HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.aeronautics
Subject: Solar Ram Jet
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 07:53:36 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Ron Peterson writes:
>I'd like to know if it would be possible to build a micro-sized
>platform that could lift itself in the air powered by a solar cell
>or very small battery.  I thought that perhaps a tiny ion motor
>with a solar cell painted on its exterior might be capable of
>lifting itself off the ground.
 
You're on to a very interesting idea here.  Since solar flux is
about a kilowatt and you need about 50 watts per kilogram "work rate"
to overcome gravity, some scheme for turning solar energy into
thrust might be workable.  If a derivation of ion engines could
use rarified gasses in the upper atmosphere as reaction mass, the
implications could be profound.
 
A related idea is a solar ram jet.  I haven't really given this much
thought but it is probably good enough for science fiction:
 
The basic principle is that energy efficiency of a thruster is 
inversely proportional to its exhaust velocity due to the velocity^2 
term of kinetic energy vs the velocity^1 term of the mass flow rate 
equation.  You'd like infinite reaction mass to throw away at almost
zero delta velocity to have the ultimate in thruster efficiency -- 
something like walking.
 
Therefore, a thruster that can entrain a large mass of air relative
to its weight, say a simple cylinder ala ram jet, do little to impede 
the air passing through it and and then add a small velocity to it 
through thermal expansion from solar heating might be able to sustain 
itself in flight especially if the cylinder walls can be made light 
enough, transmissive enough on the sun-side and black-body-radiative 
enough on the shadow side.  It would probably end up looking more like 
a blimp than a ram jet engine and would need a lot of help getting 
off the ground.  The circular shape might have to be modified to make 
the "engine" into a lifting body as well.
 
If such a craft achieved Mach 1.1, it could sustain itself
in flight indefinitely by exactly countering the earth's rotation
and always staying where it is "noon".  With such a simple structure
and no moving parts, reliability wouldn't be much of a problem.  Throw 
in some tethers to pick up and leave off payloads and you have a system 
that pimply-faced boys with crushes on budding econazi girlfriends might 
like to read about in Analog.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Xref: sparky sci.space:12750 alt.sci.planetary:17
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:51:54 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep11.172931.1004@cco.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:
>Voyager 1 flew most of the Jupiter-Saturn-Pluto trajectory, but was
>diverted get a closer look at Titan.  I have often wondered,
>considering the somewhat unexpected longevity of the Voyagers, how
>many times the folks at JPL kicked themselves for not trying
>harder to lobby for the J-S-P trajectory for Voyager 1.

The longevity wasn't really the issue; a close look at Titan was Science
Priority Number One at Saturn.  Voyager 2 wasn't okayed for the on-to-
Uranus trajectory until Voyager 1 completed Titan encounter successfully,
as I understand it.  Given the timing and orbits, the decision that a
close look at Titan was imperative meant that one of the Voyagers was
not going on to another planet after Saturn.  Simple as that.

Of course, as it turned out, Titan was a disappointment... but there was
no way to be sure of that in advance.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:11:11 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BuDKLJ.KKw.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>/... You really cannot do a Pluto
>\orbiter in a reasonable amount of time with 1960s propulsion technology,
>/which is what all currently-planned missions use.
>
>Just out of curiosity, is there a way to convince them to use post-early-
>1960's technology, like an ion drive of some sort?

Not until somebody space-qualifies modern hardware of that sort, so it can
be done without major risk of cost or schedule overrun.  This particular
mission is time-critical because of the impending freezeout of Pluto's
atmosphere, so the fewer unknowns the better.

There is also a serious technical problem with using electrical propulsion
for this particular mission:  what's your power supply?  RTGs are too heavy
for major power outputs, and solar doesn't work so well in that neighborhood.
It would have to be a nuclear reactor.  A sound idea, but not something that
can be done in a hurry.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: RL-10
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:59:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BuKHBv.81u.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> The first one was thought to be ice, or something, in the turbopumps
> interfering with startup.  I haven't heard any verdict yet on the second
> one; I know they were taking pretty stringent precautions against pump
> contamination in the wake of the first one.
> 

One of the oldest tricks in the book :-) Similar problem made Gary Hudsen's  
Percheron test flight into a lovely on the pad firecracker back in 1980 or  
so. Water ice is the bane of all cryogenic engines.


Also a comment on the failures cited for various old ICBM's. The statistics  
stated so far tell me little about the failure rate of RL-10 engines. Serious  
failures are followed by booms because the RSO decides to MAKE them go boom.  
Just because a few Centaurs have failed over 25-30 years, doesn't say much of  
anything about the engines themselves. If a tank ruptures, a flight computer  
glitches, or any of a thousand other things occur that have nothing to do  
with the RL-10, an RSO will push a little button.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: york@oakland-hills.lucid.com (Bill York)
Subject: Re: Ok, what would I expect from going to see sts-47?
Reply-To: York@Lucid.COM
Organization: Lucid, Inc.
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:58:23

In article <6675@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes:

   From: jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell)


   Some friends and I are here at one of the disney world hotels in orlando
   on vacation.. It occurs to us that if things continue smoothly we could
   potentialy blow off a day at disney and drive out capewards to see sts
   47 launch..

   However, we have no real clue what to expect.  How close would we
   reasonably expect to be able to get, starting "cold" as it were the day
   before the launch.. How much could we see from disney world, if we
   stayed here? What's the traffic like?  

You can get to a good viewing area < 10 miles away by heading for the
shoreline in Titusville.  That is where I saw my first launch (the
one-week-delayed second launch).  There are closer viewing areas on
the Cape itself, but Titusville has the advantage that it requires no
advanced reservation or pass.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: begley%lock.dnet@jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Begley)
Subject: Re: Autoland test cancelled?
Organization: Lockheed Engineering (Houston, TX)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:16:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.130410.21532@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
doane@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Kent Doane) writes:
>I just heard the Autoland test set for STS-53 has been cancelled.  Is this
true,
>and if it is, what's the scoop as to why?
>

I have the impression that crew opposition and opposition from 
General Pearson (?) led to its cancellation.  The General's
feelings were that it would be okay for an emergency, but the
crew should handle any nominal landing, the opposite of what the
system was designed for.

I also heard a proposition that fresh pilots might be flown up to
Freedom to fly back an orbiter which had been docked to SSF for
90 days.  That would involve 2 orbiters in space at the same time.
This would eliminate the worry of having a pilot who has been in
wieghtlessness for 3 months have to handle the landing.  I suppose
that in an emergency, an ACRV would have to have ... AUTOLAND!  :-)


Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: tkelso@afit.af.mil (TS Kelso)
Subject: Two-Line Orbital Element Set:  Space Shuttle
Keywords: Space Shuttle, Orbital Elements, Keplerian
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:02:36 GMT

The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are
carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when
possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this
system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current
elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial
BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using
8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation
and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil
(129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.

STS 47     
1 22120U 92 61  A 92259.25000000  .00076222  00000-0  25599-3 0   105
2 22120  57.0001  95.3617 0008862 288.8795 137.8499 15.89469164   424
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: is this the 50th space shuttle launch?
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:39:51 GMT

sasdhb@lizard.unx.sas.com (Doug Brann) writes:

>This is the 50th shuttle mission.  The STS numbers do not match the number
>of missions.  The numbers are assigned when the mission is planned and due
>to delays and schedule changes the STS numbers became out of order.  For 
>example STS-50 was the Columbia Microgravity Lab a couple of months back and
>was the 48th shuttle mission. The Voyager's were not launched in order either.

This is not so unusual: Also Gemini 7 was launched before Gemini 6 in Dec 65.
--
 Hartmut Frommert, Physics, Univ of Constance, | + Whale killing is murder. +
 P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany | + Eat whale killers, not whales.
 E-Mail: <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
+    "Windows NoT" expands in German to "Windows Noch Teurer"
+                                                ^even   ^more expensive
From: fish@clubzen.fidonet.org (Rob Fish)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Can someone tape STS-47's Live Sat Launch?
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:41:33 GMT
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Fidonet/UseNet - +1 415 968 8140

Hi there.  If you plan to watch NASA Select's live
coverage and can run a tape off for me from approx
10am to 2pm or so, please send an email and perhaps
I might have something to offer in trade (DAT or
analog tapes) in addition to a blank VHS tape.

Thanks for reading this one...
:)
rf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Fish -> (fish@clubzen.fidonet.org)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: sasdhb@lizard.unx.sas.com (Doug Brann)
Subject: Re: is this the 50th space shuttle launch?
Originator: sasdhb@lizard.unx.sas.com
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:30:55 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.


In article <1992Sep10.152507.19177@unocal.com>, stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
>
>The LA Times said so.
>But I see the number sts-47 used here.
>How many have actually been launched so far?

This is the 50th shuttle mission.  The STS numbers do not match the number
of missions.  The numbers are assigned when the mission is planned and due
to delays and schedule changes the STS numbers became out of order.  For 
example STS-50 was the Columbia Microgravity Lab a couple of months back and
was the 48th shuttle mission. The Voyager's were not launched in order either.
-- 
=======================================================================
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
Subject: Re: Ok, what would I expect from going to see sts-47?
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:19:30 EST
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

In article <6675@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell)
wrote:
> Some friends and I are here at one of the disney world hotels in orlando
> on vacation..
> potentialy blow off a day at disney and drive out capewards to see sts
> 47 launch..
> I'd hate to devote a day to driving only to find the closest I'm
> going to get is 30 miles away on the expressway..

Ron-

Launch is currently scheduled for 10:23 A.M., Saturday, 9/12/92.  If you
are anywhere in Central Florida, you should be able to see something of the
launch, if skies are clear.

If you decide to come to the coast for the launch, I suggest you come to
TITUSVILLE.  Go east on State Road 50 from I-95, to US-1.  Go north on US-1
to the "Miracle City Mall" at Harrison, across the street from the Post
Office.  Park in the Mall parking lot, and walk across US-1, to behind the
Post Office.

This is by far the easiest, most practical viewing site I know of.  You
can't get much closer without a pass to go onto Space Center property.  You
can really "feel" it from here!

Realize that the most serious traffic jam is after launch, but that it only
gets worse if you hesitate.  Leaving the Mall, go west on Harrison to Park.
 Go south on Park until it ends at State Road 405.  Go south on 405 to
State Road 50.  You will then be within a few hundred yards of I-95, and
the traffic jam begins!

Are you a Ham?  If you have a two meter receiver or a scanner along, tune
to 146.94 MHz.  John Anderson, K4GCC, rebroadcasts the "NASA Select" audio
channel on his repeater.  Other popular repeaters in the immediate area are
145.37, 146.91, 146.97, 147.36, 444.150 and 444.750.

PS:  There is a very nice Hamfest this weekend, at the Melbourne
Auditorium, located about three blocks west of US-1 on Hibiscus.  Melbourne
is about 40 miles south of Titusville.  Talk-in is on 146.85 repeater.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
From: hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re : Gore...
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:32:24 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

Greetings and Salutations:

From: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu (Gerald George Marfoe)
>The remainder of the article dealt with Gore's stand on environmental issues

Which is, I understand, a very interesting side of Gore.

While I understand that many politicians tend to "pack the court" when holding
hearings, from what I have heard Gore would pick people that only agreed with
his view for his hearings.  There also is some rumblings that Gore is mostly
for environmental unmanned satellites only, and not a big manned space program
supporter (as witnessed by his voting record).

-- 
-----------------------------------------------
Ken Hollis  INTERNET: HOLLIS@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV
            SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::HOLLIS

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Re: Ok, what would I expect from going to see sts-47?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:44:47 GMT

In article <6675@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Ron Jarrell) writes:
>
>Some friends and I are here at one of the disney world hotels in orlando
>on vacation.. It occurs to us that if things continue smoothly we could
>potentialy blow off a day at disney and drive out capewards to see sts
>47 launch..
>
>However, we have no real clue what to expect.  How close would we
>reasonably expect to be able to get, starting "cold" as it were the day
>before the launch.. How much could we see from disney world, if we
>stayed here? What's the traffic like?  
>
>I'd hate to devote a day to driving only to find the closest I'm
>going to get is 30 miles away on the expressway..
>
>	
>-- 
>Ron Jarrell
>Virginia Tech Computing Center
>jarrell@vtserf.cc.vt.edu

It should take about an hour to get from Disney to KSC down SR 528 - the
Bee Line Expressway.  If you take 528 past I-95 and across the bridges over 
toward Cocoa Beach, you'll reach a decent viewing spot about (guess) 12.5
miles from the pad.  Note - you're south of the pad, and this is a 
high-inclination launch, I believe, so the shuttle will launch AWAY from you.
 
You can also head down to SpacePort USA, KSC's visitor center/display area,
and wathc from there.  You probably won't be able to see the actual 
leaving-the-pad part of the liftoff, but you'll be fairly close for 
viewing once it clears the trees.  Call the PIO at 407 867-2622
for info on SpacePort USA viewing.
 
One last possibility is to "hitch" a ride in to the viewing area with 
someone with a vehicle pass.  I usually go in Gate 1 off of SR-3;
they open the base to viewers at 4 hours to launch.  If there's only 
1 or two of you, you might be able to find someone who'll take you in.

Traffic isn't as bad as it used to be - I think we were out in about 
30 minutes after STS-50 launched.  

With clear skies, you should be able to see the launch from Orlando - 
my grandmother saw one from Sarasota, on the Gulf coast!  Call first,
make sure it's still going at 6 hours or so till launch time, then
head across if it looks good.



-- 
Mike Heney                |                                  |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |     * Will Work for Money *      |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |                                  |
From: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Crew separation for safety
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:27:37 GMT
Reply-To: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.

In article <PD.92Sep8174758@horus.sics.se> pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <125@herman.gem.valpo.edu> someone was quoted to have written:
>
>The Mercury had an escape rocket tower, and the Gemini had ejection
>seats.
>--

Ejection seats? Really?  I saw an interview with John Young in which he
described the Gemini capsule as the 'Gus-mobile' because Grissom was the
only astronaut able to comfortably get into it. It sounds like most
astronauts would have their shoulders ripped off if they blew the hatches
and fired an ejection seat.



-- 
Michael Katzmann                  >   Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	         <    Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:           >     
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV / AAR3VK   <    opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: is this the 50th space shuttle launch?
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:36:16 GMT

In article <BuFB63.BJp@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> morpheus@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Morpheus Nosferatu) writes:
>
>Out of curiosity, was the Challenger's final launch counted as a mission,
>since it did not make it to orbit?  I find it difficult to consider that
>to have actually been a mission to add to the count, since it was never
>carried out.

Yes, for these purposes it is.  STS-51L was the 25th Space Shuttle mission.
The count resumed with STS-26 in Sep 88.

>On a more general note, would any aborted launch be counted as a "mission,"
>or would it be considered a delay of the mission?

If the countdown is aborted before T-0, it does not count as a mission.  They
will just try again when whatever aborted the countdown is resolved.  How
they would handle a Return-to-Launch-Site, Abort-Once-Around, or a Trans-
Atlantic-Landing, I don't know.  But I suspect if the orbiter and payload
were recovered intact, they would treat it as an aborted countdown (for the
sake of numbering purposes, anyway).

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: More madness
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:44:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.192327.2707@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> gcreager@deneb.uucp (Gerald J. Creager [I-NET]) writes:
>2.  TV has to compete for the K-band bandwidth.  If there is a lot of data
>coming down on K-band as telemetry, that has a sufficiently high priority, TV
>is not sent.
>
>So, it's not as simple as one might think.  As far as the Huntsville TV folks
>are concerned, I can relay the concern about the amount of viewing time spent
>looking at the Investigator Teams and POCC Cadre to them.

Except for the limitations due to #2 above, when the crew wants privacy, I'd
be happy to look out of the payload bay cameras and watch the world go by.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!