HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: SR-1 (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 18:21:08 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.204050.10734@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>>Using DC itself as a recon platform
>>>seems like serious overkill, 
>>
>>Not DC itself. DC simply launches the satellite.

>Actually, why not DC itself?  It's the ultimate recon aircraft:  pictures
>of any location in the world (weather permitting) within an hour of takeoff,
>operation far beyond conventional SAM envelopes, and no need for vulnerable
>and costly forward operating bases.

And since the payload integration is modular you can stick in sensor packages
at will to compensate for the clouds or night over the target.

>You pay for this, of course, in very
>high fuel consumption and high wear-and-tear costs (more expensive vehicle
>with a shorter lifetime).  Large-scale use would perhaps be too expensive,
>but using a squadron of suitably-equipped DCs -- call it, say, the SR-1 --
>as the high end of a spectrum of recon aircraft is not ridiculous.

>Nobody will build hypersonic recon aircraft if spaceships are already
>available and cheap enough.  The SR-1 may not be good enough, but the
>SR-2 or SR-3 probably will be.

My first reaction would be that DC wouldn't be cost effective since we seem to
have operational hypersonic recon aircraft.  Then I realized that DC is likely
to get cheaper much faster than Aurora type technology because it's simpler.
Then I realized SSTO technology may _already_ be cheaper since we don't know
what the cost of an Aurora might be (and there's leeway for it to be _very_
expensive).

So yes, I agree with Henry that SSTO could make the NRO very happy.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: MOL (and Almaz)
Organization: Motorola
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 11:18:17 GMT

In article <phfrom.413@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
>ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).
>
>Could somebody provide data ?

A mockup station (really just empty Titan tankage somewhat similar in 
size to a real station) and the first test capsule (which I believe 
was the refitted Gemini 2 capsule (with the new hatch in the heatshield)
were launched around 1970.  
Spaceflight magazine did a good history on MOL many years ago.  The flight 
was interesting since during launch the second stage first put the Gemini
capsule on a suborbital trajectory to test the heatshield during reentry,
then the second stage continued to place the mockup station in orbit
along with some sub-satellites later ejected from the mockup, or something
like that.

MOL also helped prompt the Russian Almaz military station program which
ran from the late 60's up to the mid 80's.  Almaz was originally to
consist of a station (like eventually flew as Salyut 2,3,5) with a
Star Module (TSK) type reentry capsule.  To launch cosmonauts to
the station Cheif Designer Chemoley also wanted to use his TSK (which
later flew as Kosmos 929,1267,1443,1868). His project was cut down
to using Korolev's Soyuz for transport and removing the large capsule
from the station (leaving just a small film return capsule).  These
stations were flown in the 1970's (Salyut 2,3,5).  The Korolev KB was
able to reuse much of Chelomey's station design in Salyut 1 (DOS) and later
stations. Now, the basic TSK design is reused for Mir modules Kvant 2,
Kristall, etc... The long mysterious Kosmos 881/882, 997/998, 1100/1101
dual launches once associated with space planes are now reported to be 
test flights of 2 TSK capsules.

A new larger 35,000 kg. Almaz station was proposed for use
in the 1980's to continue the military program but it was cancelled.
The last military space station missions planned apparently were the
Pion missions where were to use the Kosmos 1686 attached to Salyut 7.

MOL may not be considered a successful program, but it did help prompt
quite a reaction from the Soviets and gave their civilian program
a lot of useful designs to build on.

Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Titan IV
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:32:51 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec10.205338.9475@iti.org> <zjf2--+@rpi.edu>
  <1992Dec11.141858.16948@iti.org>


Looks like I blew it on the Titan IV in my last post (several days ago),
as one was launched on November 29, per Aviation Week and Space News.
That was Number 6. I never heard anything about it, and was mildly
surprised to read about it in this weeks AVLeak and Space News. It
got no attention from the media (to the USAF's delight, no doubt), not
even with the last military shuttle mission launched a few days later.
 
On the topic, does anyone know how much has been spent on Titan IV
since first flight? AvLeak shows launch costs at between 186-207 million
dollars, or about half what a Shuttle costs (being charitable and not
counting the kitchen sink at the KSC cafeteria). I'm curious how much
we have paid for Titan IV to launch six payloads versus how much we
paid for four times that number of Shuttle missions in the same 
amount of time.

-Brian
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Request for "Space News" info
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:48:09 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec16.153138.28001@emr1.emr.ca> budd@ccrs.emr.ca (Mark Budd) writes:
>  I have a friend who has a subscription to a weekly newspaper called
>Defense News.  He has told me that the same publishers produce a paper
>called Space News.  Could anyone who has heard of this please pass on
>any opinions as to what it's like? ...

It's pretty good.  Expensive, and you won't see much technical detail,
but if you want the news it's the best source around.  If I had to
choose between SN and AW&ST, I'm pretty sure I'd pick SN.
-- 
"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: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: Profit in space activities (was: absolutely, positively overnight)
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:57:47 GMT

In article <1_k2mtg@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>In article <GOLDM.92Dec10140709@sage4a.rpi.edu> goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
>
>>The last I'd heard, the companies flying Concordes (British Air, anyone else?)
>>had decided to write off the amount of money that was used in development of
>>the aircraft, but the aircraft do make a good profit over operational costs.

Very true.
>
>Sounds like a good accounting method to use for a certain Space Shuttle NASA
>has.

As I pointed out in another post, this accounting method is frequently
used in military programs.  The R&D cost, tooling and special facility
setup is treated as a "sunk" cost and written off.  After that, the ops
and production costs are accounted for.  The air branches use the
"flyaway" cost for appropriations and accounting of aircraft.

In fact, the SSX/DC-X proponents are advocating this accounting method
for pitching the SSTO.  In an article in "The Journal of Practical
Applications in Space", V1, #1, Max Hunter specifically calls for
"Military Cost Rules: Development, Production and Site Activation
Accepted as Sunk Costs" on one of the bullet charts in an article on
SSX.  (This chart shows at the extreme, $30/lb to LEO for 12 million
lb/year operations with propellant at $3/lb,  20k lb/launch, staff
levels equivalent to the SR-71.) So, this method of accounting is
consistent with other branches of government.  Of course, few private
firms would want to use this model for all their accounting.  The IRS
might take a dim view of it.

One of the sad legacies of the post-Apollo crash at NASA is that the
full civil service rules for staffing and DOD-style procurement rules
were imposed on NASA.  Previously, low level managers has speding
authority that today requires a signature from the managers just below
the center directors.
-- 
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"
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology
From: oneil@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Graham O'Neil)
Subject: Lunar Exploration Information Available by FTP
Followup-To: sci.space
Summary: Lunar mission, design, status files at ames.arc.nasa.gov
Keywords: Lunar, Polar, Orbit, Geo-Chemical, Gravity, Mapping
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:39:38 GMT


                  LUNAR PROSPECTOR FILES AVAILABLE FOR FTP

Lunar Exploration Inc (LEI) organizer of the Lunar Prospector Mission
is establishing a set of reference files on the SPACE ARCHIVES at
ames.arc.nasa.gov.  The purpose is to make information about the
Seleno-mapping mission, and design details on small, simple science
spacecraft available to interested parties. The goal is to establish
an LEI presence on the Internet, and encourage grassroots space
exploration efforts while building public support for space science
missions.

        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
        user:     anonymous
        password: Your Ident [name@node.domain]
        cd:       pub/SPACE/LEI

For the initial submission, we have identified the following documents
as being of sufficient quality for public access.  Additional
material will be added as progress permits.

1.  Lunar Prospector Mission Requirements Document   [FILENAME: mrd.asc]
2.  Lunar Prospector Mission Operations Document     [FILENAME: mod.asc]
3.  White paper on Lunar Prospectors mission         [FILENAME: white.paper]
4.  References to related lunar science articles     [FILENAME: lei.ref]
7.  Contact information for donations and support    [FILENAME: readme]
6.  Monthly newsletters and status.                  [FILENAME: status]

graham




-- 
Graham O'Neil    oneil@aio.jsc.nasa.gov      GONEIL@nasamail  
Lockheed  2400 NASA RD 1 Houston, TX 77058  (713)333-7197
----------------------------------------------------------
Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Shuttle thermal tiles
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:07:49 GMT

In article <SHAFER.92Dec16174532@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
...re the shuttle tiles...
>Did you get to hold it in your bare hand while they played the butane
>torch over it?  It took a lot of faith for me to keep my hand out there
>when the top of the tile started glowing orange.
>

I actually got to do this many years ago in elementary school, say 
'76 or so.  One of the benefits of growing up in Houston is that
the Houston Independent School District uses JSC for field trips 
every year and occasionally someone will come and give a presentation.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: aurora
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 15:01:52 GMT


gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
 >I think I may have just solved the Aurora question. 
Sorry, no such luck.  :-)

 >Attend the following press release.

Yep... I've been following this program for a while. It is quite interesting,
but it bears absolutely no actual resemblance to the "Aurora".  Unfortunately
seeing the terms NASA, high altitude, and Aurora in the same paragraph HAS 
confused some people at times though...

 >Perseus, designed and built for NASA by Aurora Flight Sciences Corp.,
 >is the first aircraft designed specifically for atmospheric science.  
 >It will carry up to 110 pounds (50 kilograms) of instruments to a
 >maximum altitude of 82,000 feet (25 kilometers).  The plane is made 
 >of lightweight composite materials, much like sailplanes or gliders. 
 >Perseus' engine is based on the 4-cycle, 4-cylinder Rotax  engine that 
 >powers ultralight aircraft around the world ...

This vehicle has a max speed in the 100mph range and is powered by 
a reciprocating engine.  Sorry, it ain't gonna go Mach 6-8.  :->

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:30:24 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <lj24cmINNn8@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix) writes:
>*Nobody* had much luck with counter-rotating props (save a handful such
>as the Shackleton and Spitfire XXII).  Using them meant that you could
>get by with a smaller prop diameter for a given powerplant, and they
>provided more yaw stability...but the stupid gearboxes never worked.

Too much American aerospace ingenuity and not enough mechanical engineering,
methinks. :-)  The Soviets licked this for their Bear bomber, since re-cast
in a variety of support roles, and (last I heard) still in production.  The
biggest counter-rotating props ever built, and they work fine.
-- 
"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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Cassini Undergoes Intensive Design Review
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 01:42:27 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <7470027@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> cunniff@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Ross Cunniff) writes:
>You have to consider that Cassini (and Galileo) are *HUGE* interplanetary
>probes.  Voyager was a lightweight - a Titan II launch sent it on a direct
>orbit to Jupiter, and then it used a gravity assist to Saturn and beyond.

Small correction:  Voyager flew on a Titan III-Centaur, the heaviest booster
the US had at the time (having abandoned the Saturn V and not yet flown the
shuttle).
-- 
"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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:51:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.184112.18770@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>
>Given that the volumes of fuel to be pumped are nearly the same,
>the low pressure engine will require less powerful pumps.

Ok, that's right. I was assuming a much lower Isp for the low pressure
engine so that much more fuel would be required. Bad assumption.

Gary
From: dignard@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Michel Dignard)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Keywords: Galileo, Jupiter, Ames, JPL
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:13:38 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

** Ref. <1992Dec15.170413.6139@news.arc.nasa.gov> 
        (sci.space.news)   16 Dec 92 01:01:52 GMT 
        [baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov] 
        -- Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks -- 

I missed SCI.SPACE.NEWS for a few weeks in November.

I notice that no mention is made anymore of the Galileo High Gain Antenna
problem in the recent posts nor in the health report.

Does this means that the HGA has finally deployed, or the efforts have been
abandonned?

-- 
Michel Dignard                         Dignard@ERE.UMontreal.CA
Universite de Montreal
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Profit in space activities (was: absolutely, positively overnight)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:41:24 GMT

In article <GOLDM.92Dec10140709@sage4a.rpi.edu> goldm@rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:

>The last I'd heard, the companies flying Concordes (British Air, anyone else?)
>had decided to write off the amount of money that was used in development of
>the aircraft, but the aircraft do make a good profit over operational costs.

Sounds like a good accounting method to use for a certain Space Shuttle NASA
has.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
Flight Test Engineer                           Tute-Screwed Aero '92
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
These views are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
From: sukhodol@marcel.coria.fr
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: The invitation to collaboration
Date: 14 Dec 92 09:08:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz8s5E.GGL.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU







           	    /-------------------\    
 	      	    |  THE INVITATION   |
		    |        to         |
                    | a collaboration   |
		    |  in development   |
		    |  of novel space   |
		    |    technology     |
	         -------------------------
                  \                     /
                    \                 /
                      \             /
                        \         /
     	                  \     /                       
     		            \ /                          
                                                        
ad-------------------------------------------------------------ad
|     I know how to produce shock-wave direct from solar        |
| radiation and to  use  it both in jet engines and by movement |
| of bodies. It is possibility to force solar light to pump     |
| liquids, separate of components in solutions or cut materials |
| in space.                                                     |
|    I have been developing  a project  based on my terrestrial |
| experiments in sphere of light/liquid interaction.            |
|    I am going to discuss all questions with anybody from      |
| space community who would be interested in the future project.|
|                                                               |
|   Dr Anatoly Sukhodolsky                \   |   /             |
|    Visiting Scientist of	           \  |  /              | 
|   LESP URA CNRS 230-CORIA              ---- o ----            |  
|     INSA de Rouen BP8	 	           /  |  \              |
|    from General Physics                 /   |   \             |
| Institute of Russian Academy       -------------------        |
|     Moscow, Vavilov 38               -  -   -  -  -           |
|           Current:		          - -   - -             |
|    Fax: (33) 35 52 83 90                  - - -               |
|    Tel: (33) 35 52 83 91                   - -                |
|     Internet: sukhodol                      -                 |
|     at marcel.coria.fr             LET LIGHT COME TO BE       |
|_______________________________________________________________|							     







   
------- End of Forwarded Message
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
Subject: Aurora
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:30:14 GMT

Brad Whitehurst writes (Thu, 10 Dec 1992 23:31:26 GMT):

>        I'll believe AW&ST over the Wall Street Journal and Pop
>Mechanics any day!  They've got an intelligence net second only to the
>CIA...hmmm, mebbe even better!

Sounds generally true, but when they report sightings, they don't
look very serious. See my answer to Dean Adams on sci.space this day
for more details.

J. Pharabod
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:56:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.195913.10847@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <84k24ya@rpi.edu> kentm@rebecca.its.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>>What about Mephisto?  The Lambda point experiment?  The United States Micro-
>>gravity Payload (which carried the two aforementioned experiments)?  
>
>Let's fly them on Mir and use the hundreds of millions saved on some other
>worthwhile project.

You seem to think that the Mir Cosmonauts are just floating around up
there waiting for paying work. That may be true, but I rather suspect
they have their own experiments that they are running and would charge
a pretty penny to stop that work and do yours. 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.

Shuttle flies 5-7 day missions with 5-7 astronauts. That's about $145,000
an hour for astronaut time, or about 34 times cheaper than CIS rates.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:41:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: begley@l14h13.jsc.nasa.gov's message of Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:18:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.141805.9416@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> begley@l14h13.jsc.nasa.gov writes:


   13. How often will the SSTO be able to fly?
   The anticipated turn-around will be about 1 day.

Hmm, last figure was two guys(? - Henry you quoted that)
to handle the fuelling. Consensus was LOX/LH2 trucks carried
about 3 tons, we need 300 tons total - that's 100 trips
to your tank farm (which I claim damn well better be over two
miles from your launch pad) or about 15 minutes per trip
including pumping at each end! Don't think so, even assuming the
crew can operate without error for a 24 hour shift (and I ain't
going near a LOX truck hooked up by someone who hasn't slept for 24
hours...).

So, is turnaround slower or are the ground crew estimates a leetle
optimistic? Sounds to me like 12 people on refuelling alone will
be necessary for 24 hour turnaround?


BTW how does the DC to heat management in orbit? The shuttle
has what half-dozen complementary systems, at least one of which 
forces an abort if it fails? What does the DC do (assuming two days in
orbit quoted here is the requirement)?

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: BEAUFAIT%CEBAFVAX.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject: range safety
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Mmdf-Warning: Parse error in original version of preceding line at VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:05:34 GMT

Say Paul could you give us a little more info on your club/launch groupe.
Are you with tripolee or some other club? How do you verify altitudes
in excess of 50k ft.? What is the procedure for (routiinely recieving
waivers up to 100k ft.) Thanks
beaufait@cebaf2.cebaf.gov