least to me, and going by some other recent
>postings, to other people as well) that Gary has some kind of axe to
>grind against the whole SSTO concept.

No, I don't have an axe to grind against the SSTO *concept*, or even
against the DCX test program. What I do have an axe to grind about is
people who say, "DC-1 is the answer. Now what was the question?"

Gary
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Micro-g in KC-135
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:11:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz7s52.HrI.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


\What causes the microgravity in the KC-135, the centripetal 
/acceleration at the top of the parabola, which may cancel the gravity 
\acceleration,  or something else???
/
\claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov
/
\Claudio Egalon

Something Else. MICROGRAVITY about the KC-135's would be
IMPOSSIBLE were NASA not using the SECRET ANTIGRAVITY
TECHNOLOGY developed at WISCONSIN with the help of TOM
BEARDEN'S remembered details of NIKOLAI TESLA'S SUPRESSED
NOTEBOOKS...

Oh, you wanted a serious answer? 

Well, for years the OFFICIAL COVERUP has been that bit you
mentioned about the centrifugal acceleration... but YOU must
deceide if that's real or just PROPAGANDA to keep us the AMERICAN
PUBLIC from finding out about the above technology, which
also powers BORIS YELTSIN'S MOON BASE...

After all, how else do you think a mere engineer was able to 
head the former SU?

Is there anyone here so mentally impaired they need a smiley somewhere
in this post?
-- 
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:11:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.034918.7060@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff) writes:
>Well why did the HGA have to be cloed up in the first place? If it is too
>big, then couldn't they have used a more powerful transmitter? I would
>have rather tried to avoid such a chance for failure. If thay don't get
>that HGA open then %30-%40 of the mission objectives will be lost. Or is
>the radio frequncy have something to do with he size of the HGA???
>

So it would fit in the shuttle's cargo bay.  But, even if NASA had
used an expendable (say a Titan/Centaur) I think it would have had
to be furled.  The HGA is 4.8m across.  Wcould that fit inside the
shroud of a Titan/Centaur?  I don't have any figures handy.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Xref: sparky sci.space:17660 sci.physics:21237 talk.philosophy.misc:2969
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Need information on Infinite Universe Models
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:41:03
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: axeman@cbnewsk.cb.att.com's message of Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:52:43 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.185243.19856@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> axeman@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (Samir Chopra) writes:


   I would appreciate any information on cosmological models that
   consider the universe to be infinite i.e not just infinitely
   expanding but actually existing in infinite space. Would
...
   Book references, pointers to online sources of information, article
   refrences, archived discussions are all welcome. If someone feels
   like enlightening me via E-mail please do so.

Heh, check out A. Linde's stochastic inflation
models - they're brilliant ;-)

See any article by Linde in the last 4 years, I think there
might even be a Sci Am article on it.

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: cuddeback@merlin.nmhu.edu
Subject: message from Space Digest
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:41:55 GMT

SIGNOFF
QUIT

 Ken Cuddeback, NL7WD                     Tel: (505)454-3452
 Computer Operations Manager              Fax: (505)454-1916      
 New Mexico Highlands University
 Las Vegas, NM 87701
Xref: sparky sci.space:17498 sci.astro:13074 alt.sci.planetary:409
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: No asteroid flybys (was Re: Cassini Undergoes Intense Design Review)
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:05:29 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <Bz54t3.2Gq@techbook.com>, dant@techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>     After flybys of Venus (twice), Earth and Jupiter as it loops
>>around the sun to pick up energy, Cassini will arrive at Saturn
>>in November 2004, beginning a four-year orbital tour of the
>>ringed planet and its 18 moons. The Huygens probe will descend to
>>the surface of Titan in June 2005.
> 
> Another game of cosmic billiards.  I assume that people are looking into
> the possibility of asteroid flybys, aren't they?

Nope.  It was announced in *Aviation Leak* that the policy of seeking
asteroid flybys has been dropped to keep costs down on Cassini. :-(

Bill Higgins                           | In the distant future,
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | nuns will be bartenders
Bitnet:      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET       | aboard starships
Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV       | and Sternbach paintings
SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS       | will hang on every wall.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Scud Missile technology
Organization: UDSI
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:18:30 GMT

In article <Uf9rBMq00WB3AnXcQ2@andrew.cmu.edu> Lawrence Curcio <lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Anyway, the most amusing part was that he claimed the missile was
>programmed through the medium of *paper tape*. It's amazing they got any
>of those things off the ground :) 

Only a college boy would make this claim.
after all the appollos were programmed through panel switching at points.
B-52's were programmed by giant 16 position switches.
Paper tape is a reasonable solution considering the age of the missille,
the operating environment and relatively small data input.

i am sure the scud does not need to much data input other then a vector and range.

paper tape readers are also not dust sensitive or humidity sensitive.
i dont think any other media would have worked well given the 60's
era technology.
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Micro-g in KC-135
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:20:37 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: b1230bmac8.larc.nasa.gov

 >You don't "cancel" the gravitational acceleration, you fall with it.  
> The KC-135 flies the exact trajectory that it would follow if it were 
> falling free in a vacuum.

That is true you do not "cancel" gravitational acceleration (no anti-
gravity device, of course) however, I recall from my Physics, that 
chapter  about inertial forces (and centripetal force, which leads to 
centripetal acceleration IS  an inertial force!) you  can be think of an 
inertial force to "cancel" a  non-inertial force (in our case  the 
attraction of gravity) at least in an non-inertial reference frame which 
is the KC-135. Maybe the way that we have explained the problem are 
two different ways to explain the same thing and they all MAY have 
their own merit.

 claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov

 Claudio Egalon
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:05:06 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <ewright.724441823@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec14.175934.5993@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>the availability of lunar oxygen and perhaps hydrogen will greatly reduce
>>that cost.
>Oxygen, definitely.  But even if discover water ice on the Moon, 
>I don't think hydrogen will be plentiful enough that you'd want
>to throw it away at the rate rocket engines do.



Given that the current alternative is to haul hydrogen up from earth,
we dont seem to have much choice.  either someone needs to develope
really good ion thrusters or we are gonna have to lasso a comet
in to LEO  or pay through the nose everytime someone needs a drink
in space.
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: 17 Dec 1992 23:27:23 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1go9buINNn59@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>Satellites also have one big advantage no Plane ever will.  Infinite hang time.

Uh...well...geosynch spysats aren't going to be very useful for visual or
IR imaging for anything smaller than, say, large county-sized areas.
Aren't much good for targets very far north (or south).

Non-geosynch orbits give you a different definition of "infinite hang time"
than I'm currently familiar with.

If you want pictures, you'd better be ready to have to wait up to 24 hours
(or more) for your next pass over the point of interest.  Or put up with
having the target *know* when you're going to fly over next. Or use up
varying amounts of (limited) fuel to change your bird's orbit to sneak up
on the aforementioned knowledgable target.

Satellites are a tool.  Not always the best tool.  Sometimes not even a
useful tool.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Chicken Guns (was Re: "trivial engineering")
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:30:42 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec15.170452.21490@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>

A long time ago I read a story in _New_Scientist_ about a British aerospace
company who was performing the chicken test on a new aircraft cockpit.
On the first shot, the windshield was smashed and the pilot's chair was
ripped out and thrown backward.  It turned out they were supposed to
thaw the chicken first.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: cancelled apollos
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:42:20 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec11.221905.5499@highland.oz.au> gregw@highland.oz.au (Greg Wilkins) writes:
> >116 (the fifth J CSM) flew the first crew, 117 the second, and 118
> >the third.  111 (the last H) was Apollo-Soyuz.  119 (the last[?] J)
> >was allocated as Skylab rescue if necessary, then shifted to Apollo-
> >Soyuz backup.  Where 115 went I'm not sure.
>
>In the Moscow science and technology park, there is a apollo CSM and
>a Soyuz on display mated with what looks like a fake docking module.
>So maybe this is CSM 115?

There are several leftover CSMs, actually; it's not a question of 115
being the only remaining example.  The mystery is not where 115 went,
but why flight use skipped from 114 to 116 without using 115.  Might
have been some problem with it; might just have been that it was tied
down as an Apollo 17 spare at a time when Skylab preparations had to
get started.
-- 
"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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:48:07 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 <1992Dec14.145351.14521@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Yeah, bad line of argument, most of the systems that made it as far
>as being assigned a number weren't technical failures even if they
>were market failures. Actually I was thinking of the P-39 when I
>wrote that. That aircraft made it into production, but was a dismal
>failure... This was an example of
>fast tracking from a prototype to production without working out
>all the bugs required to make it a practical fighter.

And how long did it take before the P-39 was succeeded by a fast-track 
replacement? And how many generations of fighters did the US go through
in the next 15 years (the time it takes to develop one fighter today)?

There's a moral here.  Do it fast, do it quick, do it cheap.  Take
risks and being willing to *accept* an occassional failure.  If a
project does fail, forget the finger pointing, the blame casting,
and the Congressional investigations, just get on with the next one.
Don't put all your eggs in one basket.  And staff your projects with
competent people motivated by *success*, not failure-oriented "engineers" 
who spend all their time generating cover-your-butt paperwork.
From: wlmss@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: 13 Dec 92 00:38:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #N:peg:246900038:000:225
Nf-From: peg.UUCP!wlmss    Dec 12 19:38:00 1992


 
I posted this several weeks ago but it must have gone into a black hole.
 
Why not send a craft along behind Galileo to relay information back to
Earth at a suitable rate?
 
                                Lawrie Williams
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:08:19 EST
From: <ANDERSM@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: planetary accretion simulation question

Couldn't find any info on this in the FAQs.  Whatever happened to the program
written by Sagan's group?  It was called ACRETE or ACCRETE or something very
similar.  I'd be somewhat interested in running simulations of this sort just
for fun.  Are there extant (free) programs, what platforms do they run on, have
there been significant theoretical developments since Sagan's model, and
similar questions.


Mark Anderson
Queen's University Graduate Studies
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: 15 Dec 92 07:58:26 EST
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: wlmss@peg.pegasus.oz.au

In article <246900039@peg.pegasus.oz.au>, wlmss@peg writes:
>
> 
>Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
> 
>Further to the above I hear per email ( and I thank the Sender):
> 
>> This was discussed to death several months ago, so people probably didn't
>> re-open the discussion. The optimum time to launch a relay satellite is
>> NOW (galileo is on the optimal hoffman trajectory). Launching it next year
>> will take considerably more fuel, and no such craft is even on the planning
>> books.
> 
>This is astonishing! Surely to NOT chase the thing is too costly! Dosen't
>the media, public & govt understand?

Understand what?  I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, but it seems to
me you're assuming that not launching a relay means the Galileo mission is a
total loss.  This is far from true, for several reasons:

1. The attempts to succeed in opening the antenna may still succeed.  NASA, of
course, seems confident that their strategy of pulsing the deployment
motor will succeed in opening the antenna in the next couple of months (after
that they will abandon the attempt, since they feel that this distance from the
sun provides the optimal temperature).

2. A combination of beefing up the Deep Space Network on earth and improving
the compression software on the spacecraft should allow 70% of the science data
to be returned over the Low Gain Antenna even if the HGA deployment fails.

3. Although it would turn out to be a ridiculously expensive mission for the
results obtained, the descent probe mission is unaffected by the lack of an
HGA, and that portion of the mission should return data even absent any kind of
high data rate relay.

>If a relay is feasible the issue is the need to alert the uninformed wider
>public to what is being lost. 

It's probably already too late.  I haven't heard any work has been done on a
relay, I haven't heard anyone seriously lobbying for one, and launch windows
are becoming impractical.

>			       The media. The public. And what about
>commercial sponsorship? Have any or all channels been exhausted? What if a
>few high profile persons spoke up at once? To think the galilean vistas were
>within reach of humanity - and now this!
>                                   ****

Now WHAT?  A more complicated, perhaps somewhat degraded but certainly still
scientifically interesting mission versus the opportunity for a more
scientifically interesting mission if we spend who knows how many millions of
dollars?  It sounds like a tough selling job to me, and I'm not surprised NASA
went with a different plan.

--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 stage
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:37:38 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Xxdate: Wed, 16 Dec 92 16:34:02 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <ewright.724533916@convex.convex.com> Edward V. Wright,
ewright@convex.com writes:
>>        A final advantage to the two stage design comes from the time
>>necessary to perform turnaround.   Since the lower stage can be
inspected and
>>prepared for another flight while the upper stage is making an orbital
>>delivery, the frequency of flights will be governed by the turnaround
time of
>>the upper stage after it gets back.  
>
>Only if the first stage can teleport.
>
>>Say that turnaround time is 1 week.  If you spend your money on two
DC-1 
>>vehicles and operate them in the SSTO mode, then it will take 5 weeks
to 
>>put 100 tons in orbit (two flights delivering 10 tons each per week).  
>
>Or 5 days, flying two flights per day.
>
>>If you spend your money on one DC-1 and 1 lower stage, then the same 
>>100 tons can be put into orbit in two weeks (two flights, each
>>delivering 50 tons).  
>
>Of course, you'll only have enough money to pay for half the first
>stage.

I see your point Ed, but the concept still has some attractiveness
if you really need to get alot of weight up at once.

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,sci.astro
From: dave@rsd.dl.nec.com (Dave Rogers)
Subject: Re: What is a VSAT?
Organization: BINJFBA Society
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 14:25:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.175249.21479@athena.mit.edu>, mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock) writes:
|> 
|> Does anyone know what does VSAT (Very Small Aperature Terminal) mean 
|> in the context of satellite communications?
|> 

A VSAT is a C-band system which provides one-way, two-way and broadcast
capabilities for audio, video and data.  Data rates up to DS-1 (1.5 M
bits per second) are available.  Dishes are typically 1-3 meters in
diameter.  Complete systems (one-end) sell for $6-15K.  You must lease
time on a transponder from one of the many companies which do this (AT&T
Spacenet, GTE Skynet, Comstream, Vitacom). 


===============================================================================
Dave Rogers                    				       
M & R Software, Inc.
Internet:   dave@rsd.dl.nec.com
On contract to: NEC America, Radio Software Dept

Don't take life too seriously; you're not going to get out of it alive anyway.

Newsgroups: sci.space