HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:21:04 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 <ggm2ljr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:


>	I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1.  Allen seems
>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."
>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.  

What bothers me is the attitude that, "If NASA couldn't do it,
nobody can."

Okay, NASA built one airplane, the Shuttle, that doesn't work
very well.

Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and other companies quite
regularly build airplanes as advanced and complex as the Space
Shuttle (the Shuttle has 6 main computers, the B-757 has over
200) that work quite well.

This does not suggest, to me, that NASA is so all-efficient
and omnicompetent that if they can't do it, no one can. 
  
If anything, it suggests the project will work as long as
you keep NASA the hell away from it.


>Also, I believe that Henry pointed out
>that it ieasier to do a direct re-entry than a return to orbit.  (I can't
>recall why, and wasn't clear at the time I read it, so I may be wrong.)
>If so, will you have enough fuel to do this.  

"Easier," in this context, means more economical in terms of fuel. 
If you have enough fuel to return to orbit, you have more than
enough for direct reentry.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: seal@leonardo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Seal)
Subject: Re: Cassini Undergoes Intensive Design Review
Keywords: Cassini, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:27:51 GMT

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>After the Challenger failure, NASA added a safety requirement that 
>nothing launched in by a space shuttle may use liquid fuels. That
>means Cassini must use lower-energy solid rockets instead. As a 

Cassini is using a Titan IV with a centaur upper stage.  The centaur
is liquid (cryogenic). 

regards,
ds
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Seal                 |  Jet Propulsion Laboratory  |     sunset: 7:54pm
seal@leonardo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov |       Mission Design        |   temp: 82 degrees
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mleech@bnr.ca (Marcus Leech)
Subject: Re: Range Safety and DC-X
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Information Techology Division
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:44:42 GMT

In article <1339@taniwha.UUCP>, paul@taniwha.UUCP writes:
> Those of us who do go out and fly our own 'big' (at least by our standards,
> 5-30ft long) rockets in the desert don't have range safety either - just lots
> of range and someone to yell 'duck' if required. At BlackRock this year the
> altitude record for a 'cardboard' (really non-metalic) rocket was set at ~53,0
00
> feet - we regularly get FAA waivers to 100,000. Flights to ~20,000 are becomin
g
> pretty common and 10,000 is easy.
>
> Of course what we do is all drive out into the middle of a flat lake, stand
> together and launch them straight up - maybe we should paint bulls-eyes all
> around :-).
>
[I tried a personal reply, but my mailer didn't grok how to get to taniwha's
 mailer].

Hmmmm, back when I used to fly cardboard rockets [20 years ago--yikes!!], the
  NAR altitude record was around 11,500 ft, using an F-class engine, fins,
  and a prayer.  I guess things have gotten better since then.
  Is this with standard commercial solid engines, or homebrew?

--
Marcus Leech, 4Y11             Bell-Northern Research  |opinions expressed
mleech@bnr.ca                  P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C   |are my own, and not
ml@ve3mdl.ampr.org             Ottawa, ON, CAN K1Y 4H7 |necessarily BNRs
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 20:07:36 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman):
>You wouldn't do a cheap and dirty Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge
>saying that if it failed you'd just shrug and go on to the next
>project. Aerospace has become like civil engineering. The costs
>of projects, and the effects of failure, have become high [...]

I think there's an issue of cause and effect here.

Isn't it possible that the costs of projects and the effects of
failure have risen _because_ risk taking has become so rare?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagles to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Newsgroups: sci.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, 15 Dec 1992 19:59:13 GMT

In article <84k24ya@rpi.edu> kentm@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>>It would include finishing
>>the tests of prototype cryogenic tanks and test the composite structures.

>Are these the same cryo tanks that McDonnell Douglas is building for NASP?

If you mean the tanks for Have Region, no. This would be a new effort.

>>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?

>Could NASA have put the IRIS upper stage on that Pegasus too?  

I don't know. If that alternative wouldn't have worked, I'll bet I can
think of others costing a fraction of what NASA paid. Can you?

>While I have
>not heard it stated explicitly, I suspect that launching IRIS was every bit
>as important to the Italians as launching LAGEOS.  

So what? How does that justify spending 10 times more than what was needed?

>Was the development effort of integrating Pegasus and IRIS also
>included in that $10 million?

If it wasn't, the additional costs would pale compared to what was
spent.

>What about Mephisto?  The Lambda point experiment?  The United States Micro-
>gravity Payload (which carried the two aforementioned experiments)?  

Let's fly them on Mir and use the hundreds of millions saved on some other
worthwhile project.

>Can't you just admit that a lot more happened on STS-52 than the launch of
>LAGEOS so we can put this issue to rest?

I'm sure lots more happened. Now can you demonstrate that it was done in
the most efficient way? Why does the prospect of saving money and getting
more work done bother you so much?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------130 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:31:07 GMT

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

>>... SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything Iraq had right? 

>I don't know whether Iraq had any of the Soviet heavy SAMs, but unless
>those aircraft have capabilities far beyond what's revealed, they can't
>fly above *those* missiles' ceilings.

Just what is the ceiling on those missiles?  And it should be noted that even
if they can reach the required altitude they probably are no match for SR-71
speeds and ECM.

>Remember, 1950s-vintage Soviet
>missiles have a proven ability to knock down U-2s.  Quite apart from
>the Powers incident, China has parts of several shot-down U-2s on display
>in its aviation museums. 

The mainland Chinese shot down quite a number of U-2s in the 60s.  There was 
enough shooting going on then to make me think the name "Cold War" was a 
misnomer.

>>...after 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
>>SR71 right?

>As far as I know, SR-71s never actually overflew the USSR, although they
>did fly around the fringes (presumably close enough for side-looking
>sensors) frequently.

According to Burrows' _Deep Black_ "The Russians have repeatedly charged that
they have been overflown by SR-71s, and the Cubans have made the same
allegation: the Pentagon has denied the former and admitted the latter."  Now
just who you believe (and what definition of "overflown" you use) is up to
you.  But the Soviets have repeatedly expressed frustration over the fact that
they can't shoot Blackbirds down.  That may have changed in the last few years
but it was true for a very long time.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Chase planes
Date: 16 Dec 1992 23:51:54 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

The chase plane that crashed with Valkyrie was being flown by Joe 
Walker, the pilot that broke so many records with the X-15. I was 
wondering if anyone in the net knows what was the reason for the 
crash. My first impression was that it was pilot error but I may be 
wrong.

claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov

Claudio Egalon



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What is DC ??
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:59:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BzC0s3.E60@bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au> scooper@kepler.physics.uq.oz.au (Steven Cooper) writes:
>Pardon my ignorance folks, but what is this DC thing?
>...Who is designing/building it? 

See some of the other recent postings for details.

>Now, I'm really confused about how you make an SSTO. As far as my meagre 
>understanding goes, the final velocity of a rocket is the exhaust velocity
>times the logarithm of the mass ratio.

That's correct, ignoring gravity losses and air friction and assuming
a standing start.  (Most of these assumptions can be rationalized by just
adjusting the desired final velocity a bit.)

>How easy is it to get 5 miles per second with a
>single stage? I thought that exhaust velocities were only about 3000 m/s 
>which would require a mass ratio of about 14. With payload and fuel for
>landing this sounds quite difficult.

It's a bit challenging but no longer looks that hard.  Modern exhaust
velocities are up around 4500m/s, if you're willing to accept the hassles
of working with liquid hydrogen.

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

Even the shuttle isn't moving that fast at SRB burnout; the second stage
(main engines burning alone) does most of the work.  Gary Hudson claims
that if you deleted the SRBs and the orbiter, and just put six SSMEs
under the external tank, it could reach orbit (with a respectable payload)
as an SSTO expendable.

Making it reusable is somewhat harder.  But everyone who's studied the
technical details says it now looks feasible.
-- 
"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.geo.geology,ca.earthquakes
From: rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff)
Subject: Re: Casinissini Udergoed Intense Design  Review
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 05:58:31 GMT


Regarding the Titan probe - will it have a camra to take images of the
landscape? I am aware of how dim the sun is at tha distance compounded
with the thickness of Titan's atmosphere. But these shouldn't require
mayjor technical feats..

        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:39:29 GMT

In article <71780@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

I said this:

>>What I don't believe is that you'd get any knowldgeable
>>volunteers to fly a Spacelab mission on a Titan IV.

>Ever hear of the "Manned Orbiting Laboratory"? A Gemini with a very
>Spacelab-like module launched together by Titan III.

Yeah, I've heard of it.  I've also heard that it was cancelled about 25 years
ago, and that none of them ever flew.

Spacelab is very dependent on the Shuttle for life support, power, and heat
rejection.  You couldn't fly it on a Titan IV (which was my point).

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
Flight Test Engineer                           Tute-Screwed Aero '92
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
These views are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mkieffer@nasamail.nasa.gov (Mark Kieffer)
Subject: Space Station Utilization Conference
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:42:39 GMT

  [This message was sent to the Space Digest maintainers.  I thought it was
   of sufficient interest to post to sci.space, but I've not verified the
   contents -- MM]

Dear Moderators,
        Our company, BDM International, is under contract to support NASA's
upcoming Space Station Utilization Conference. In an effort to reach
researchers that might be interested in attending such a conference, we
have decided that postings to several electronic bulletin boards or
conferences accessible from the Internet system may reach audiences that
normally would not receive the necessary information.

			[ .... Rest of the text deleted -MM .... ]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calender Notice:
NASA SPACE STATION FREEDOM (SSF) UTILIZATION CONFERENCE AT THE SAN
FRANCISCO HILTON, JUNE 21-24, 1993, SAN FRANCISCO.  This conference and
hardware exhibition is for researchers who want to learn more about past
accomplishments, present activities, and future plans and opportunities for
space-based research.   Space Station Freedom research capabilities, and
opportunities for commercial research will also be detailed.  Research
discipline sessions will cover recently completed or planned space-related
experiments in life sciences, biotechnology, fluid physics, materials
sciences, combustion, and technology development.  For registration
information, either send e-mail to mkieffer@NASAmail.NASA.GOV, call
202-479-5280 or send queries via fax to 202-863-8407, Attn: SSF Utilization
Conference.  Potential exhibitors should call 202-479-5253.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC-X cost figures (was : Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:07:41 GMT
Distribution: sci
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 <BzB6LB.548.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@.cacs.usl.edu.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

>Sooner or later someone is bound to try to use CAD/CAM and sophisticated
>materials to lower costs instead of to increace them.

The problem is, the same computer technology that allows you to
do CAD/CAM also allows you to run massive COBOL applications to
micromanage the entire project from Washington, DC.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Chicken Guns (was Re: "trivial engineering")
Summary: They exist.
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:04:52 GMT

In article <BzA75H.6Lp.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>By the way, somebody told me that tolerance to bird ingestion is tested by
>means of a compressed air gun that shoots dead chickens into the engine,
>to determine whether engine damage will result.

A former co-worker of mine worked at Pratt & Whitney on the F-100 (?)
engine program in data acquisition for the test programs.  He said they
all looked forward to the visit of the Air Force Chicken Cannon with
both anticipation and dread.  Dead, fully feathered chickens are
procured and shot into the front at high speed.  He said the noise and
smell were quite remarkable.

-- 
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"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (J. D. McDonald)
Subject: Re: Chicken Guns (was Re: "trivial engineering")
Organization: UIUC SCS
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:10:35 GMT

In article <71871@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes:

>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.

Oh My.

What about the Overflown 747 Potty Residue Gun Test?

Isn't that SUPPOSED to be frozen?

Doug McDonald
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:50:23 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 <1992Dec14.175934.5993@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>	You missed my point.  If your crew compartment is in the cargo
>>bay, where do you put the satellite?

>If it turns out that this isn't roomy enough, then you use the technology
>developed under DC to build a larger vehicle. After all, DC will be a usefull
>piece of technology but it isn't the only spaceship which will ever be built.

A completely new vehicle probably isn't justified unless you need
a *lot* more room.  "Stretching" an existing plane is common practice
in the aircraft industry.  (Rockwell even studied a stretched version
of the Shuttle orbiter.)  However, as a practical matter, I don't 
think there will be many missions that require cargo and passengers
to go up in the same vehicle.


>Yes it would take roughly 10 DC flights to carry up the fuel. Soon however
>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.
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: First space hotel (was Re: Space Tourism)
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:33:38 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec17.142701.10884@vax.oxford.ac.uk>, clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> In article <BzDCqA.3sI@brunel.ac.uk>, mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
>> 
>> It wasn't Duncan (though he was there) but Patrick Collins, of the
>> School of Management, Imperial College.  
> 
> More of interest, Pat is working on *Space Tourism* in Japan.
> 
> Guess who'll have the furst space hotel?

It will be owned by Japanese corporations.

But the staff will be British.

(Hey, Dave, if jobs are tight in astronomy, you could get a job as
concierge.  And do astronomy in your off hours, in the hotel's parking
lot...)

Bill Higgins, Beam Jockey              | "Enough marshmallows
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory  | will kill you 
Bitnet:           HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET  | if properly placed."
Internet:       HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV  | --John Alexander, leader of
SPAN/Hepnet:           43011::HIGGINS  | "disabling technologies"
 [*Aviation Week*, 7 Dec 1992, p. 50]  | research, Los Alamos
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:25:52 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Dec17154113@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

>to handle the fuelling. Consensus was LOX/LH2 trucks carried
>about 3 tons, we need 300 tons total - that's 100 trips


That's wrong -- the figure was that LH2 tankers carry 3 to 5
tons, but we said nothing about LOX tankers.  LOX is much more dense
than LH2, and most of the mass of the propellant is LOX.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:06:57 -0500 
From: Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: absolutely, positively overnight

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>>>But they didn't call the SR-71 the Recon-STRIKE-71 before LBJ's mangling for
>>>nothing.
>>
>>Yep.  And I also heard about the drone launch accident that downed both
>>the drone and the host SR-71...
>
>That actually happened in pre-SR-71 days, to an M-12 (the drone-carrier
>variant of the A-12).  However, the problems are felt to be manageable,
>last I heard:  Lockheed was saying "feasible" when NASA Dryden talked
>to them about carrying HALO up to Mach 3 on SR-71-back.

    The drone in that case was quite a package, too. As I recall, the drone
was a Mach 3+ ramjet design, intended to be a drone recon plane for doing
flyovers of hostile territory. It was (bear with me here, it's been a while
since I read this) fueled by boron hydride, with roughly twice the energy
density of regular jet fuel, built almost entirely of magnesium, and intended
to fly a photo run, return to friendly territory, eject a photo package, and
self destruct with explosive charges. In fact, the charges were set to blow
if the altimeter read below 10,000 feet in operational use. At any rate, during
the first test the separation went bad, the drone either flew into the carrier
or blew up immediately adjacent, and the carrier went down.
    The project was supposedly cancelled, although the article I read said
that several of the test drones were later unaccounted for...

    I wish I could remember where I read this... anyone else out there able
to confirm this?

                                                   kwr

Internet: kevin.ryan@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:21:39 GMT

ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
>>development to flight test. It doesn't even begin to cover costs for
>>the development of DCY which requires different structures and engines,
>>or of DC-1. 

>McDonnell Douglas has estimated the total development costs of the DC-1
>at $1.5 billion.  I don't recall exactly how much money has been spent
>on DC-X, but it's in the range of a couple hundred million.  NASA spends
>over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight.  I think you've
>indulged in some creative accounting. 

HE indulged in creative accounting?  I think the contract for DC-X was $58 
million, not a "couple hundred million."  The average total cost of a shuttle
mission is a little over $500 million not a billion+.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L