HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle thermal tiles
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:54:41 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <SHAFER.92Dec16174532@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>...The tiles are undamaged by
>snow and devastated by rain, with hail being not quite as bad as
>rain.  Of course you can cover the vehicle on the pad, but you can't
>fly through rain or hail without etching the tiles down to the felt
>pads they're glued to.

Anybody know if anything's been released on Buran's tile technology?
Allegedly the Buran tiles are not as long-lasting, but they're tougher.
A lot of people were surprised when the Soviets brought the first Buran
to the Paris air show -- flying it in atop a Mriya, straight through a
rainstorm.  (What *really* made jaws drop:  after landing, they got
directions to their parking place... and one million pounds of aircraft
turned off the runway and taxied across the *grass* to the right spot.
You won't see NASA's 747 doing that...)
-- 
"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: fisher@decwin.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Relay to follow Galileo?
Reply-To: fisher@decwin.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:32:01 GMT


It seems to me that there is a lot of stuff that people have not thought of 
regarding sending a TDRSS after Galileo.  For example, I'm not sure you can
just splice in an RTG in place of solar panels.  Are they the right voltage?
Power?  How about mass distribution and other dynamic considerations?  Are the
thrusters placed correctly now?

How about the thermal environment during the cruise and Jovian orbit?  TDRSS
was designed for the environment of Earth orbit (in particular, Clarke (geo-
synchronous) Earth orbit.

Someone already pointed out the Jupiter insertion burn may need to be higher
thrust/shorter duration than the station keeping engines can provide.  I
suppose
it is conceivable that the Apogee kick motor might be better suited, but I
doubt it given the relative gravity (and thus the incoming probe velocity) at
Jupiter.

Burns
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Aerospike engines/SSTO/DC-?
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:01:32 GMT


There has been a lot of speculation as to the reasons why the SDIO SSRT 
program  is not using the aerospike engine for propulsion as originally
envisioned by the SSTO proponents in the 60s and later.

I saw a summary of the report done by The Aerospace Co. for the Air Force on
the SSX proposal that was made by Max Hunter, et.al.  This proposal was
the one that lead to the SSRT program being started by SDIO.

A couple of caveats emerged concerning the SSX design that were felt to be
potential show stoppers in meeting the SSX goals, all related to the 
use of aerospike engines.  First, the "engine first" reentry profile 
required active cooling of the heat shield/engine plug assembly.  It was
felt that this complicated plumbing could be a nightmare to repair if
a leak developed and hindered access to part of the structure.  Since
low maintenance was a goal of SSX, this was considered a risk.  Second,
no aerospike engine of the size  proposed had ever been built, much
less tested.  This was also a risk, as "simple scaling" of rocket engines
is an oxymoron.  Third, the exact performance characteristics of
aerospike engines at high thrust and multiple altitudes are somewhat
unknown.  The aerospike work NASA had funded had limited data from
vacuum tests, concentrated on lower thrust engines (since the test
stands at Lewis? in the vacuum chambers can only evacuate a limited
amount of exhaust products).  Given the uncertainty about large aerospikes,
I'd agree that they are a risky choice with multiple points of failure. 
My opinion is that Marshall or Lewis ought to be working on them (as well
as ion engines, arcjets (although DOD may fly some soon), solar sails,
and nuclear thermal engines) right now, rather than only trying to tweak an
additional 3 Isp out of H2O2 engines. 

The study was cautiously favorable to SSX, recommending use of conventional
engines if possible, and watching weight margins carefully.  (The major
warning was that if the mass of the vehicle rose only slightly from
projections, the useful payload would be wiped out.  From what I have
seen, the DC-X team is very aware of this.)

I would also like to second Bill Higgins' call for the SSTO 
"discussion" to be calmed down a bit. There has been more heat than
light generated recently.  It is pointless to argue about what the
DC-? can or can't do at this point.  Let's watch the DC-X flight this
spring and lobby, lobby, lobby for more money.

-- 
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"
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: liquid fuels
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 19:27:09 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>What does the payload of the shuttle have to do with how screwed up the
>design of the SRB o-rings??? That is what caused the accident in the first
>place. Why would limiting payload perpellent make a difference???
>
>        -- Ryan Korniloff
>        -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu

   Ryan...
   
   After Challenger was lost, NASA reviewed the entire program (better
   late than never) and discovered a host of systems and procedures
   which had little, if any, backup safety measures. The O-rings were
   the first of many problems corrected during the 1986-88 downtime.
   Others were certain elements of the Main Engines and a potentially
   disastrous flaw in the LH2 fuel lines between the Shuttle and Tank.

   They also scrapped Shuttle-Centaur because the Centaur was too heavy
   for a safe landing in an emergency situation. There was no way to
   dump the Centaur's fuel safely in the time available before landing.
   
   -Brian
    
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:10:40 GMT

In article <71697@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>  Ryan...
>   
>  Galileo's umbrella-type High Gain Antenna was left in the folded
>  position because it was thought that the high temperatures it would
>  encounter during the Venus flyby portion of the mission could warp
>  the antenna. They attempted to open the antenna only after the Venus
>  flyby, when Galileo flew farther from the Sun. It was jammed.

JPL planned from the start to furl the HGA.  The original flight path
went straight to Jupiter with a broken-plane manuver in the middle.
The VEEGA path is a result of using the smaller IUS instead of a
Centaur.

>  Cassini, I think, will have a standard hard HGA, similar to the
>  Voyager and Magellan antennae. I hope the Galileo problem does not
>  prevent future spacecraft from using the folding antenna design. It
>  worked quite well on the TDRS satellites.
>  

True, and the test antenna for Galileo worked fine also.  I don't know
what the details are for Cassini though.  Is it still considered to
be Mariner Mk II or have they dumped that plan.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: wlmss@peg.pegasus.oz.au
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 14 Dec 92 23:19 EST
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Nf-ID: #R:peg:246900038:peg:246900039:000:960
Nf-From: peg.pegasus.oz.au!wlmss    Dec 14 23:19:00 1992


 
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?
 
If a relay is feasible the issue is the need to alert the uninformed wider
public to what is being lost. 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!
                                   ****                      Lawrie Williams
 
 
 
 


Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Laser Milestone Achieved
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Galileo, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:09:30 GMT

Dwayne C. Brown
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                             December 15, 1992
(Phone:  202/358-0547

James H. Wilson
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
(Phone:  818/354-5011)

RELEASE:  92-225

NASA LASER SPACE COMMUNICATIONS MILESTONE ACHIEVED

     A major milestone in space communications was achieved recently when 
NASA scientists successfully transmitted laser signals to the Galileo 
spacecraft at a distance of 1.3 million miles (2.2 million kilometers). 

	"This experiment is part of a program to show that future deep space 
missions can use laser beams to send back to Earth larger volumes of space-
acquired data than is currently possible using radio signals", said Dr. James 
Lesh, Principal Investigator at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, 
Calif.

	Laser beams were simultaneously transmitted to Galileo from a 24-
inch (61-centimeter-diameter) telescope at Table Mountain Observatory 
near Wrightwood, Calif., and a 60-inch (1.5-meter) telescope at the U.S. Air 
Force Phillips Laboratory's Starfire Optical Range near Albuquerque, N.M.  
The laser beams from both sites were detected by Galileo's onboard camera. 

	Called the Galileo Optical Experiment (GOPEX), the experiment began 
on Dec. 9 as Galileo flew by Earth on its way to Jupiter.  The experiment will 
continue through Dec. 16 when the distance of Galileo will be 3.7 million 
miles (6 million kilometers).

	The experiment is operated by the JPL Telecommunications and Data 
Acquisition Technology Development Office, with overall management 
responsibility by NASA's Office of Space Communications, Advanced Systems 
Program, Washington, D.C.
-end-
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in you life.
From: rjr@cupertino.Eng.Sun.COM (Bob Rocchetti)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mach 8+ Space/Spy Plane?
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:43:34 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rjr@cupertino.Eng.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: cupertino

>Popular Science magazine had a photograph of a "mysterious" contrail that
>looks like -+-+-+-+-+-+, and very thin compared to other trans-sonics.
>This was ?September 1992 (this year anyway)

I've seen this contrail.  It was on a north/south track out over the ocean
west and south of San Fransico, approx. August 1992.  The trail was well above
and further out to sea than the normal air traffic pattern that runs along the
west coast of the US.  The regularity of the pattern is what really stuck in
my mind.

At the time I thought it was the contrail from a Nasa modified U2 that
flies out of Moffet Field near San Jose.  The altitude seemed reasonable
for a U2.  The contrail was relatively close to a U2 base. The pulse pattern
is the only thing I can't explain.

Are there any known jet engines (military or commercial) that produce
a regularly pulsed contrail at high altitudes?  Could the pulsing just be
the result of a fuel saving modification to an old U2 engine?
---
Sun Technology Enterprises.	- SunPics Printer Imaging Group
bob.rocchetti@sun.com           - (415) 336-7541

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jfournie@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Jape)
Subject: Ephemeris satellite info
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: sci.space
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1992 19:00:32 GMT

Could someone explain what 'Mean anomoly' is when talking
about satellite ephemerous information?  How would one 
calculate such a thing?

Thanks.

JP Fournier

jfournier@descartes.waterloo.ca
From: peter.hunter@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Peter Hunter)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Launch vehicle photos
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au
Date: 15 Dec 92 09:15:52 GMT

As a supplement to a public domain database of spave launches, I would like
to add a collection of .GIF images of launch vehicles.
Is anyone aware of a similar collection of .GIF's already available?


--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World -Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Range Safety and DC-X
Date: 12 Dec 92 03:43:31 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <1992Dec7.164541.2299@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1992Dec6.234129.4336@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>>I just got back from the NSS Policy Committee. There I was told the
>>following interesting tidbit:  The DC-X will NOT have destruct charges
>>when it flies. They convinced the range safety people that they
>>simply wheren't needed.

>With the glide characteristics of a bullet, and a max altitude of 30,000
>feet, and White Sands being a *big* empty place, I can see why. 50 cal
>machinegun bullets can travel higher, and they don't use destruct charges
>on them either. It's the ones that can climb a 100 miles you've got to
>watch.

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 ~53,000
feet - we regularly get FAA waivers to 100,000. Flights to ~20,000 are becoming
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 :-). 

		Paul
-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
Use up your Quayle jokes now while they're still good "Quayle for Pres. in '94"
     Q: Why is Marilyn Quayle like Marion Barry?
     A: They both suck a little dope.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: spacecamp
Date: 13 Dec 1992 17:53:35 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
NNTP-Posting-Host: b1230bmac9.larc.nasa.gov

As far as I know there are two space-camps one in Huntsville (which 
is the biggeste one) and another in Florida near KSC. I guess that they 
have another one in Kansas but I am not sure.

 claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Relay to follow Galileo?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:44:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.143201.10326@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, fisher@decwin.enet.dec.com () writes...
> 
>It seems to me that there is a lot of stuff that people have not thought of 
>regarding sending a TDRSS after Galileo.  For example, I'm not sure you can
>just splice in an RTG in place of solar panels.  Are they the right voltage?
>Power?  How about mass distribution and other dynamic considerations?  Are the
>thrusters placed correctly now?

One other consideration is that the satellite would have to be radiation
hardened to survive in the strong radiation belts surrounding Jupiter. 
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in you life. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff)
Subject: Re: liquid fuels
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 03:26:37 GMT

What does the payload of the shuttle have to do with how screwed up the
design of the SRB o-rings??? That is what caused the accident in the first
place. Why would limiting payload perpellent make a difference???

        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu
From: avkats@azbuka.kharkov.ua (Aleksandr V. Kats)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Private Phisical Inst. seeks collaboration in different forms and directions
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:21:38 +0300
Distribution: world
Organization: INFOCOM LTD, Ltd.
Reply-To: avkats@azbuka.kharkov.ua

                           Dear Sir,
            Works of  private little venture Eco-Energy Institute are
       directed in general for ecology clean  possibility  of  energy
       production, conservation and utilisation.
            We are interested in collaboration,  the orders  of  some
       criogenic devices and osonators, and joint investigations.
            Suppose, that it is reasonable to  have  the  discussions
       and   meetings   with   investigators,  working  in  following
       directions:
       1. NASA  programs  of  metastable  helium  states (MHS)  as a
       rocket propellant   and   of   moon   He3   utilisation,   MHS
       manufacturing, conservation and utilisation.
       2. Weakly  bound  species: helides, rare  gas - hydrogen - and
       carbohydryde clusters, now wellknown foullerens,for example,
       - the manufacturing of its.
       3. Ozone generation, conservation and utilization.
          All theese ones may be used as energy accumulated species,
       but not only, ofcourse .
       4. The plasmoreactor methods of hydrogen from water and H2S
       production.
       5. Scintilators for nuclear and cosmic radiation detecting -
       some unusual methods of manufacturing, examination and testing.
       6. Mathematical modelling of dust ewolution and grouing in air
       on the base of Smoluhovsky  equations.
          We are interested to take part in the experimental work on
       the base of US organisations in all this fields.
          In all this directions  we have ideas,  know-hows,  skill,
       experience, patents.
          Now the negotiations, concerning 4 and 5 items, with some
       US Universities are in progress.

          We would like to have grants and other forms of collaboration
       for our researchers, working in this directions.


                S.Y.
                D. Myshkis,
                Director of Eco-Energy Institute
                Ph.D, Mb.of RAN Commitee for
                Energy Accumulating Species  Using

                Ukraine, 310103, Kharkow,
                ul.Kosmonavtov,5A/77.
                tel.+7-(057)-2-727666
                fax +7-(057)-2-324677

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:38:22 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <71784@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>  About a year ago, I posted a message asking why NASA did not begin a
>  quick-and-dirty conversion to one of the TDRS satellites...

It would have made sense.  But the NASA budget has very little elasticity.
To fit a new program into it, even a relatively small one, you have to
push hard and persistently over a long period of time.  It simply isn't
geared to react quickly to a crisis, unless you can convince Congress to
do something special (e.g. the package-deal funding for Endeavour).
-- 
"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: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:37:33 GMT

In article <BzD2K2.A24@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>>Last I heard they're
>>>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
>>>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.
>
>Also, for purposes of this discussion, the difference between cost and
>price is relevant.  It's not as if they had any competition; they can,
>and probably do, set prices far above their costs.

	Hmm, I just did a BOE calculation and figure a NASA astronaut costs
about 1.6 Million an hour (not including training or on-ground costs).

	Given a figure of $500 Million a flight, useful work can be:
10 hours/day * 6 astronauts * 5 days = 300 hours.  Divide this into the
above number nd you get $1.6 Million.  If this is a EDO flight of 10
days, your on-orbit costs drop in half.  So, I'd assume that 
the CIS is trying to make a little money.

	However, they can only charge what the market will bear, even
if they are the only game in town.  I'f I have to pay $5 Million an
hour, I just might wait for a cheaper way to come along.

>-- 
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry