HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo's atmospheric probe
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:37:51 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: The K-Zoo Crew

In article <ZOWIE.92Dec16182405@daedalus.stanford.edu> zowie@daedalus.stanford.edu (Craig "Powderkeg" DeForest) writes:
] If you drop a Timex watch (``takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin'\ '') from
] a height of 1m onto a cement floor, carefully holding it so it falls flat,
] and it stops in 1mm, then it underwent 1000G's of acceleration!  
] 
] And, being a Timex, it (usually) still works!
] 
] We talked about this about a year ago on sci.physics.  Everyday things
] undergo a lot more acceleration than we give 'em credit for.
] 
] Other examples:  a light aluminum hunting arrow experiences 1000G's on 
] release from a good compound bow; a car piston with a 10cm stroke 
] undergoes 900G's at the top and bottom of its stroke, at 3000rpm (and
] a whopping 3600 at 6000 rpm!); and dropped personal stereos routinely 
] take >300 G's and survive.

  I think there's a bit of a difference here. You're talking about forces
  and accelerations experienced for milliseconds at a time. This probe
  will be experiencing this accleration for several minutes! Things
  can be damaged to prolonged exposure to acceleration!

  _____    "But you can't really call that a dance. It's a walk." - Tony Banks
 /  ___\  ___  __ ___   ___      _____________   gene@cs.wustl.edu
 | / __  / _ \ | /   \ / _ \     |  physics  |   gene@lechter.wustl.edu
 | \_\ \ | __/ |  /\ | | __/     |racquetball|   gev1@cec2.wustl.edu
 \_____/ \___/ |_| |_| \___/     |volleyball |   gene@camps.phy.vanderbilt.edu
 Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
From: srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)
Subject: Re: Need information on Infinite Universe Models
Organization: The World
	<STEINLY.92Dec15134103@topaz.ucsc.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:17:03 GMT

Check out  "Fractal gases of zero momentum with respect to all inertial
frames",  Am.J.Phys. 58(6), June 1990, page 581.

Interesting way of questioning your thoughts.

Greg Aharonian
-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Sea Dragon?
Organization: Motorola 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:17:18 GMT
Summary: really big 

In article <1gp19cINNb5b@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher) writes:
>dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>>lift-off weight 45,360,000 kg.
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                 |||||||||||||
>                 No way :-)    Perhaps it's living in a place that uses pounds
>that has confused you?  Using my calculator to convert to pounds (weird units
>you guys use in the US) that comes to... 100,001,682 pounds...now that means
>very little to me but 45 million kg sure sticks out like a sore thumb to my 
>metric eyes :-)

I think you are the confused one...

That is a big number. It's also the weight published in both
pounds and kilograms in the Congressional Research Service book 
I referenced. Check out the quote below. 

>>2 stage, water launched, pressure fed motors. 
>>both stages reusable 
>>recovered by unaided atmospheric and hydrodynamic deceleration only
>
>Does this mean they are allowed to free-fall back to earth and splash?

That was the idea. 

Here's info on what must be an early Sea Dragon idea, its not quite
the same as in the other reference.
  
From : SPACE CARRIER VEHICLES
Design, Development, and Testing of Launching Rockets
By: Oswald H. Lange and Richard J. Stein
Saturn Systems Office
George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Academic Press, New York, 1963
Advances in SPACE SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY
Edited by Frederick I. Ordway, III
Editorial Advisory Board
Wernher von Braun
Leslie R. Shepherd
Frederick C. Durant, III
George P. Sutton
Eugen Sanger
Etienne Vassy

p.297-298

"The Aerojet-General Corp.in particular has studied a scheme
to launch a 600-ft high, three-stage vehicle, weighing 50,000 tons and
developing 130,000,000 lb of thrust. The vehicle envisioned would be
assembled in a drydock, as pictured in Fig. 221, and towed to the launch
site. At the launch site a specially constructed flat-top ship would move
into position to act as a service platform.  Erection of the vehicle was 
planned by flooding the launch pontoon as shown in Fig. 222.  Fueling and other
pre-launch operations would then take place.  Upon launch readiness, the 
flat top tender would be removed, and the carrier vehicle fired from its 
supporting pontoon."


Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:41:00 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.

>When fighter development from concept to flying prototype cost less
>than $100,000, normally funded internally by the company, and took
>less than a year, planes were simpler then, that was an acceptable 
>approach. 

I think The SR-71 cost a little bit more than $100,000.  Even
if you fail to account for inflation.


>Now with development costs running into the billions, and 
>usually taxpayer funded, the financial risks of a failed project have 
>become too high to take such a cavalier approach.

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy.  Your "failure-oriented
management," with its army of beancounters and its endless
review and approval cycle is what caused development costs
to run into the billions.  It prevented failures, either,
only reduced the number of successes.  

The old produced the P-39 *and* the P-51.  The new, improved,
"scientific" system produced the A-12.

The old system produced Project Apollo. The new system produced
the Space Shuttle.

In the old system, there was a saying, which you no doubt hate: 
"Nothing succeeds like success."  

In the new system, nothing succeeds like failure.


>You wouldn't do a cheap and dirty Hoover Dam or Golden Gate bridge
>saying that if it failed you'd just shrug and go on to the next
>project. 

Once again, you should read more history.  Both projects had their 
share of Gary Coffmans, standing on the sideline, carping and saying
it was impossible, while men with real vision got the job done. 


________________________________________________________________

"This so-called atomic bomb will never work.  And I speak as an
expert on explosives." -- a former US Navy Admiral, who no doubt
wishes to remain nameless.




Newsgroups: sci.space
From: xrcjd@mudpuppy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine)
Subject: Re: Greek jet engine (Was: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt MD
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:50:49 GMT

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?

I can elaborate a bit.

There was a very small experimental apparatus built in the ancient era that could be
described as a jet engine.

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.

The device is impressive intellectually but develops very little real power.


-- 
Chuck Divine
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: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:04:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>aircraft is low and the cost is much less. The military, like everyone
>>else has to pay attention to costs, even if their threshold is higher
>>than most other users. Wars can be lost by simply running out of money
>>as surely as losing on the battlefield
>
>Then, gary goes on to say...
>
>>. With a serious opponent, your space assets would be priority targets. 
>
>So, uh, gary, where are the serious opponents supposed to afford A-SATs? hmm?

The ex-Soviets have a system. Getting into a fight with them would still
be dealing with a serious opponent in my book.

>If you can kill recon planes, it's damn sight harder to kill sats.

In principle no, the sats are predictable, the planes aren't. Putting
some "buckshot" in their orbital path is sufficient to knock them down.
In practice planes probably are easier to down because few countries
have space launch capability while they do have AAA, but most planes
in combat zones aren't shot down, and planes are cheaper than spysats too.

>Furthermore, you assumed that the KH-11 is the benchmark (also known as
>the Szabo yardstick) without the resultant drop in costs which would occur if
>you could rapidly deliver sats to orbit. 

Launch costs don't dominate a spysat's cost, at least not one capable of
doing tactical damage assessment. The cost is dominated by the superior
optics required for a orbital spy versus the optics required for an aircraft,
and by the flight control systems required to point the thing at the right
place and compensate for orbital motion and downlink the data. An aircraft's
photorecon equipment is much cheaper because the optics don't have to be as
good because of the lower altitude, the pilot takes care of pointing chores, 
and the data is physically returned at the end of the mission.

Gary
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Chase planes
Date: 17 Dec 1992 23:51:16 GMT
Organization: Sun
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1gofeqINN6td@rave.larc.nasa.gov> claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes:
>The chase plane that crashed with Valkyrie was being flown by Joe 
>Walker, the pilot that broke so many records with the X-15. I was 
>wondering if anyone in the net knows what was the reason for the 
>crash. My first impression was that it was pilot error but I may be 
>wrong.

Walker had insufficient experience in formation flying, got too close
to the B-70 and got caught by trailing wake turbulance, rolled over the
top of the B-70's near wing, took off a least one of the vertical stabs
and killed himself before the B-70 went down itself.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: NSSDC Data on CD-ROM
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 15:28:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec5.033643.16554@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff) writes:
>Black and white!? Well, I understand that Voyager's camras took 3 pictures
>to make a complete color image - in a green, then red, then blue (was it
>yellow??) filter. Then, on the ground, the images were processed to make
>the color image. Can this be done with IMDISP or any other image
>displaying software? I was relly excited with the prospect of purchasing
>CD-ROMs of the images. Now I'm not so sure it would be worth it for me.
>Is it the same for Magellan?? And what about the Mars Observer in the
>future? Are thoes images going to be in B/W?
>

I don't know of any program to automatically combine them.  The 
images in a RGB triplet are not aligned geometrically so you
can't just combine the three images with one image per color
plane.  You have to adjust the position of each until they align.

Magellan's images are SAR based, and therefore monochrome.
I'm not sure about MO.  I think it will produce color images,
but my references are at home.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Space Tourism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:23:21 GMT

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

[responding to me..]

>>That was the subject in mind.  I agree on space tourism.  Do you have any
>>numbers to post though?  

>I don't know what the numbers were like, but I do know that business was
>brisk when Society Expeditions was taking bookings for hoped-for Phoenix
>orbital flights at $50k a head.

Right.  There was an Air & Space article on this a number of years ago.  They
also carried the original add in their first issue - quite an eyecatcher.  As
I recall there were something like 350 people who put down $500 deposits on a
$52,000 flight.  I think they were eventually refunded but I'm pretty sure 
that they were supposed to be non-refundable.  So, if 350 people will pay 
$52,000 for a vehicle that isn't flying and isn't all that heavily advertised
I think we can assume that this price will provide a big enough market for
space tourism.  The next question is how much higher it can get before the
market dries up.  Is there any other data out there?  What's the maximum that
real people pay for really cool Earth-bound trips?  Anyone ever priced a trip
to Antarctica?
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
From: gustav@arp.anu.edu.au (Zdzislaw Meglicki)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Cassini Undergoes Intensive Design Review
Date: 12 Dec 1992 04:28:51 GMT
Organization: Centre for Information Science Research, ANU, Canberra, Australia
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.20.14
Keywords: Cassini, JPL

In article <1992Dec11.165425.4845@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
|> Cassini is also carrying a Titan probe which adds additional mass to the 
|> spacecraft.

Could anyone sum up at this stage what is known about Titan and especially
about the question of a possible ocean there. I vaguely recall that some
time ago radio-ranging of Titan returned somewhat mixed signals in this
matter.

|> To
|> further complicate the situation, the U.S. do not have any launch vehicles
|> that are powerful enough to send Cassini on a direct trajectory to the
|> outer planets.

Right, can't the US build such a vehicle by then? Clearly, if any serious
space exploration is to continue a powerful vehicle like that will be
needed sooner or later anyway. What happened to the idea of nuclear 
propulsion? 

-- 
   Zdzislaw Gustav Meglicki, gustav@arp.anu.edu.au,
   Automated Reasoning Program - CISR, and Plasma Theory Group - RSPhysS,
   The Australian National University, G.P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T., 2601, 
   Australia, fax: (Australia)-6-249-0747, tel: (Australia)-6-249-0158
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:25:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec14.145351.14521@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <Bz7wLM.6s8@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>Just which aircraft were you thinking of, Gary?  I can think of one
>>aircraft that had a bad performance shortfall but was redesigned and
>>continued into a successful program (the F-102).  I can't think of
>>*any* F-series "gap" in the last 40 years that fits your description.
>
>Yeah, bad line of argument, most of the systems that made it as far
>as being assigned a number weren't technical failures even if they
>were market failures. Actually I was thinking of the P-39...

Actually, in fairness I should say that on doing a bit more digging
out of curiosity, I did discover that the F-103 was having problems
with its engines and this was a minor factor in its cancellation...
although the problems were not in the Mach 3.7 ramjet or in the turbojet-
ramjet switchover, but in the supposedly-off-the-shelf turbojet.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: SSF Budgets '88' -> '92'
Date: 14 Dec 92 21:09:27 -0500

                    
          SSF Budgets '88' - '92' in $millions
          
          
                      Requested          Recieved      % of request
          
          1988          767                393             51%
          1989          967                900             93%
          1990         2050               1750             85%
          1991         2451               1900             77%
          1992         2029               2029            100%

* SSF Media Handbook 1992
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: absolutely, positively overnight
Organization: UDSI
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:01:00 GMT

In article <Bz20KA.MwD@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Bz0s38.Jz8@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>
>>... On the subject of expense, the Concorde seems a 
>>good example.  It's never been profitable enough to make anyone else want to
>>buy one and it's at least 1.5 orders of magnitude cheaper than I can see a DC
>>type vehicle being.  So where's the motivation for passenger travel?
>
>(I assume we're talking about surface-to-surface travel, not surface-to-space,
>which is a very different market with a proven audience.)  I don't see DC-1
>as a surface-to-surface passenger vehicle to any great extent.  Prices would
>be high enough that you'd get only the cost-is-no-object crowd:  the really
>rich and the people whose time is really valuable.  I suspect you could make
>money by buying a couple of DC-1s, going all out on luxury interiors, and
>running them on a charter basis.  It doesn't seem a promising basis for
>regular scheduled service, though.
>
>
>I'm sure that if certification were suitable and appropriate facilities
>were widespread, there'd be a few executive DC-1s bought.  The Saudi
>royal family would surely buy one.  And then there's Air Force One...
>-- 

If the President used one,  then you'd have to buy at least 4-5.
first there is the dual backup, so no terrorist knows which one he is in.
then the secret service would want one or two to fly escorrt, rigged out
with weapons, in case of alien hijackers.  plus the press would need one.
From: dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: 11 Dec 92 20:08:26 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com

In article <ewright.724096589@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1992Dec10.192026.16340@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>They're also heavy as I recall, something you don't need in a SSTO.
>>I appreciated the summary you gave earlier, Henry. It looks like they
>>have a better test program planned than what has been outlined here
>>before. I still think their schedule is extremely optimistic and
>>success oriented, but we'll see.
>
>I'd be curious to know the exact date, sometime in the last 20 years,
>when "success oriented" became a pejorative phrase.  Yeah, the project
>is success oriented.  Just like Project Apollo.  The alternative, I
>guess, is for a project to be "failure oriented."  I like success better.


Look, it's pretty clear (at least to me, and going by some other recent
postings, to other people as well) that Gary has some kind of axe to
grind against the whole SSTO concept.

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: 17 Dec 1992 23:47:34 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <1goasfINNnne@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>
>Actually another case was the YB-49  and YB-50?  those were
>northrops  flying wing prototypes,  the turbo-prop  and the jet versions.

Almost.  The B-50 was from Boeing, mostly a tricked-up B-29.

Northop's YB-35 was prop flying wind.

YB-49 was jet-powered version.

>They actually flew but had trouble with range,  and power.  the prop job
>needed twin counter rotating props to really develope thrust.  

The YB-35 was designed to carry 10,000lb load 7,500 miles (with a
remaining 15% fuel reserve), economy cruise of 183mph gave it a range
of 8,125miles.  Top speed was 393mph at 35,000', service ceiling was
40,000'.  Not too shabby for a 40's bomber.

*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.

The YB-35A switched to normal single props.  The XB-35's were converted
to single four-bladed props because of the gearbox problems.

The jet (YB-49) had only about a 2,800 mile range...but nobody at the
time was getting much range out of jets.  And the J-35 wasn't the
greatest jet engine ever made.

>Plus there were enormous political problems witht he Air Force on the
>birds.  Too bad,  the effort broke jack northrop  and he never got to
>see his vision carried off in the B-2.

Ain't politics wonderful.

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: johnwl@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Yuri's descent module in situ still ?
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 22:45:02 GMT

Hello,

  I happened to be dial grazing the other night and watched part of the
Moscow to Paris "auto" relay.  At one point the soviet commentator said that
the crews stopped to examine "Yuri Gagarin's" space craft. The video showed
a couple of people walking through some scrub brush in the middle of nowhere
(apparently) and looking over what sure looked like a stripped descent
module ! (with little rust - must be titanium  ;-)
  Could this be truly just "left out there" ?  Or, would they have left this
module as an in situ display or monument.
  You see the weirdest things on cable TV ...         happy holidays !
                                                     Jack Lawson
                                                     johnwl@kean.ucs.mun.ca