HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Beware! "Discovery" mockup is really ISF
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:16:04 GMT

markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Mark Bixby) writes:

>Last week while on vacation in Seattle, my wife & I attended the Home Show,
>which was heavily advertised as having a "full-scale mockup of the space 
>shuttle Discovery".  What we actually found was a full-scale mockup of the
>Industrial Space Facility, plus some NASA exhibits on space suit construction,
>the evolution of space food, and space program spin-offs.  We were quite
>disappointed not to see the advertised shuttle mockup.

Someone is trying to build up support for building the ISF, so they are doing a
"North American tour" with a mockup of said facility.  Along with it goes some
NASA stuff (though it should be noted that the people prmoting this are NOT
connected to NASA) and at least at the place I was at, some merchadising.
I was a little surrise to see books on the "mars face" at the same place that
theyt were supposed to be educating the public.  I went the the St. Louis 
stop, partly to piggyback some PR for NSS and to help with the "education."
There was also a Challenger Center table and a Space Camp table there.  If you
are going to go to one of these things anyway, it may be worth stopping by, but
don't go just to see the mockup.  It's pretty cheesy.

>I'm not sure why this stuff is being displayed at a home-improvement show. 

The rationale was that showing it at a space convention would be preaching to
the choir and doing it at a home show would spread the gospel to those who 
wouldn't ordinarily hear it.  Nice sentiment, but I agree it could be done 
better.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: geg@ornl.gov (GILES JR G E)
Subject: Re: ***QUESTION***  RE: Space Shuttles...
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:02:44 GMT

Perhaps flags are reversed on the sides of aircraft since to do otherwise
would offend the aerodynamic sensibilities of the designers.
Gary Giles
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A new orbiter? (dont think so--was Re: National Space Plane)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:16:45 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug19.102235.14319@athena.mit.edu> cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes:
>It seemed [the X-30's] main cargo would be passengers, or upper atmosphere
>studying equip.  Watch out concorde  :)

I'm only going to say this once more:

	The X-30 is planned as a flight-research aircraft, like the X-15.

	Apart from instrumentation, it will have no payload.  None.  Zero.

	It will carry a crew of two, and no passengers.  None.  Zero.

	It is most unlikely that more than two will be built.

	It will never be "operational" in any realistic sense of the word.

	It will be very expensive to run and will not fly often.

	It will not replace the shuttle or anything else.

*If* the X-30 is built, and *if* it is highly successful, and *if* funding
can be found, then ten or fifteen years after it first flies, derivatives
might be hauling useful payloads into space.  Maybe.

Right now, the way to bet is that it will never be built, because it costs
too much and nobody needs it very badly.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: ruca@pinkie.saber-si.pt (Rui Sousa)
Subject: Re: A new orbiter? (dont think so--was Re: National Space Plane)
Organization: SABER - Sistemas de Informacao, Lda.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 11:05:21 GMT
	<1992Aug18.134803.1800@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<kdawson.14@AFIT.AF.MIL> <1992Aug19.102235.14319@athena.mit.edu>
	<BtGory.EwA@zoo.toronto.edu> <RUCA.92Aug25122029@pinkie.saber-si.pt>
	<BtLvy1.KHt@zoo.toronto.edu> <BtM0HB.us@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<BtM6oy.p6@zoo.toronto.edu>

In article <BtM6oy.p6@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

   [stuff deleted]

   Although I composed that set of specs without any preconceived notion of
   how it was going to come out, I note with interest that it's pretty close
   to the long-term growth path originally intended for the Saturn I / Apollo
   combination...  Sigh, the Road Not Taken...
   -- 

Sigh, indeed. It really seems LEO will never be reason enough to a *real*
commitment to space. If we want tens+ astronauts in space on a permanent
basis, I think Near Earth Asteroids would provide the impetus. When politicians
really start to read all the stuff published on the economics of NEA exploiting
(by the way it *really* is worthwhile, isn't it?) maybe we'll see something.

That's my part of the dream.


-- 
*** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa
*** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt

                All opinions expressed here are strictly my own
From: gdavis@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Grant R. Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: looking for reference on shuttle's safety envelope
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:59:53 GMT
Reply-To: gdavis@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Grant R. Davis)
Distribution: na
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: gdavis@donald.cc.utexas.edu

Some time ago I read an article in sci.space saying that the shuttle had 
a safety margin of 2 km X 2 km X 5 km, and anything that came this close
would cause the shuttle to change orbit. Does anyone know where I can find
a reference on this? It's for my orbital mechanics design project.

Thanks,
Grant Davis
From: asmcclan@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Andrew S. McClanahan [DH4])
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: More strange circles on DEMOS
Date: 27 Aug 1992 01:54:59 GMT
Organization: Software Technology Lab - NASA/Johnson Space Center

> Article: 3225 of sci.space.shuttle
> 
> I have noticed that the representation of the terminator 
> (sunrise/sunset line) is notched instead of smooth.  My
> guess is this represents the terminator on successive
> orbits.  Is this correct?

The terminator on the Earth is caused by the shading algorithm
of the RasterTech GX4000 hardware, which has ISO PHIGS+ in firmware.
The sun is used as a light source.  The ground terminator has not
been added to DEMOS, yet.

(Man, it took me a while to figure out what you were talking about.
You are sitting way to close to the TV.)

Scott McClanahan
From: waterman@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: KSC vs Andrew
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:46:25 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

When Hurricane Andrew hit Florida all four orbiters where at KSC.
OV-105 (Endeavour) was in the VAB. The other three were tucked
away inside OPF bays.
The OPF bays probably would have survived realativly unharmed.
The VAB more than likely would have sustained damage.


Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: How are station workers getting paid?
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:13:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Aug24.184107.6285@nrcnet0.nrc.ca> sharma@nrcphy1.phy.nrc.ca (Rohit Sharma) writes:
>  Anybody know of the Canadian Space Agency's part in Freedom ?  I heard
>that the CSA was collaborating with the Europoeans (ESA) for the Freedom
>space station.  Will appreciate any details on the CSA-ESA contribution.

There isn't any particular CSA-ESA interaction going on that I know of.
Canada is building the manipulator system for the station.  ESA is building
Yet Another Lab Module for the station.  The two are unrelated.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: A new orbiter? (dont think so--was Re: National Space Plane)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:17:33 GMT

Henry was asked to design his dream space program and started off with this...

>We need a cheap launcher with a payload of 5-10 tons into low orbit.
>This is a little beyond Atlas, I think, although I don't have numbers
>handy, and Titan is too big and too costly.  

He mentioned a number of other things, and finished with this ...

>There are lots of other bits and pieces needed, but that's the general idea.
>Note that it all starts with that cheap medium launcher; without that, it
>doesn't work.

>I'm not expecting it any time soon.

Hmm,  I can't get you most of the other hardware you wanted, but I think I've
got a rocket you might be interested in.  Payload is about 40,000 lbs in a
300 nm orbit, cost per pound is expected to on the order of 40% less than 
Araine 4.  Flight rate can be fairly high and it's man(and woman)-rateable.
Best of all, it's only three or four years away from first launch.  

Arianespace would be happy to sell you some Ariane 5's.  Sure it's still
vaporware, but it's some of the best vaporware money can buy.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu (George Hastings)
Subject: Re: Wisconsin Space Station Simulator ???
Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Richmond)
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:08:52 GMT

tidedu@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov  writes:
> Hello All;
> I have just returned from a vacation at the Wisconsin Dells in Wisconsin. 
> While there, I have encountered i]something very interesting which has 
> turned into quite a mystery. I thought I'd mention it to everyone on the 
> net to see if anyone can help me solve this mystery. 
> 
> While I was walking into a Wisconsin Dells restaurant, I noticed a kid (
> High School Aged) wearing a T-Shirt which read (On the Front) ... 
> 
>      VIKING-I
>    Space Station
>      Simulator
>        1990
> 
> I know it's a long shot, but does anyone have any idea about where this 
> simulation took place (In 1990) ??? 
> 
> Tim Dedula
> NASA Lewis Research Center
> Mail Stop 77-3
> 21000 Brookpark Road
> Cleveland, Ohio 44135
> 
...From the ISY NEWS, July-August 1992...

The Wausau [Wisconsin] community is busy this summer building a
space station - the logical followup to a successful shuttle
mission.
     (They had already outfitted a school bus to look like a
space shuttle and gotten the whole community involved in a
mission...article about THAT also appears in same issue)
	This time, a trailer house is being used to fashiona
replica of Space Station Freedom. It will serve as a permanent
learning center...
	Same issue also has an article on simulated Mars
mission by students in Aurora, Colorado, and the Challenger
Center sponsored nationwide MARSVILLE habitat design.

To get on the mailing list to receive the International Space
Year News, write:
	U.S. International Space Year Association
	600 Maryand Avenue, S.W.
	Washington, D.C. 20024

----------------------------------------------------------------
George Hastings			ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu
Mathematics & Science Center    OFFICE 804-343-6525
2400 Hartman Street             FAX    804-343-6529
Richmond, VA 23223		BBS    804-343-6528
----------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re : hurricane andrew
Date: 4 Sep 92 11:30:10 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

Greetings and Salutations:

From: pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov
>What kind of damage would the cape have sustained?

I am not sure what kind of damage that Cape Canaveral would have sustained, but
KSC (Kennedy Space Center) would have made out pretty good.  Considering that
there have been some near misses (hurricane David circa 1979 in Melbourne Fl
about 40 miles or so south) KSC is built assuming a hurricane would hit.  There
are EXTENSIVE hurricane plans at KSC.

The vehicle is taken back to the VAB (Vertical Assembly Building) when a
hurricane can come even NEAR the pads. I would have to look at the hurricane
plan for KSC to see if the OPF (Orbiter Processing Facility) is hurricane proof
or not, but I would be surprised if it wasn't in the original contract.  Also
there is so much structure / work platforms around an orbiter when it is in the
OPF (nice thick steel I-Beams) I doubt much if any damage would happen if
something actually crashed into the OPF.

The LCC windows are not glass, they are plastic.  There are also large louvers
(sp?) that are from the bottom to the top of the windows that close.  The LCC
(Launch Control Complx) has the firing rooms on the third floor, and each
floor of the LCC is taller than a normal floor. 

>Say for the sake of argument,the cape got toasted.  1 orbiter destroyed,

I am not sure what an orbiter would be doing over on the Capeside...  They are
usually kept at KSC, not at Cape Canaveral...

>Would most of the bunkers be flooded?

I cannot answer for the unmanned side, but at KSC all of the launches are done
from the LCC.
 
-----------------------------------------------
Ken Hollis  INTERNET: HOLLIS@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV
            SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::HOLLIS
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Beware! "Discovery" mockup is really ISF
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:11:25 GMT

markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Mark Bixby) writes:
>Last week while on vacation in Seattle, my wife & I attended the Home Show,
>which was heavily advertised as having a "full-scale mockup of the space 
>shuttle Discovery".  What we actually found was a full-scale mockup of the
>Industrial Space Facility, ...
>I'm not sure why this stuff is being displayed at a home-improvement show.

Well, gee.  I wouldn't mind being able to live there... ;-)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells)
Subject: Re: New NASA logo?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 14:25:23 GMT

[Talk about cool NASA logo deleted]

>And most importantly it kinda reminds me of the old StarTrek logo... :-)

Check out the United States Air Force Space Command logo, which looks
exactly like the Star Trek logo.
	Lt. David Wells
	HQ AFSPACECOM
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu (Mark Bixby)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Beware! "Discovery" mockup is really ISF
Date: 31 Aug 92 23:26:03 GMT
Organization: Coast Community College District, Costa Mesa, CA

Last week while on vacation in Seattle, my wife & I attended the Home Show,
which was heavily advertised as having a "full-scale mockup of the space 
shuttle Discovery".  What we actually found was a full-scale mockup of the
Industrial Space Facility, plus some NASA exhibits on space suit construction,
the evolution of space food, and space program spin-offs.  We were quite
disappointed not to see the advertised shuttle mockup.

I'm not sure why this stuff is being displayed at a home-improvement show.  We
found some flyers that clearly said "space shuttle Discovery".  The ads
indicate that this stuff may be travelling to other parts of the country.
So beware!  If you attend one of these shows with the sole purpose of seeing a
shuttle mockup, you're going to be disappointed.
-- 
Mark Bixby                         Internet: markb@spock.dis.cccd.edu
Coast Community College District   1370 Adams Avenue
District Information Services      Costa Mesa, CA, USA  92626
Technical Support                  (714) 432-5064
"You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish." - tunefs(1M)
From: PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Still on the X-30
Date: 23 Aug 92 17:27:38 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

I don't get some of you people.  The aim of the X-30 was SSTO -- Single stage
to orbit.  This has nothing to do with the 'orient express' that has been
discussed in past years.  For the OE, you might want to refer to a couple of
interesting AW&ST articles on Japanese research in the field.  (Yes, they are
actually doing research over there!)  The Japanese are studying the concept of
a combined turbofan/ramjet in coaxial form to achieve hypersonic speeds.  The
J58 was pretty close to that, but the compressor always operated throughout the
envelope.  Of course the SR71 only travelled around M3.0-3.2 and that wasn't a
problem.  If you have read the article, they do not expect to actually develop
the vehicle, they just want to expand their own knowlege of high-performance
aviation.     They also have a materials development program to aid in develop-
ment of the engine.  GE, P&W, RR, and I think SNECMA (or one part of) are
involved in the effort.  Enough about that.
     The X30  started as an effort to develop a launch system that can take off
like an airplane.  This sounds like a good idea, would definitely be easier to
take care of than the shuttle.  Unfortunately it seems like trade-offs might
make it impractical.  Like someone said before, the payload would be the pilot
and maybe his (or her) toothbrush, and little more, while the shuttle can heave
around 30 tons into orbit  (am I right?)  Something of that magnitude, anyway,
I'm going from memory here.  The X30 is incredibly expensive, but then the pay-
offs aren't in the vehicle itself.  They are in the development of technologies
and materials, etc.  Just like the B-70, the program will be reduced to one or
two interesting test vehicles that may make it into orbit, may not.  We'll have
to wait and see.  All I know is that our government can't afford to develop
the system to shuttle-like maturity.  $500 billion deficits kind of make it
hard.  Funny that people forget that the deficit is a differential and the debt
is the problem, oh well.  Let's just go back to Iraq and wave our flag.  A
little political commentary.  Have I cleared any cobwebs?  Later...

-- Phillip
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Weather Satellite pictures
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:52:38 GMT

I've heard of an ftp site about a year ago that keeps satellite pictures from
the last 24 hours in gif format. Does any one know where this site is?

                                              Thanks in advance,
                                                     Tom
Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2202 talk.politics.space:1155
From: pettengi@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.space
Subject: hurricane andrew
Date: 3 Sep 1992 21:37:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: LESC

With all the talk of the damage in south florida,
what would the consenquences have been had andrew made
land fall 200 miles to the north?

What kind of damage would the cape have sustained?
I'm guessing the pad would have made it through alright,
but what about the VAB, OPF, and other important buildings.

I believe Endeavour was stacked in the VAB awaiting a roll out.
Another orbiter was in the OPF. Atlantis was in CA I believe.
Where was the fourth?

What was the possibility of one of the structures failing
thereby causing a possible loss of an orbiter?

Say for the sake of argument, the cape got toasted.
1 orbiter destroyed, one flooded (destroyed ?), and one repairable within six months,
and one unscathed.  VAB with extensive damage, launch control (with all
its glass windows smashed, (whew not a pretty picture). Let's not
forget the 18' storm surge. Would most of the bunkers be flooded?

Would this cripple the space program?
I feel the set back would be much worse than the Challenger accident.
What would be the potential loss of jobs in the space industry.

Imagine the bill to rebuild a toasted cape.
20 billion looks like pocket change.
From: ggmar@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: New NASA logo?
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:39:08 GMT

The NASA logo combining the meatball with the worm looks great! Does anybody
else like it? If enough people support it, maybe we can get Dan Goldin to
change the logo again - tell him that it represents the combination of the
best of the Apollo and Shuttle eras for the future of NASA.

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew)
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Organization: University Computer Club --- Perth, Western Australia
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 08:46:45 GMT

phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew) writes:

>"This is a very interesting phenomenon. I think we should stay to study
>it ... unless there is jeopardy." - HAL 2010 to Dr Chandra ( :-) )

>I fully accept that there is no competent AI now, but then again,
>graphic user interfaces were unheard of a decade ago... :-)

I must apologize for this error (thanks to Steve Hix for pointing this out).
Graphic User Interfaces must have existed in concept for many years before
their release.

But I think that this error makes my main point even more telling.
The technology for the future human presence in space - whether or
not it is robotic or human - exists in concept now. The choice to be made
(within this debate) is whether this technology will have *only* robotic
presence in space.

Depending solely on telepresence in space would limit human intervention to
any reasonable "real time" sense to about the Moon or so... unless a way
of getting around the speed of light can be found (For my view on FTL
communication, see up :-) :-) :-) ).

As soon as we abandon "real time" telepresence, we either depend entirely
on robots, or on humans. Surely a combination of the two would be better?

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo Video Clips
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:50:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Aug27.181710.26123@news.acns.nwu.edu| fred@iapetus.earth.nwu.edu (Fred Marton) writes:
|In article <27AUG199211290242@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov+ afwendy@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:
|+>In article <17h3qoINNloo@grapevine.EBay.Sun.COM> wag@georwell.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
|+>>The famous feather and hammer trick is on the PBS special "For All Mankind".
|+> 
|+
|+pardon my ignorance...what ARE we talking about?
|+
|+			wendy
|
|"For All Mankind" is a documentary on the Apollo program.  It's unique in that
|all the images and words are from NASA, i.e., astronaut-shot footage and
|their reactions, explanations, etc..  It also has a score by Brian Eno
|(if memory serves).  

I think Wendy may be asking about the "feather and hammer trick". 
It was a demonstration by one of the Apollo astronauts on the moon
that showed in a vacuum these two objects hit the lunar surface 
at the same time.

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.