HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Autoland test cancelled?
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:39:28 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

In article <1992Sep15.151601.24638@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> begley%lock.dnet@jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov (Mike Begley) writes:
>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 wholeheartedly disagree.  A test of the system is necessary to place
enough confidence in the system to allow for its use.  Those who do not
trust it enough to test will not allow a 90-day orbiter with it, or with-
out it.  Remember, you heard it here first.

>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!  :-)

Didn't I tell you?  :)

In all due respect, this is one of the nuttiest ideas I've heard in a
long time.  This essentially ties up two orbiters where one would do.
NASA has neither the money nor the orbiter resources to afford this.
Further, the docking ports on the lab and hab modules are too close
together to allow simultaneous docking, so either an EVA crew transfer
or the Space Shuttle Shuffle is required to make the transfer.  Enter-
taining, but not a wise use of resources.

Might I add, is EXACTLY the type of thing Autoland was developed to avoid.
Ground test it thoroughly, SAIL it, flight test it with a fresh crew (to
take over in the case of failure) so you have the confidence to pursue 
90-day ops.

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: pd@sics.se (Per Danielsson)
Subject: Re: Crew separation for safety
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science
	<1992Aug4.194627.20616@cbnews.cb.att.com> <125@herman.gem.valpo.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:47:58 GMT

In article <125@herman.gem.valpo.edu> someone was quoted to have written:

>The idea of a seperate and separatable crew compartment has had
>merit in the past.  Of the three stacks mentioned above, [Mercury,
>Gemini and Apollo /PD] only Apollo had any way to get the crew free -
>the escape rocket tower.

The Mercury had an escape rocket tower, and the Gemini had ejection
seats.
--
Per Danielsson				pd@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science, PO Box 1263, S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Where can shuttle be seen?
From: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov (Fred McKenzie)
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:10:41 EST
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Distribution: world
Organization: NASA/Kennedy Space Center, Florida

I received this follow-up via E-Mail, and thought it would be best to
re-post here:

Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 12:55:35 -0500
From: wkristle@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bill Kristler)
Message-Id: <9209141755.AA16053@sage.cc.purdue.edu>
To: fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Where can shuttle be seen?
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Cc: 

The programs stsplus and stsorbit can be obtained from ames.arc.nasa.gov
via
anonymous ftp. These programs will show you real time location of the
shuttle
on a world map. It's sort of like the display on Nasa select, but not with
near
the detail. They run on a PC clone and require a 2 line kepler, which are
usually posted on sci.space.news news group. I believe there under the 
/pub/SPACE/programs diectory, but don't quote me on that.
Bill

-- 
* I must create a System, or                * Bill Kristler    
* be enslaved by another Man's              *    Internet:      
* I will not Reason and Compare:            * wkristle@sage.cc.purdue.edu
* my business is to Create.  -William Blake * Packet: n9lwh@k9iu.in.usa.na 
---------------------------------------

P.S.
I've tried STSORBIT, which is a very good program.  However, I wasn't able
to get it to print a listing of upcoming passes.  There may be a newer
version by now, so its worth a try.

fred-mckenzie@ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: ggmar@news.duc.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: Question
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 07:25:10 GMT

In article <22355@galaxy.ucr.edu>, starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
> Could anyone let me know how to get patches from the different space
> shuttle missions.  I was given a couple and passed them onto my daughter
> who would like to start a collection.
> 
> Aaron Greenwood
> email starbuck@ucrac1.ucr.edu

The Alabama Space & Rocket Center (home of Space Camp) sells the whole
range of NASA Space Shuttle patches. I can't find their 1-800 number right
now, but the Satellite Gift Shop phone number is (205) 837-3400. However,
their prices are at a premium, since the Space and Rocket Center is one
of Alabama's tourist attractions. Anyway, they have a whole catalog
of space-themed clothing (Space Gear).

You might also check out a recent issue of Air & Space/Smithsonian. I
believe there's a company that specializes in NASA mission patch sales.
It always seems strange that patches are sold, but stickers of the mission
patches aren't, since the stickers have higher-resolution images.
-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald G. Marfoe                    |"Mirabile visu. Mirabilia/Et itur ad astra
InterNet: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu    |... Suus cuique mos. Suum cuique.../
          ggmar@ducvax.auburn.edu   |Memento, terrigena./Memento, vita brevis."
          ggmar@hoshi.colorado.edu  |- "Afer Ventus", Enya, "Shepherd Moons"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Re: is this the 50th space shuttle launch?
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:03:20 GMT


In article <564@rml.UUCP>, Jack Hagerty writes:

>GT-6 was originally an Agena rendezvous mission that was aborted
>at T+1 seconds due to an umbilical that came out early (auto shutdown
>after engine start). It took nerves of steel on the part of Tom
>Stafford not to hit the ejection button while sitting on top of
>all those hpergolic propellants!

> Jack


Actually, Wally Schirra was command pilot, not Tom Stafford.  

Also, the correct expression would be "pull the D-ring" not hit
the ejection button" although the effect is the same!!
 
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: lind@eng.umd.edu (Charles A. Lind)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Still on the X-30
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:11:36 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: lind@valkyrie.eng.umd.edu


In article <1992Sep7.172550.21964@tamsun.tamu.edu>, glp7584@tamuts.tamu.edu (Gordon Lee Powell Jr) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.223615.21246@netlabs.com> lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug27.021252.4459@nntp.uoregon.edu> ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu (Gregg Giles) writes:
>>:    [re: SSTO minimal payload]
>>:    Sure, the first version of such a vehicle would probably have a small
>>: payload capacity. But think about this: the Wright brothers couldn't take
>>: much with them, either. Now we have the C5 Galaxy. Think about it. :-)
>>THINK about it?  How depressing.  I don't like thinking about things
>>that will take 70 years to do, if your analogy holds...
>
>I think the advance of technology is not considered to be a linear
>process.  
>
>Perhaps at an exponential rate, it won't take quite that long.
>
>Gordon L. Powell, Jr. '89            glp7584@zeus.tamu.edu (VMS on VAX 9000)
>Aero Engr  Texas A&M Univ.           gordon@aero.tamu.edu (D. U. on S. C.)
>Oh well, some people can flame in a nitrogen environment.--Les Earnest
>

	I think one must define technology before one states how technology
has increased.  For if I define techology as measured by the velocity
of a non-rocket powered vehicle with time, then clearly technology has
increased at an exponential rate. Starting with the wright flyer @ ~ 31mph
in 1903, the P-51 @ ~450 mph in 1942, F-102 @ ~850 mph in 1956, and
the F-15 @ ~2000 mph in about 1970, this is an exponential growth. If
one considers rocket power, say Bell XS-1, X-15, Gemini, Apollo, then
the exponential rate of growth is even greater.
	In addition, if one considers altitude as a measure of technology,
the growth is about linear.

(NOTE: See John Anderson's book, Introduction to Flight, 2nd Ed., Figures
	1.27 & 1.28 for the source of my information)

Charles Lind
Dept. of Aerospace Eng.
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
From: cole@SAMSON.phys.virginia.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: NASA Select madness
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:50:14 GMT
Reply-To: cole@SAMSON.phys.virginia.edu
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Virginia

Wouldn't it be great if the geniuses who run NASA Select 
would occasionally let us see some live video instead
of these countless replays repeated over and over?  And
to top it off they scramble the live feed from White Sands
and justify with a highly dubious claim of the need to
privacy.  I think the killer bees and fire ants are finally
inside the MOCR.

L.C. Smith
Earlysville, Va.
From: whitten@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: To view or not to view ...
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:41:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <2AA3F8C2.16642@ics.uci.edu>, cdibble@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Clifford Thomas Dibble) writes:
> How far away is the viewing area from the shuttle's launch pad?
> Is it worth going all the way to Florida to view a launch? I'd
> appreciate any travel tips or advice. Thanks in advance.
> 
> Cliff Dibble
> cdibble@bonnie.ics.uci.edu
-- 

Along the same lines, I have a GAS Can on STS-47, and will be attending
the launch as a guest-- I assume with the other experimenters.  I've
been debating with some of the other experimenters whether we would
be sitting in the grandstands located at the "press area" or along
the water where I saw most of the bleachers.

thanks,
chris
==============================================================================
 WHITTEN@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU                  Chris Whittenburg, N0TWA
 WHITTEN@UKANVAX.bitnet              Univ. of Kansas - Electrical Engineering
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Subject: Re: To view or not to view ...
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:52:39 GMT

In article <2AA3F8C2.16642@ics.uci.edu> cdibble@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Clifford Thomas Dibble) writes:
>How far away is the viewing area from the shuttle's launch pad?
>Is it worth going all the way to Florida to view a launch? I'd
>appreciate any travel tips or advice. Thanks in advance.
>
>Cliff Dibble
>cdibble@bonnie.ics.uci.edu

The short answer is YES!  It's worth it to see a launch.  I've seen 4
so far (STS-4, STS-41D, STS-29, and STS-50).  All but the STS-29 launch
I saw from the viewing area, and these were all LC-39A launches.  
I saw STS-29 from the side of the road in Cocoa Beach, on SR 528, I
believe.  I'm not sure of the distance from pad to viewing site; I
think it's in the 4-6 mile range.  The launch is QUITE spectacular
naked-eye, binoculars are even better.  The best launch for watching
was STS-41D, where I had a 35mm camera with a 400mm Telephoto lens and
*2* lens doublers on it, giving me an effective 1600 mm lens.  Basically,
I watched the launch through a small telescope - I got good shots of SRB sep
with the thing.  (I'd use ASA 400 next time, though, instead of 1000).

You do need to get a Vehicle Pass for a launch - you can call the
KSC PIO (Public Information Office) at (305) 867-2622 for info on launches
and cut-off dates for requests.  You need to send a written request in for 
a pass before the cutoff to
            PIO (Car Passes)
            PA-PASS
            KSC, FL  32899
and tell them which launch you want.  You can get one pass per request.

As an aside - for the STS-50 launch - we were in Florida on our honeymoon
that week, and were too late to request passes from KSC.  Thanks to all
on the internet for their offers of help - we were home in DC for ONE DAY 
between our Michigan wedding and our Florida honeymoon (we drove), and a
launch pass showed up in our mailbox on that one day.  My wife had never
seen a launch before, and was impressed.  (I guess I'm getting jaded - 
all other launches had been through crystal-clear skies, and this time
there was a pretty solid cloud deck at 8,000 feet or so.  The shuttle was
gone through the cloud deck before the sound reached us.  I'm amazed they
were able to launch at all ...)

Hope you get the idea.  *I'm* willing to drive 22 hours straight through
from Ann Arbor, Michigan to see a launch.  (Nice thing about having moved to 
DC - it's only a 17 hour drive!)  But I'm told I'm an unusual case ...
 


 

-- 
Mike Heney                |                                  |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |     * Will Work for Money *      |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |                                  |

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: rdkjonaa@nyx.cs.du.edu (Richard Kjonaas)
Subject: Why?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 07:35:15 GMT


What is the reason that the shuttle never comes through the atmosphere
over the USA? They had at one time planned a night landing in Fla. The
shuttle would have "broke"through over Grand Forks N.D. Why have they not
done that yet?? Don't use the broke window excuse either. :^)

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: aroe@jarthur.claremont.edu (Grand PoohBah of HMC Goon Squad)
Subject: Space-durable materials
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:21:32 GMT


Hiya!

I'm working on a pet research project out here concerning a possible space
application, and I'm wondering if someone (probably NASA) has a published
list of "OK Materials" which have been tested to be space-realizable (won't
deteriorate rapidly) and if so, how can I get one?  

Thanks,

	Andy
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: is this the 50th space shuttle launch?
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:50:38 GMT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)

In article <564@rml.UUCP>, jack@rml (jack hagerty) writes:
>In article <phfrom.283@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
>>
>>This is not so unusual: Also Gemini 7 was launched before Gemini 6 in Dec 65.
>
>Yes, but the *tried* to launch GT-6 ahead of GT-7. 
>
>GT-6 was originally an Agena rendezvous mission that was aborted
>at T+1 seconds due to an umbilical that came out early (auto shutdown
>after engine start). It took nerves of steel on the part of Tom
>Stafford not to hit the ejection button while sitting on top of
>all those hpergolic propellants!

GT-6 was scrubbed due to its Agena target failing to achieve orbit.  It was
recycled as GT-6A, and an attempt was made to launch it 9 days after the launch
of Gemini 7 (this took fast work, since they used the same pad).  This launch,
as you say, was aborted after engine start but before liftoff when an umbilical
shook loose.  While I'm not questioning Stafford's nerves, Wally Schirra was
the spacecraft commander, and the decision not to abort was his.  Several days
later, they did launch successfully, and carried out the first space
rendezvous.  (In between the abortive and successful liftoffs, an inspection
turned up a dustcap in some of the booster's plumbing, where it had remained
undetected for months.  Reports I recall at the time say that launching with
this in place would have led to a post-launch abort, from which, of course,
there would have been no chance to try again.  Stafford never did get to dock
with an Agena.  He was commander of the Gemini 9 mission, whose Agena also
failed to achieve orbit.  NASA had prepared for this eventuality, and launched
a docking target in its place.  THAT target's nose fairing failed to deploy
properly (the angry alligator), so once again he had to settle for a rendezvous
with no docking.  His luck changed for the better with Apollo 10 and the ASTP
missions.)
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu (Gerald George Marfoe)
Subject: STS-47 Launch Weather Forecast, 9/10/92
Reply-To: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:11:39 GMT

(Forwarded from NASA Spacelink BBS.)
---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald G. Marfoe                    |"Mirabile visu. Mirabilia/Et itur ad astra
InterNet: gmarfoe@eng.auburn.edu    |... Suus cuique mos. Suum cuique.../
          ggmar@ducvax.auburn.edu   |Memento, terrigena./Memento, vita brevis."
          ggmar@hoshi.colorado.edu  |- "Afer Ventus", Enya, "Shepherd Moons"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



L-2 DAYS STS-47 WEATHER 
 
FROM: George H. Diller

Weather Forecast for STS-47
Forecast prepared on L-2 day
Thursday, 9/10/92

Synopsis: An upper level low pressure trough and a weak frontal boundary 
will be over the Florida peninsula. The influence of a surface high 
pressure system centered over the Great Lakes will bring generally easterly
winds in eastern Florida.

During the launch window from 10:23 a.m. - 2:17 p.m. on Saturday,
September 12, the conditions are forecast to be:

Clouds:

2,500-5,000 scattered cumulus 
40% sky coverage

25,000-28,000 scattered cirrus
50% sky coverage
 
Visibility: 7 miles or greater

Wind - Pad 39B:  E at 8 to 12 knots

Temperature:  84 degrees at window open, 88 by window close.

Dewpoint:     74 degrees

Humidity:     72% at window open, 69% by window close.

Precipitation: chance of showers
 
Probability of launch weather criteria violation: 20%
Probability of tanking constraint violation:       5%

Chance of violation at launch time on Sunday:   20%
                                      tanking:   5%

Chance of violation at launch time on Monday :  20%
                                      tanking:   5%

Developed by Cape Canaveral Forecast Facility, USAF
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:29:45 EDT
From: <PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Still on the X-30
 <1992Aug27.021252.4459@nntp.uoregon.edu> <1992Aug27.223615.21246@netlabs.com>
 <1992Sep7.172550.21964@tamsun.tamu.edu> <1992Sep08.121136.27080@eng.umd.edu>

Moot point.  If the rate of technology development isn't exponential, the cost
of technology development is.

-- Phil
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: is this the 50th space shuttle launch?
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:38:11 GMT

Mission #100 by year 2000?
Would require 6 per year.
With no new methods of transport in the serious funding stage, and long
development times, this is pretty much it for the rest of the century.
Maybe Congress would approve a new shuttle every five or so years to update
technology and replace old or destroyed ones.
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Re : Atlantis
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:33:29 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY

In article <1992Sep10.140934.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>The extended duration mods that Atlantis is getting do NOT include plumbing for
>the EDO pallet.  All extended or long duration flights that Atlantis will be
>making it will do attached to the space station.

How does this extended duration kit differ from the EDO mods?  How long can
Atlantis stay at Freedom with and without the kit?  At what point will SSF
be able to support these extended flights -- at MTC?  Are these just going
to be utilization flights, or can some of the manned-base flights use this
capability as well?

>on-going discussion as to whether it would be best to relocate the current
>airlock in the payload bay (about 4 months of work) or to install a Russian
>airlock and fly with two airlocks (lots of extra weight but probably much
>cheaper to install).

Weight doesn't appear too critical (from an outsider's view) until we get to
the space station construction flights.  Then it becomes very critical.
Could the Russian airlock be installed now and have the other one removed
at the next OMDP -- right before the manned-base flights begin?

>OV-102 had its OMDP following its 11th flight and has the next one scheduled
>following its 17th flight (STS-66).  OV-103 will finish its OMDP at the end
>of the month, while OV-104 will be going to Palmdale next month to begin its
>first OMDP.  Many of the OMDP requirements, with the exception of most of the
>structural inspections, will probably be performed on OV-105 following its 5th
>or 6th flight.

Why is Atlantis taking so much longer than Discovery for its OMDP?  I noticed
on Ken's manifest that Atlantis is not scheduled to return to the flight
rotation for another year-and-a-half.  Discovery was in and out in 10 months.

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: cj4@stc10.ctd.ornl.gov (Julie Choate)
Subject: A Spacelab? Landing at KSC?
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:20:09 GMT

One question:

Why is STS-47 landing at KSC with a "heavy" Spacelab?  Back in my day at KSC
('85 to '89), landing an orbiter loaded with a Spacelab on the "We just don't
have much margin" concrete runway was a no-no.

Just curious,

Julie Choate
cj4@stc10.ctd.ornl.gov 
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: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 20:48:09 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          92257.58333333  .00075744  00000-0  25599-3 0    51
2 22120  56.9960 103.0456 0008624 282.6993 324.3532 15.89350753   178
-- 
Dr TS Kelso                           Assistant Professor of Space Operations
tkelso@afit.af.mil                    Air Force Institute of Technology