HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: D-21 recon drones 
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:47:42 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 <BzBLt4.Aq4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>Kelly Johnson claims that SR-71 (and its siblings) would have been 
>competitive with F-15 and B-1 programs but they were kept out by political 
>considerations.

The YF-12A was a very capable interceptor, but didn't have the 
maneuverability to be an air-superiority fighter.

The RS-71 (as it was originally designated) was competitive with
the reconnaissance/strike (RS-70) version of the B-70 Valkyrie.
However, it does not have low-altitude capability of the B-1.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: Greek jet engine (Was: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:46:44 GMT


In article <1992Dec16.225049.6900@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.192257.3321@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> grasso@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A) writes:
>>In article 26326, (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>
>>>I think the ancient Greeks, who built a working jet engine,
>>>lived a little more than 50 years ago.
>>
>>Interesting. Would you care to elaborate?
>
>Described briefly, it was a container of water that was heated.  There was an exhaust
>that, when the water was converted to steam, provided a small jet action.  The 
>apparatus was rigged to rotate.

Imagine a sphere, mounted on an axle.  Place a nozzle perpendicular to the
axle, fill the sphere with water and light a fire underneath.  If the nozzle is 
L shaped, you can make the sphere spin.  The porblem is, if the water is not
hot enough when it starts to spin, the rig will stall at the bottom, water will
gush out and kill the fire.  We built one in my high school physics class.

There is some dispute as to whether such a device was ever built, or just
theorized (I believe it was attributed to Aristotle, but so was everything
else  :-).
>
>The device is impressive intellectually but develops very little real power.
>-- 
>Chuck Divine
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     |"Pacts with the devil are not legally
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |binding!"
PADI DM-54909                     |-Friar Tuck   _Robin Hood:The Hooded Man_

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:35:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.204050.10734@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.171055.24364@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>>The current head of Space Command ran the air war against Iraq and was
>>>hampered by lack of access to satellite images. A vehicle with DC's
>>>turnaround time is just what he needs.
>
>>This puzzles me somewhat. DC would allow a short notice launch of a LEO
>>satellite, but such satellites have very short, and fixed, looks at a
>>given combat theatre. If would seem to me that recon aircraft are still
>>a better choice for tactical recon. 
>
>for many applications satellite is better. Recon aircraft are too easy
>to shoot down (especially when doing Bomb Dammage Assessments). In addition,
>every aircraft in the theatre needs services for takeoff, landing, refueling,
>jamming, defense suppression, ATC, fighter cover, and others. Every recon
>sortie you fly looses you a sortie for CAP, bombing, or whatever. In 
>addition, satellite images can be made available sooner and are far fresher
>than photos taken from aircraft.

We're talking about Iraq right? No air opposition right? Complete Coalition
domination of the airspace right? SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything
Iraq had right? After 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
SR71 right? Why think Iraq could? What can a satellite do for tactical
recon that a SR71 can't?

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 10:44:41 GMT

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

>You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).

Could somebody provide data ?
-
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Scud Missile technology
Date: 11 Dec 92 18:27:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.sf_Kcpy00WB7JV1GRo
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

My, I do seem to have a talent for getting people all animated. It
happens that I remember paper tape quite well (though not in an
aerospace context or even a mylarized context), and none of my memories
suggest reliability. And I'm not that hard to please either. I *LIKED*
current loop ;)

But hey fellas! Can't we still be friends an' all?

-Larry (I'm friendly! See! Look! I'm smiling! :) :) :) Curcio
From: ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Apollo laser disk
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au
Date: 15 Dec 92 19:11:24 GMT


Can anyone  help on the location of a NTSC CAV format
laser disk called "Apollo". Its supposed to cantain just about every moment
of the Apollo lunar space walks and other stuff. If you have a suppliers
address I  greatly appreciate it.

ta
Ralph Buttigieg

--- Maximus 2.01wb
 * Origin: Vulcan's World-Sydney Australia 02 635-1204 (3:713/635)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Aurora
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:38:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.101613.7808@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <STEINLY.92Dec16152132@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>>Nah, not isolated enough, rumour seems to be that the forward
>>base is a US NATO base in Scotland. 
>
>How about Greenland? The USAF "says" they recently closed three
>forward bases, but who's going to go look?
>
>Gary

	I'll go, I'll go.  Come on guys, how about sponsoring the 
great 1993 Aurora Fact0Finding Tour... :-)  I'm looking forward to
spending some time in the winter wonderland. 


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Keywords: Galileo, Jupiter, Ames, JPL
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:03:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.001338.17602@cc.umontreal.ca> dignard@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Michel Dignard) writes:
...stuff deleted...
>Does this means that the HGA has finally deployed, or the efforts have been
>abandonned?

It's hasn't deployed.  JPL plans to begin hammering the antenna soon.
Hopefully  this combined with the higher spacecraft temperature will
make the difference.

--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 17:10:11 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <zgm2yh@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>In article <71783@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>> has the RMS. No RMS scheduled? Add it to a mission and then add SVS.
>	This would work except for one major requirement of the SVS, a
>clear payload so that visibility and movement wasn't hindered.


Here seems a stupid one?

SVS needed a clear payload bay in order to test full arm extension.???

Now when a satellitte is carried up, it is inside some shrouds and often
a turntable spinner.  Also bigger payloads are on racks.

Why not towards the last day of flight,  EVA two astronauts and jettision
the miscellaneous hardware.?  sure it's sapce junk,  but they could
wrap it all together on some cables and deploy a large mylar drdrogue
shield so it's radar visible and has high atmospheric drag.  it should come
down in a few years, if the drag is sufficient.

any guesses?
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: "trivial engineering"
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:30:40 GMT


-From: lindsay+@cs.cmu.edu (Donald Lindsay)
-Subject: Re: "trivial engineering"
-Date: 13 Dec 92 18:44:39 GMT
-Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

-roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
->Somebody (I think it was Goldin) commented recently on a jet engine
->company's recent design of the new engine. The design process cost
->something around a billion dollars - they hope to sell enough to pay off
->the design cost in 20 years. And it wasn't a radical new design

I believe my post was in response to an argument that since designing a new
engine for a comercial airliner (and establishing its reliability) is so
easy, that therefore designing and proving a new rocket engine ought to be
pretty easy too. I was pointing out that designing a new jet engine
*isn't* particularly easy.

-Surely, a commercial jet is harder to develop? For a jet, fuel
-efficiency is now crucial, but that's probably at the point of
-diminishing returns. 

I mentioned that later in the post. There doesn't seem to be any clear
indication that launcher design has reached the point of sharply diminishing
marginal returns (at least if one is willing to challenge some of the
old assuptions).

-Plus, the jet has to be tested across a large
-parameter space - different throttle settings (including idle),
-different air densities, humidity (and rain), bird ingestion.

-I would assume that a rocket engine has slightly different problems
-(full tanks vs empty, acceleration vs liftoff, air vs vaccuum) but
-that the parameter space is smaller?

Testing is a good point, but I don't think testing rocket engines is
exactly trivial either. Remember that the DC engines are supposed to
be throttleable, restartable, and not require much maintenance between
uses. There are certain features of both types of engines that *can't* be
tested except in actual flight, and even then the results may not be
fully understood. For instance, during the first minute or so of a Shuttle
launch, strange flickering flames generally play over the aft portion of
the launcher, outside of the main exhaust paths. Last I heard, nobody 
could definitely explain the exact mechanism by which these flames form.
About all they can say with reasonable confidence is that they don't seem
to hurt anything. I suspect that testing a big rocket engine in actual
flight is much more expensive than testing a big jet engine in actual flight
(just bolt it onto a multi-engine aircraft in place of one of the existing
engines).

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.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker)
Subject: Re: Orbit Question?
Organization: Me, at The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:52:15 GMT

In article <92343.084750TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> <TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>The trajectories of the russian com-sats are called Molnyia or Tundra
>trajectories. They are highly inclined and do one rev in 12 or 24 hours.
>
>where the node is placed above the equator. They are spending halftime of
>a rev either above each hemisphere.
>Regards
>         -Thorsten-

The perigee of Molinyas is 100 miles (at least one of them.)  The apogee is
just under the Clarke Orbit's height.

The result is an orbit of exactly twelve hours.  Um ... not to be picky, but
they spend only about a half an hour south of the equator, and the other
11 and a half north of it.  Very efficient.  I wonder why the Canadians 
don't lease time on the CIS's satellites?

tombaker
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:30:28 GMT

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

There was no reason to expect the HGA deployment to fail since the same  
design had unfurled flawlessly on several previous TDRSS comsats.
 
Some have suggested that excessive storage times and mechanical vibration 
associated with hauling Galileo back and forth between KSC and JPL caused
a loss of lubricant in one of deployment mechanisms... 
 
I don't know off hand what the gain of the HGA it could be estimated using
the expression

                         G = 4 n pi A
                             --------
                               l^2
 
where n is the efficiency of the aperture illumination (typically about 0.7),
A is the physical area of the aperture (= pi r^2), and l is the wavelength.
 
One would be hard-pressed to replace the antenna with an efficient and reliable
high power amplifier with similar gain, to say the least.

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Breeder reactors...
Date: 20 Dec 92 16:52:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzKHM2.8D3.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


\bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:

/>Speaking of breeder reactors, why doesn't the U.S. have more of
\>them?

/Because they're too damn dangerous.

\Zack Sessions
/sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
\University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
/"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."

Same reason we don't have automobiles, eh?

There isn't anything inherently dangerous about breeders. It's
just that there are a bunch of lobotomized idiots out there
who are more concerned with making policy than actually knowing
anything about nuclear physics.

Of course, these same people have prevailed upon the government
to ban nuclear fuel recycling. I had a hard time trying to
convince a friend of my dad's the other day that there was a
solution to the nuclear waste problem, and the gubbimint, "will
ofthepeeble" (or the feeble minded) had _banned_ a way to reduce
the "dangerousawfulearthdestroyingnucularwaste" problem by a
couple orders of magnitude.

-- 
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:22:52 GMT

In article <ewright.724441300@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>If, instead of building the XP-59, we had embarked on a long research
>program like the X-30, the first US jet aircraft would have flown
>sometime after the Korean War.  Meanwhile, Russian MiGs would been
>blasting our Mustangs out of the sky.  

Actually there were Mustang Aces in the Korean War. Tackling a Mustang
in a Mig-15 wasn't easy since the Mustang could consistently turn inside
the Mig. The one thing a Mustang couldn't do was pursue a fleeing Mig.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Saturn costs, shuttle costs...
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 03:35:33 GMT


\   In any case this is all apples-vs-oranges... More informative numbers 
/would be to compare inflation adjusted development costs of various NASA
\programs to DCX, DCY...  The key though is not to compare just the Shuttle,
/try to find programs with similar scopes, and complexities. Perhaps 
\the LM, Gemini, the Dryden Center's experiments with flying bodies (from what 
/I've read, one of NASA's more cost effective programs, the result of
\being a local initiative without a lot of official support or oversite),
/and the X-15 (although primarily an Air Force project). Anyone have any 
\numbers, and care to risk eternal flames for posting them?

/Henry Worth
\No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.

This account will be going away soon and I don't know when I'll get
back, but I'll put in some ideas I had anyway (and dare people to
try to flame me ;-)

1) What are the incremental costs of launching a) a Saturn V, and
b) A Shuttle Orbiter?

Keep in mind, they use the same VAB, the same launch pads, crawlers
etc... how many people did it take to launch each one?

2) What is the cost of manufacturing a Saturn V (sans payload) vs.
the cost of remanufacturing a shuttle (combined with the amortization
costs on that specific orbiter's purchase alone?)

How much could the Saturn launch to leo compared to the Shuttle?

Wickedly yours,

Phil
-- 
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
PGP key available if and when I ever get around to compiling PGP...
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:14:41 GMT

In article <71781@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

> That it can be done, I am more or less with you. (But I fully expect
> a design problem or two to slow things down...) That it can be done
> at the price you quote, that's another story. Say I'm from Missouri.
> Show me.

I and others are working very hard to do exactly that.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: haw30@macaw.ccc.amdahl.com (Henry A Worth)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 18 Dec 92 21:14:31 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <ewright.724698268@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
> onvex.convex
> Sender: usenet@news.eng.convex.com (news access account)
> Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
> Lines: 21
> Nntp-Posting-Host: bach.convex.com
> 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 <BzDKw5.3no@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> 
> >HE indulged in creative accounting?  I think the contract for DC-X was $58 
> >million, not a "couple hundred million."  
> 
> That sounds right.  McDAC has also spent some of its own money in
> addition to what it got from the Air Force.  I believe the contract
> required McDAC to spend at least an equal amount, so that puts it
> into the hundred-million-dollar range.  *Not* the billion-dollar
> range.
>  
> 
> >The average total cost of a shuttle mission is a little over $500 million 
> >not a billion+.
> 
> Only if you learned math from the "Hitchhiker's Guide."
> 
> Divide the amount of money NASA spends on the Space Shuttle program
> every year by six flights per year.
> 
> $500 million ain't even close.

   What NASA quotes as Shuttle costs is their idea of "direct operating costs".
This leaves out a lot of the Shuttle program's other indirect or overhead 
costs including development and overhaul costs. Since NASA doesn't have to
answer to the IRS and Congress is interested in program costs, they have 
a lot of flexibilty to define direct and indirect as they wish :-)  
As a result, no one really knows how much the Shuttle costs and
we have to endure this never ending debate on the net.


   In any case this is all apples-vs-oranges... More informative numbers 
would be to compare inflation adjusted development costs of various NASA
programs to DCX, DCY...  The key though is not to compare just the Shuttle,
try to find programs with similar scopes, and complexities. Perhaps 
the LM, Gemini, the Dryden Center's experiments with flying bodies (from what 
I've read, one of NASA's more cost effective programs, the result of
being a local initiative without a lot of official support or oversite),
and the X-15 (although primarily an Air Force project). Anyone have any 
numbers, and care to risk eternal flames for posting them?

--
Henry Worth
No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary