HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kirby@xerox.com (Mike Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Government-run programs  Was: Re: Just
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:40:22 GMT
Reply-To: kirby@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox Corporation, Webster NY

In article 12967@aio.jsc.nasa.gov, Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.015903.15161@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
>dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>>Well, Doc, I can't, because I do not recall where or just when this
>>poll was conducted (it was some years ago).
>
>Here's a clue Paul, the results of polls change with time and not all
>polls are accurate.
>
>>However, if you wish to
>>call me a liar about it, I shall try to cope.
>
>I'm not calling you a liar Paul. However I am a scientist, and as a
>scientist,
>I like to make my own judgements.
>
>Norman
>
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>Senior Engineer
>Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
>
>
>
>
>When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
>                               Hunter Thompson


Give it a rest guys.  Pauls assertion, while not backed up with
scientific evidence seems quite reasonable.  I for one would prefer to
have universal health care than a space program if forced to make a choice.  I 
believe, however, that we as a society can support both without ridiculous
taxes.  

Both of you quibble like PHd's.  Let's move the discussion on.

Mike Kirby
Xerox Corp
E-Mail: kirby.roch803@xerox.com
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 25 Dec 1992 20:27:18 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec25.002926.4218@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>their Shuttle.
>
>Nonsense. The Russians have built no space stations and are having
>trouble raising the funds to operate the one they inherited from 
>the Soviet Union. Comparing what was done by a command economy using
>what amounts to slave labor to what's done in an open society where
>people expect to get paid fairly for their work is meaningless accounting.
>


a
Consider that the russians/CIS/USSR  built a major space program with
the GNP the size of France.   And by the Way,  unlike the germans, or chinese
i dont believe the russians have ever been charged with using slave
labor.  Now the russians had a strange command economy,  but things still
cost, but there were major problems in distribution.  the russian/SU
economy was sorta like massachusetts meets new york via sweden.

high taxes,  severe rent control and social provision of major services.

SUre,  they didnt pay their scientists what we paid them here,  but they
provided them with housing, medicine, etc.   Also,  the motivation of most
russian space workers was so great,  that they didn't mind the bad conditions.

the problems within the russian system, were of productivity,  design cycle,
and provision of consumer goods.

The chinese use slave labor,  and then sell it over here.  the russians
paid their workers poorly,  and the workers pretended to work.

the gulags were not used as factories to my knowledge.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: aerospikes
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 00:18:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.724962671@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>...driven by the one-orbit mission, whose basic rationale is deploying a
>>spy satellite -- or doing any of a number of other things -- in wartime
>>conditions where coming around again in a predictable orbit is likely
>>to result in being shot at.
>
>Of course, if the enemy has the capability to shoot at you, he also
>has the capability to shoot down that nice, new spy satellite, which
>is also in a predictable orbit...

The satellite could maneuver, or even remain captive in the payload bay
and snap its pictures during that one orbit.  The USAF has not been too
forthcoming with details. :-)
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: hagadorn@amsaa-cleo.brl.mil (Thomas Hagadorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Date: 21 Dec 92 20:33:30 GMT
Followup-To: alt.conspiracy
Organization: Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity

In article <1992Dec21.110606.2970@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>
>STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
>
>Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER #64 of 80

<...much sophomoric conspiracy theory deleted...>

  I guess it's time to go back to the kill file for Bob.  There is a
newsgroup for this stuff already (alt.conspiracy) without adding
to the noise in this group.  Then again, maybe it should go to rec.humor
as a send-up of the Illuminati series (but, it needs some work)...
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:02:01 EST
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
 <1992Dec28.223226.12849@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
 <93002.204240SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <C09FDo.K4u@zoo.toronto.edu>

Yep, stuff launched from the Moon is a bad idea.

However, if you want to fill near earth space with weapons platforms,
or just decide that you're going to have a comsat monoploy, a lunar
economy might (who can say? they might need to import all their K
vitamins or something) very well have a significant advantage.

And the 'lots of time to smack it' works both ways, generally in
the Moon's favour.

Not a justification I am fond of; not one I'd really like to see
pushed, either, but it's there.

Graydon
Xref: sparky sci.space:18059 talk.politics.space:1581
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 22 Dec 1992 14:49 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa, world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec22.023353.10922@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, gcoleman@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (George Coleman) writes...
>>for every dollar spent in space there is an estimated 7 dollar return in
>> space spin offs.
> 
>I have read this many times in nasa releases and every time it struck a sour
>chord.  If there is that much return on technical research than it sounds like
>the market is in great demand.  Simple supply and demand would then dictate
>that many firms would try to fill this demand.  Call me strange but I trust the
>market more than I trust press release from a government agency.  If this were
>realy true than there should be a *private* firm raking in a bundle of money.
>To save so time and net space I will knock down the obvious straw man.

[stuff deleted]

>Ed Colmeman

Ed this is not NASA propaganda but from the Wall Street Times somtime in 1989.
This has also been repeated in studies by Forbes magazine. These are hardly 
government propaganda arms. This is measured by the total effect of the 
technology in question to the national economy, not simply the profit margin
on a particular project or product. So save your time and don't set up a 
straw man to overthrow a single statment by someone on the net here. The
activities of the space program effect you every single day in more ways than
any of us realize. In previous centuries it was always military confilict and
the advance of military technology that moved civilization forward. Steel
ships from the American civil war, gunpowder, transportation in the form
of roads form Roman armies also opened up Roman trade. This is called the 
multiplier effect, and is just as effective when applied to the space program
as it is to military expenditures. The positive aspect of this is that we 
don't have to fight a war to get the benefits.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 31 Dec 1992 18:34:21 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec31.001942.11805@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>In article <1hfqr6INN387@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>i dont believe the russians have ever been charged with using slave
>>labor.  Now the russians had a strange command economy,  but things still
>>cost, but there were major problems in distribution.  the russian/SU
>>economy was sorta like massachusetts meets new york via sweden.
>>
>
>I agree with all of this. My point was that all those social services,
>which in our system are paid out of worker salaries, were paid out of
>a different account that wasn't charged against their space program. 
>So using their numbers is an invalid comparison with numbers from a
>differently organized economy because many of their costs are "hidden"
>in other government accounts. That looks like it's changing, and we
>may soon discover that Russian costs *aren't* really much lower than 
>ours for similar launchers.
>



Complaining about socialized economies having strange costing rules
is significantly differennt then stating that the russians
use slave labor.    Certainly comparing DoD costs to Commercial sector
costs to French Costs to Soviet Costs  to Chinese costs  is a difficult
problem.  

I am certain that after the re-organization is done, we will discover russian
costs are closer to ours,   but i believe they will be able to provide
launch services cheaper then ours, due to their economies of scale.  

Hopefully DC-1 will still remain competitive against their sausage
factory lines.

pat

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:52:56 GMT

In article <22DEC199214155306@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>craft and the Apollo Soyuz Test Project used the Full up Saturn 1B. Remember
>that the ASTP mission carried a Apollo CSM (45,000 lbs), the docking module
>(15,000 lbs?) into the 51 degree Soyuz orbit. Not bad, Titan IV today could not
>do that. Environmentally friendly too, relative to the Titan SRB's.

Another fun fact: Saturn 1B development was only $3.4 billion 1986 dollars
compared to the Shuttle which cost over ten times as much to develop ($34.7
1986 dollars).

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------123 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 16:20:45 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>Only the US and the former USSR?  I think ESA, ISAS, NASDA, and Great
>Wall, Inc. might disagree with you.  They might also point out that
>Israel and India have launched satellites on multiple occasions, and
>ask you how you define "precision orbit."  France, Britain, and Italy
>are kind of retired from the launch business, but they are ESA
>partners.  Brazil is coming up fast as a contender here.

Bill, there's a difference between "demonstration capability" and "cocked and
loaded." ESA is not in the business of launching ASATs. 

I'll spot the French the benefit of the doubt, because they have an in-house
solids capability and cuz they're the French.


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clarke@next1.acme.ucf.edu ()
Subject: What was NASA thinking?
Originator: clarke@next1
Organization: IST, University of Central Florida, Orlando
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:21:10 GMT

9Wanting to refresh my somewhat rusty remembrance of things rocket,
I picked up "Rocket Propulsion Elements" by George Sutton
(1986, 5th ed, John Wiley and sons).
Therein I found the following interesting numbers:
 
Space Shuttle Main Engine	Saturn J-2 Upper Stage
 
Thrust (at alt): 470,000 lbs	230,000 lbs
Specific Imp (alt)   455 sec        426 sec
Dry Weight:         6335 lbs       3454 lbs 
Thrust/Weight:	      74             67
Mixture Ratio:	       6	      5.5
 
Now, I have been led to believe that the SSME is a large
advance over previous engines. The above seems to imply
that with a little work the 6 J-2s could have powered
the shuttle quite nicely.  Perhaps a 6:1 mixture would have
given it the same Isp as SSME - the J-2 thrust and thrust/weight
would have then been 246,000 lbs and 71.5.
 
Also:
 
       Space Shuttle SRB         Saturn F-1 First Stage
 
Thrust(at alt):	 2,372,000	 1,748,000 
Specific Imp:   266 (average)	  265 (grnd) - 305 (alt)   
 
Now, the F-1 does not replace an SRB one for one, but its
no too far off.  Given its good record maybe the F-1 could
have been rerated to 135% throttle to equal the SRB.
 
Hence the question in the title of my post:  What was NASA
thinking about?  Apparently the Saturn engines could have
been used to build the shuttle vehicle.  Why weren't they?
 
A shuttle with 5 or 6 J-2s using 2 uprated F-1s in the recoverable
boosters would have taken advantage of a history of literally
dozens of successful flight firings.  Plus there would
have been a much wider range of abort modes.
 
Happy new year.  Let's hope for more rational future design.
 
-- 
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs 2 stage
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 22:51:02 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Dec30.180058.28938@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:

>The mass ratio on an airliner is much less than in a launcher with
>chemical rocket propulsion, for rather fundamental reasons.  It is
>therefore not inconceivable that multistage launchers would be
>appropriate even though multistage aircraft are not.

I didn't ask if you could say "It is not inconceivable."  I asked
if you could prove it.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development)
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 19:32:34 GMT


In article <Bzp1w6.D3y@world.std.com>, tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes...
>The very first MOL flight (and only one, if I recall correctly) 
>was basically a test of the Titan III, on its way to being man-rated.
>(Does anyone remember if the strap-ons were solids?)  The MOL was a
>mock-up, just a cylinder the right size and shape.  The Gemini capsule
>was a donation to the Air Force from NASA, the former "Gemini 2"
>capsule that had flown unmanned.

Apart from the Gemini B capsule and the dummy MOL, it was an otherwise standard
Titan 3C (which was designed for man rating, btw). The dummy MOL served as a
payload shroud for a group of satellites that were deployed after the Gemini
had been sent on it's reentry course.

gary
From: mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (and Almaz)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 15:09:48 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec18.111817.24990@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
>
>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.  

I *think* it was actually the Gemini 3 capsule that was used for this.
I remember hearing it touted as "the first reuse of a manned spacecraft"
or something to that effect.  Of course, I was only about 12 at the time ...
-- 
Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 13:43:00 GMT

In article <JMC.92Dec29222737@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:

>If someone proposes a new reusable vehicle for going to earth orbit,
>it is reasonable to ask why its maintenance costs can be expected to
>be a lot less than those of the Shuttle.  Any answer you get needs to
>be evaluated skeptically.

DC-X is being built so that the answer can be evaluated experimentally.

  Allen


-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------115 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sea floor Planetary Protection really.
Date: 31 Dec 1992 19:05:00 GMT
Organization: UDSI
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <C03tGM.DpE.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>
>By the way, before I forget - I recently saw an old (1960s) clip on NASA
>Select, discussing the sterilization of unmanned probes for exploration of
>planetary surfaces (so as to avoid contaminating possible native life before
>studies could be conducted). The plan at that time was to sterilize the
>probes by exposing them to ethylene oxide gas. Items such as sensors that
>might be sensitive to ethylene oxide could be sterilized by other means,
>and covered during exposure to the gas.


NASA  has adopted the COSPAR guidelines on planetary protection and i believe
even has an office for this.  They are concerned about contamination in
both ways.  They reccomend, heat sterilization, radiation,  gas and chemicals.

The big concern now is not so much establishing earth organisms on foreign
bodies, but destroyin/contaminating archaeology studies of exo-biology.

I know the Mars Observer orbit was constrained under planetary protection
guidelines to stay off the surface for X thousand years.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 03:36:34 GMT

In article <ewright.725658384@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <18892@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>
>>        We have been launching staged rockets for nearly half a century.  I
>>think the problems of staging, if not trivial, are solvable.  Certainly,
>>historical evidence indicates that staging is less of a technical challenge
>>than SSTO operation.
>
>Bingo!
>
>Okay, now we've gotten to the crux of the problem.
>
	Ayup, we have.  You want people either to lead, follow or get
out of the way.  Yet, when someone suggests a technique that MAY give
a five-fold increase in lbs to orbit, you immediately jump down
their throat.  Si I guess leading is not there, so I guess that leaves,
Following or getting out of your way.

>You simply do not understand the difference between a converted
>artillery rocket, which we have been launching for nearly half
>a century, and a single-stage-to-orbit *spaceship*.
>
>Saying that launch vehicles should be multistaged like ICBMs
>makes as much sense as saying that airplanes should be shaped 
>like cannonballs. 
>
	I don't know about cannonballs, but artillery shells and
airplanes tend to have similar shapes in their bodies.  But,
your analogy is only half meritted.  The reason DC-1 may be a lot
less expensive is due to a LOT of factors, only one of which is
related to staging costs.  And, if you approach the problem of
staging the same way DC-X is approaching some other problems,
you MAY find that it can be done cheap enough to merit the work.
If you don't, hey, they you go on.  Not every idea for a DC-1
follow-on will work.  Some will, some won't.  Let's give
it some time and find out what our needs are.  Perhaps we find for
whatever reason that 90% of our payload to orbit is about the
right size for DC-1, and the remaining 10% needs a lift capacity
of 8 times DC-1.  Well, in that case, economics dictates that
a DC-0 WOn't work.  But ther may be economic scenarious where
it does work.

	The biggest objection I have to DC-0 right now, is that 
I don't see a market for it.  That may change.  It depends on
if cheaper access to space prompts people to launch bigger payloads,
or more smaller ones.


>
>
>
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Feelings
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 21 Dec 92  15:19:32

None of us here know exactly what the future of the space launch industry will 
be. Making blanket statements about the future is an extremely hazardous
business: the only certainly is that the probability of being wrong is high.
 
SSTO might work; it might not. After a test program that truly demonstrates
the key technologies, we may know whether the SSTO
concept is viable. The question is: do you support a SSTO test
program, or do you believe the concept is so flawed that it is
pointless to test the technologies?

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_)
Subject: Re: Acceleration
Organization: The K-Zoo Crew
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:22:35 GMT

In article <C00wHv.HK7.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
] -Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's.
]                                                         ------------
] -It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of
] -the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people.
]                                   -----
]  
] - Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball
] 
] Acceleration and force are not the same thing. In this case, acceleration
] is force *per unit mass*. If you can keep the mass down on any given 
] component, then the force isn't too great, even under high acceleration.
] 

F=ma, right? So if the mass is the same, then an acceleration 350 times
that experienced on earth is due to a force 350 times that on earth, right?
Or does the mass somehow change around Jupiter? :-)

] Just design the system so that each component can support at least 350 times
] its own (Earth) weight[1]. Of course you need a safety factor and allowance
] for buffeting, so you might want to design the probe to withstand 500 G or
] more. This is still far below the requirements of the electronics in artillery 
] shells.
] 
] [1] - Bearing in mind the expected direction of the force, and the influence
] that the components have on one another.
] John Roberts

They're doing some pretty impressive stuff with durable electronics these days.

  _____    "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