HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jburger@oldcolo.UUCP (Joseph Burger)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: LANDSAT
Date: 11 Apr 92 12:10:02 GMT

If you actually maen LANDSAT, they are all Earth Resources type 
satellites .  All have been built by GE (I believe - at least
the active ones -4 and -5 are GE products.  
LANDSAT-1 was launched 23 July 1972.  L-2 22 
LANDSAT-2 22 Jan 75, LANDSAT-3 5 Mar 78, LANDSAT-4 16 Jul 82
and LANDSAT-5 1 March 84.  Not sure if or when LANDSAT-6
is to be launched.  I read it was to be in mid 1992.  
GPS satellites in the US are the NAVSTAR series, except that
they are officially named USA-nn.  The latest of that series
was USA-79 (NAVSTAR 2A-03) launched 23 Feb 92.
Hope that helps.
======================================================================== 
Joseph J. Burger          |    The more corrupt the state, the more    | 
Space Analysis & Research |  numerous the laws. -  Cornelius Tacitus   | 
Colorado Springs, CO      |                                            | 
jburger%oldcolo@csn.org   |     In politics. an absurdity is not a     | 
ding.a.ling (719) 260-0500|            handicap. - Napoleon            | 
======================================================================== 
 
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: EDO Pallett
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 21:11:40 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ktpsaiINN3th@koh-sun14.usc.edu> orly@koh-sun14.usc.edu (Mr. Nitro Plastique) writes:
>Could someone please tell me how the EDO (Extended Duration Orbiter) Pallet
>works? I'd really appreciate it.

It just supplies more LOX and LH2 to run the fuel cells longer.  The usual
limit on orbiter endurance is power.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: afcanav@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (VIC CANACCI)
Subject: sept. launches?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 14 Apr 1992 15:44 EST  

hello, I was wondering if anyone out there knew if there was a scheduled 
launch set for this September. I thought I'd try here before I looked 
around the center ( I know-lazy!, but really I've been busy)

Thanks, e-mail or post

Vic Canacci, Sverdrup Tech., NASA Lewis Cleveland
From: edmonds@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk (Mark Edmonds)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Extended Duration Missions
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:45:13 GMT
Reply-To: edmonds@prlhp1.UUCP (Mark Edmonds)
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Redhill, UK

I am trying to find the network address/FAX/Phone number of R.R. Green who used to
be/still is at JPL, Pasadena.  Could ANYBODY who has such information please send
me the relevant information.


Thanks in advance,


Mark Edmonds

Philips Research Labs

edmonds@uk.co.philips.prl
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Solid Rocket Boosters (old and new)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:37:59 GMT

bjr@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian J. Roberts) writes:

>>They test the boosters on a horizontal testbed, bolted down tight!

>	Is the only problem with testing the boosters in a vertical testbed the
>design and complexity of the test bed?  I thought I remember reading about 
>problems that can not be detected because the boosters are tested on a 
>horizontal testbed.

>Brian Roberts        e-mail: bjr@po.cwru.edu

	For liquid rocket engines you have to test them vertically, because
you're dealing with a fluid system designed to work in a vertical position.
There are some very impressive vertical test stands in Huntsville.  Solid
boosters tend to be much less picky about the orientation and it's easier to 
build a horizontal test stand than a vertical one.

		Josh Hopkins
From: 473furtaw@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Shuttle Freqs for Saginaw area
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:04:52 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

Does anyone know the frequencies which would carry all Shuttle communications
(basically an audio NASA Select) for a scanner in the Saginaw, Michigan area?
Thanks in advance.

Keep the dream alive & Remember the Challenger 7
Scott Furtaw
473furtaw@gw.wmich.edu
From: orly@girtab.usc.edu (Mr. Nitro Plastique)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: One SRB...
Date: 11 Apr 1992 18:20:29 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu


Josh;

	I'm not learning anything from the movie. It just exlains the
situation simply. I don't take any of that stuff seriously, cause I know it's
B.S....I went there (to Spacecamp) 6 years ago when I was 13. From an
engineering standpoint, I just put my two cents worth in. I'm an aerospace
engineering student, and I know NASA doesn't goof around like in the movie.

		Victor Orly

P.S.: Are you an engineer too?


-- 
|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@girtab.usc.edu|    -Egon Spengler, from "Ghostbusters"        |
From: dipietro@sierra.com (Stephen DiPietro)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Single SRB Ignition
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:58:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: sierra.1992Apr13.185838.12280
Organization: Sierra Geophysics Inc.,  Kirkland, Wa

Years ago, I worked in shuttle range safety 
and in final acceptance testing of Space
Shuttle Primary Avionics Software System
for ascent phase.

Answers to two recent questions:

1) What if the bird blows up on the pad?

  According to a study done prior to STS-1,
  the maximum yield of an explosion on the 
  pad is about 0.25 megaton of TNT...
  (kiss the launch complex goodbye).

2) What if only one SRB ignites?

  We did an ad hoc simulation of single SRB ascent
  (it wasn't part of our normal analysis).
  If I recall correctly, the bird flew, although well
  outside its normal flight envelope.  Its trajectory
  did not exceed the limits that would require a 
  mandatory range safety destruct... (this is not 
  to say  that the range safety officer wouldn't 
  destroy the bird.

  After a very iffy SRB separation, (contact between
  SRB and external tank leads to catastrophe?) the bird 
  was on a trajectory that was NOT within the 
  acceptable criterion for initiation of a standard return
  to launch site (RTLS) abort or trans-atlantic abort.  

  For these reasons, such a scenario is not considered
  survivable.
From: jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Restated - Are the tires still pliable after space?
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:11:46 EDT
Organization: Univ of Miami IR

In article <3699@phred.UUCP>, petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) writes:
> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>
>>Wonder whether it would be worth spinning the tire up before touchdown
>>if that meant you could use it again...
> 
> It's not worth putting in the extra weight and system to do it. It
> would also mean two more switches on the cockpit control panel, one
> for each pilot, probably labeled "Tire pre-spin".
>  
>>If anyone answered the question about whether the tires are inflated
>>or solid, I didn't see the post, and I'm curious about that too...
>  
> The tires are not solid. They are inflated to 315 PSI.

With what ?  Nitrogen ?   (nice, safe, and stable ... ?)

- Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet : jdeitch@umiami.miami.edu | Go Braves !! | "I hate it when I can't
---------------------------------------------------| trust my own technology !" 
"Thrills!  Chills!  Magic!  Prizes!"  -- Hurricane |    -- Geordi LaForge

Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asmiov, Jim Henson, Dr Seuss, Mel Blanc ... Sigh ...
From: wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Space Camp
Date: 11 Apr 92 21:09:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T

Saw the movie on cable some time ago.  Thought it was rather camp.   :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Extended Duration Missions
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 21:57:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.214900.13612@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>wmetz@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>>I just read that the new Extended Duration fitting in Columbia will only allow
>>for 16 day missions...Am I wrong or has it been rather recent that they were
>>still claiming 28 day missions would be possible?  What caused the considerable
>>downsizing and is a further upgrade planned?
>
>	I believe the 28 day figure refers to Endeavor.  It may also be that
>they plan to start Columbia out at 16 and work their way up.  Anyone want to
>confirm or deny this?

This is correct.  The current manifest lists one EDO flight per year, with
the first two (1992 and 1993) being 13-day missions and the next two being
16-day missions.  Columbia is currently the only orbiter scheduled for an
EDO flight.  Endeavour has the capability to accept the 28-day EDO setup, but
there are no definite plans to do so.

There is a planning effort underway to use the 28-day capability for Freedom
utilization flights during the man-tended phase of the space station.  This
effort appears to be moving forward.  Previously, there was a study going on
concerning the requirements for a 60- and 90-day orbiter, but the latest 
word I have is that the requirements were just too great.

Of course, that leaves a major hole in the space station assembly process.
Without ASRMs, Endeavour will be required to lift the modules, and may be
needed for a few other assembly flights if there is substantial weight growth.
If it is also flying utilization flights once or twice a year, Endeavour may
quickly become NASA's most experienced spacecraft.  Anyone in the know care
to comment on how NASA intends to pull this one off?

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 !!
From: orly@girtab.usc.edu (Mr. Nitro Plastique)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: One SRB...
Date: 6 Apr 1992 21:47:49 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: girtab.usc.edu



In article 6880, John F. Woods writes:

>Correct, but activating the SRB and ET range safety charges while the orbiter
>is still attached voids the manufacturer's warranty in a big way.       :-)

VERY FUNNY! Let's settle this One-SRB thing once and for all. Go rent
"Spacecamp"; this situation is explained very well by the NASA computer. 
Forget about calculating the moments of inertia, stresses & strains on
the shuttle and the ET. If this situation would occur, we'd have a bunch
of crispy astronauts, a life-size shuttle jigsaw puzzle, and the NASA
janitors would be really pissed.

			Victor Orly

-- 
|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@girtab.usc.edu|    -Egon Spengler, from "Ghostbusters"        |
From: jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Endeavour's SSME test fire
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:52:24 EDT
Organization: Univ of Miami IR

I was reading the UPI article on Endeavour's SSME test fire this morning and
noticed something really interesting ...

The programs used for this are exactly the same as the ones used for a normal
launch.  Except for one thing : the part of the program that waits for the SSMEs
to spool up to 100% before firing the SRBs were given a value of 150% instead.

Since this never happens, they waited about 20 seconds and then ordered an
abort and shut everything down.  Since the SRB ignition sequence never started,
the bolts never blew and everything shut down nice and orderly.

I think this is an ingenious way of doing things.  You get to test all of your
software and related systems with the real thing instead of a test article.

On an unrelated note, what's the drag chute that was being serviced according
to today's Shuttle status report ?  Is this for landing ?

'til later ...

- Jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet : jdeitch@umiami.miami.edu | Go Braves !! | "I hate it when I can't
---------------------------------------------------| trust my own technology !" 
"Thrills!  Chills!  Magic!  Prizes!"  -- Hurricane |    -- Geordi LaForge

Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asmiov, Jim Henson, Dr Seuss, Mel Blanc ... Sigh ...
From: cabruen@athena.mit.edu (Charles Alan Bruen)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Need info on In-flight Shuttle Simulator
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:39:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dear Netters:

	I am doing a project on automatic control, and I would like to
look into the inflight-simulator of the space shuttle. My understanding
is that it is a gulfstream aircraft that is design to behave
(dynamically that is), exactly like the space shuttle. I would
appreciate it if anybody could point me to some articles or literature
into this area. In addition, and other information anybody might have
would be appreciated. (Could I get a ride in it :-) ).

I will repost anything I receive i nemail, along with my summary report
when it is finished.

Thanks for the help.


Charles Bruen
cabruen@athena.mit.edu
From: WAF102@psuvm.psu.edu (William Fabanich)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Space Camp
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:57:25 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Well....at least the soundtrack was done my the master himself...John Williams



/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ High Pressure            //                                           /
/          Combustion Lab  // WAF102 @ PSUVM.PSU.EDU                    /
/                          // WAF102 @ PSUVM.BITNET                     /
/         PSU/NASA         //                                           /
/  Propulsion Engineering  //     William A. Fabanich, Jr               /
/      Research Center     //     111 Beaver Hall (Penn State Univ.)    /
/     (UG Lab Assistant)   //     University Park, PA 16802             /
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/                                                                       /
/  "There is no thrill in easy sailing when the skies are clear and blue/
/     there's no joy in merely doing things which anyone can do. But    /
/     there is some satisfaction that is mighty sweet to take, when you /
/     reach a destination that you thought you'd never make" - Spirella /
/                                                                       /
/  "America is like a melting pot: the people on the bottom get burned, /
/     and the scum floats to the top" - I can't remember                /
/                                                                       /
/  "Never let them make you crawl" - John Dillinger                     /
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Extended Duration Missions
From: wmetz@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: 5 Apr 92 21:36:36 CST
Organization: University of Missouri-Kansas City


I just read that the new Extended Duration fitting in Columbia will only allow
for 16 day missions...Am I wrong or has it been rather recent that they were
still claiming 28 day missions would be possible?  What caused the considerable
downsizing and is a further upgrade planned?

Thanks!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: cabruen@athena.mit.edu (Charles Alan Bruen)
Subject: Need coordinates of the Continents
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:10:04 GMT

Hello:

        Does anyone have a set of points that describe the earth
surface. Such as the lat and long coords of the continents. In my
program I would like to display a map of the earth that can be resized,
and the only way I can think of doing that is to have the coordinates of
the continest. I would really appreciate it if I could get a copy of the
coords or if somebody knows where I can look for them.

Thanks in advance.


Charles Bruen
cabruen@athena.mit.edu
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Single SRB Ignition
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:40:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Apr14.204009.10285
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

I wrote:
>>several times that of TNT.  For the vehicle to explode with a yield of
>>250 kilotons, it would need to have an initial mass of perhaps
>>100,000 tons (when the SRB fuel and structural mass are accounted for).


edotto@uipsuxb.ps.uiuc.edu (Edward C. Otto III) writes:

>What about the 2.2 Million pounds of solid rocket fuel, eh?


What about it?

2.2 million pounds = 1,100 tons.  The energy content of which is
roughly comparable to an equal mass of TNT.  No ".25 megatons" there.
The 100,000 tons was assuming most of the initial mass of the stack
was LOX/LH2, which it isn't; the lower energy/mass solid fuel just
makes it worse.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Solid Rocket Boosters (old and new)
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:31:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr13.192852.13030@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> bjr@po.CWRU.Edu (Brian J. Roberts) writes:
>>They test the boosters on a horizontal testbed, bolted down tight!
>
>Is the only problem with testing the boosters in a vertical testbed the
>design and complexity of the test bed?  I thought I remember reading about 
>problems that can not be detected because the boosters are tested on a 
>horizontal testbed.

There was some discussion, particularly after Challenger, of vertical vs.
horizontal testing.  Among other considerations, the fuel is not 100%
rigid, and it sags a little bit under gravity, and of course the sagging
is different in the two positions.  Vertical testing probably would be
better.  ESA is testing Ariane 5's SRBs vertically.  It's just a question
of whether you spend $$$ for new test rigs when you're not sure it will
make any difference.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com (Ken Hollis)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re : Brakes...
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:18:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: crash.1992Apr09.111846.23407
Organization: Crash TimeSharing, El Cajon, CA

Greetings and Salutations:

>From: petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis)
>Subject: Re: Restated - Are the tires still pliable after space?
>The only thing I can think of that would cause a tire
>blowout before landing is a direct bird strike 

The other thing is if the Pilot stomps on the brakes hard enough that the
tire locks up.  It happened because the normal feedback you get (like in a
car) that a wheel is locked up isn't there, thus they now have balanced out
the pressure to the brakes to avoid lockup on one side and not the other.

>From: orly@girtab.usc.edu (Mr. Nitro Plastique)
>Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
>
>In article 6880, John F. Woods writes:
>
>>Correct, but activating the SRB and ET range safety charges while the
orbiter
>>is still attached voids the manufacturer's warranty in a big way.      
:-)
>
>VERY FUNNY! Let's settle this One-SRB thing once and for all. Go rent
>"Spacecamp"; this situation is explained very well by the NASA computer. 

Please, PLease, PLEASE ! ! ! DON'T rent Space Camp and look for any good
information.  I hope that you were kidding...



                              Ken Hollis

                    ProLine:  gandalf@pro-electric
                    Internet: gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: edotto@uipsuxb.ps.uiuc.edu (Edward C. Otto III)
Subject: Re: Single SRB Ignition
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 19:14:08 GMT

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>.25 megatons?  Utter nonsense.  There isn't that much chemical
>energy in the fuel, by several orders of magnitude.

>Think: the energy content of hydrogen/oxygen, per mass, is just
>several times that of TNT.  For the vehicle to explode with a yield of
>250 kilotons, it would need to have an initial mass of perhaps
>100,000 tons (when the SRB fuel and structural mass are accounted for).

What about the 2.2 Million pounds of solid rocket fuel, eh?

--
Edward C. Otto III   	    *  E-mail addresses:  e-otto@uiuc.edu
Printing Services Office    *  Phone:  217/333-9422
54A E. Gregory Drive	    *  "The only thing we have to fear is
Champaign, IL  61820	    *  24 line .signature files..."
From: jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Solid Rocket Boosters (old and new)
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:02:05 EDT
Organization: Univ of Miami IR

Did NASA ever decide if they were or were not going to go ahead with
development/production of a second generation SRB ?

I heard it was supposedly a single unit with more thrust than the current
ones to allow the SSMEs to avoid the throttle up to 100+% power after the
rollover.

Also, just how do you hold one of those suckers down to test fire it ?

- Jonathan 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet : jdeitch@umiami.miami.edu | Go Braves !! | "I hate it when I can't
---------------------------------------------------| trust my own technology !" 
"Thrills!  Chills!  Magic!  Prizes!"  -- Hurricane |    -- Geordi LaForge

Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov, Jim Henson, Dr Seuss, Mel Blanc ... Sigh ...
From: forrepr@eng.auburn.edu (Philip R. Forrest)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: The Epitome of Yaw
Date: 7 Apr 92 23:57:20 GMT
Reply-To: forrepr@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

In my humble apprenticeship at NASA/JSC, I have heard many times from
flight controllers that a lift-off with only one SRB lit would be one
of the shorter flights on record. There is no conceivable recovery from
such a situation. What do you think all of those curious engineers over
in Bldg 5 (at JSC) do with their spare time ?? The Motion-Base Shuttle 
simulator there can simulate most any concievable situation - even if
it could never occur in actuality. For instance, (this was unplanned)
during an Ascent integrated simulation with Bldg 30, there was an error
in the program setup that caused the Shuttle to launch from 39A while 
the windows on the flight deck were looking FROM 39B !! In effect, the 
Cmdr. and Pilot were 'flying' the Shuttle from 39A (all the Navaids were
set to 39A) while getting a third person point of view from the top of
39B !  Man, I got quite a laugh out of that one ! 

Anyway, as far as the SRB situation goes, I have heard that simulated
launches in Bldg 5 show that a 'delta-T' of ignition greater than about
0.5 seconds is unrecoverable for at least two reasons:

1) You can't throttle an SRB

2) The SSME's can only gimbal so much, a delta-T greater than ~0.5 seconds 
   would cause an unbelivable yaw in the stack. Recall that the SRB's thrust
   is to the SSME's as Mike Tyson's punch is to mine. i.e. WHAM!

  
Phil Forrest - A NASA/JSC Co-op student who hates being back at school :-(
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle