HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Jet Lag
Date: 12 Dec 92 21:27:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz60zo.4t.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: 18084TM@msu.edu
-Subject: Jet Lag
-Date: 11 Dec 92 22:29:44 GMT

->I believe you have that backwards.  My understanding is, the faster the
->flight, the less the jet lag.

-Think about it.  If you take a tramp steamer, the difference between your
-local time and POD time is very small, per unit of travel time, so you
-can catch up on the difference as you go.  The faster you travel, the
-bigger is that difference, and the less time, during travel, you have to
-keep in-phase.

I think I tend to agree with Henry's view (that faster travel shouldn't
have a negative effect on time adaptation), with the following provisions:

# Henry's approach requires that you spend a day or more either before or after
  the flight to adapt your schedule. In theory that makes sense, but in
  practice it is likely to take considerable mental discipline (which Henry
  has, no doubt, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the population). 
  Before the trip, you're busy getting ready, taking care of last-minute
  details, etc. And if you have limited vacation time, it might seem silly
  to take an extra day of leave just to stay at home sleeping during the
  day. Once you get to your destination, the natural incliniation is to
  rush around doing things, rather than "waste" a day sleeping. A longer
  travel time *forces* you to start adjusting (with various unpleasant side
  effects, as Henry pointed out).

# Many people tend to wake up at local dawn, regardless of how much sleep
  they got. So it might be necessary to put black paper over the bedroom
  window in order to adjust properly.

# Humans are really only efficient at adjusting their sleep cycles forward -
  it's much easier to stay up a little later and sleep a little later than to
  go to bed earlier and get up earlier. So if the direction of travel is such
  that backward adjustment is required, the fatigue brought about by sitting
  for many hours in an uncomfortable seat might help you to sleep when you
  ordinarily would not. But I wouldn't say that this is a real benefit of
  prolonged travel time - it's more a *perceived* benefit.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 03:49:18 GMT

>Path: mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!mercury.cair.du.edu!copper!vexcel!ncar!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!utcsri!utzoo!henry
>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
>Message-ID: <Bz7uts.67q@zoo.toronto.edu>
>Date: 13 Dec 92 21:10:34 GMT
>References: <246900038@peg.pegasus.oz.au>
>Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
>Lines: 10
>
>In article <246900038@peg.pegasus.oz.au> wlmss@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
>>Why not send a craft along behind Galileo to relay information back to
>>Earth at a suitable rate?
>
>Because it would have required putting that craft and its launch together
>in a considerable hurry, starting a couple of years ago, and funding for
>doing that could not be found.
>-- 
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Well why did the HGA have to be cloed up in the first place? If it is too
big, then couldn't they have used a more powerful transmitter? I would
have rather tried to avoid such a chance for failure. If thay don't get
that HGA open then %30-%40 of the mission objectives will be lost. Or is
the radio frequncy have something to do with he size of the HGA???


        -- Ryan Korniloff
        -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Terminal velocity of DC-X?
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:56:35 GMT


-From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
-Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
-Date: 15 Dec 92 13:49:36 GMT

-Well we will launch that 400 pound Italian satellite. You remember, the
-one NASA spent half a billion launching instead of putting it on a $10M
-Pegasus?

There are a sufficient number of good arguments to support continuation
of the DC program that there's no need to resort to bad arguments. Are
you seriously suggesting that Pegasus could put a 400 kg (not lb) satellite
into a 5617 km x 5950 km x 52.6 degree orbit?

(I thought the post-introductory price of Pegasus was more like $16 M.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 18:31:29 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <7gm27s@rpi.edu> <1gvkjlINN7c@mirror.digex.com>

>In article <7gm27s@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>
>>       Given a figure of $500 Million a flight, useful work can be:
>>10 hours/day * 6 astronauts * 5 days = 300 hours.  Divide this into the
>>above number nd you get $1.6 Million.  If this is a EDO flight of 10
>>days, your on-orbit costs drop in half.  So, I'd assume that
>>
>
>
>I think your number is a tad optimistic.  I think the shuttle suits
>are only good for 4-5 Hours, before a recharge is done.
>Also While you have a crew of 7,  at least two would stay in board.
>The pilot and the Arm operator (He may need an assistant).
>Henry is the roving expert on this.  so I get.
>(oops,  also i guy stays suited up in the airlock  as an emergency helper.
>8 hours/day (2 suit sorties) * 4 astronauts * 5 days = 152 hrs.
>Less if you need another guy on the flight or middeck.
>so i ball park it in at 3.5 million/hour.  not counting additional
>depreciation on the suits.
>
>I would imagine the CIS is still making a killing at 5 million/hour.
>

  Nope, not overly optimistic. Several Space Shuttle astronauts have
  spent seven hours or more in the EVA suits without recharge. Most
  recently this was done on the STS-49 mission, during which three
  crewmen spent over eight hours in their suits before recharge.
  I think six hours is considered a baseline EVA, though.
  
  -Brian
  
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: stevef@awolf.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Steve Flanagan)
Subject: Re: No asteroid flybys (was Re: Cassini Undergoes Intense Design Review)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:35:54 GMT

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:

>>Nope.  It was announced in *Aviation Leak* that the policy of seeking
>>asteroid flybys has been dropped to keep costs down on Cassini. :-(

>Swell. WIth our luck the damn thing will probably wind up colliding
>with an asteroid, which collision would have been recognized had
>we but continued the search for flyby possibilities...

Actually, one of the main reasons for dropping the asteroid flyby for Cassini
is that there really aren't any good flyby opportunities for the baseline
trajectory.  The best we could come up with was a 22 km/s flyby of asteroid
1987 SJ4.  This is due to the fact that the only time Cassini enters the
asteroid belt is on the Earth to Jupiter leg of the trajectory.  This leg
follows the "double gravity assist", the fast (8 week) transfer from Venus
to Earth, which dramatically increases the spacecrafts heliocentric velocity.
As a result, Cassini's velocity relative to *any* main belt asteroid is going 
to be very high, which makes the flyby less attractive scientifically and more
challenging operationally.


Steve Flanagan
Cassini Mission Design Team
stevef@awolf.jpl.nasa.gov
Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:08:38 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.

In <1992Dec16.195416.8422@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>For what we have spent on Shuttle we could have built two Freedom
>space stations or about 20 or so Industrial Space Facilities. 

But without the experience gained during the Shuttle program,
we never could have built a space station as expensive as Freedom. :-)

Well, we could have, but it would have had a crew of 100. :-)



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle thermal tiles
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:45:28 GMT

On 12 Dec 92 01:24:21 GMT, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) said:

J> The Shuttle launch towers have movable covers which protect the orbiter
J> from damage by hail and severe storms.

Dryden flew a number of shuttle tiles (current and proposed) on the
aerodynamic test fixture on the F-104G.  The tiles are undamaged by
snow and devastated by rain, with hail being not quite as bad as
rain.  Of course you can cover the vehicle on the pad, but you can't
fly through rain or hail without etching the tiles down to the felt
pads they're glued to.

J> It's interesting to recall the extreme concern over the thermal tiles
J> before STS-1. Many people were convinced that the tiles would all fall
J> off during reentry. (The fact that Enterprise lost many of its tiles during
J> transport, and that Columbia lost some off its engine covers during launch
J> added to the concern.) 

Enterprise, not being a _real_ shuttle, didn't have real tiles.  It
had a fairly fine-textured plastic foam, painted black.  Not foamed
ceramic with a ceramic coating, like real shuttles.  I have a small
chunk of the Enterprise that I picked up off the hangar floor when
they were doing the structural test evaluations.  These fake tiles
stayed on very well, both in transport and in flight.

On the other hand, the tiles falling off Columbia during its first 
takeoff on the 747 were thicker than the the leaves falling off the
fruitless mulberry in my front yard after the first hard freeze last
month.  I think that the Air Force had a FOD walkdown before they'd
open the runway after the takeoff.

J> Now it seems to be treated as a solved problem (except
J> for the weight, of course, and the inability to fly the Shuttle through
J> rain during landing). 

The various fabrics have replaced the tiles most prone to departure in
midair.

J> I got to play with some Shuttle tile replicas
J> at the Technology 2002 conference - they're being promoted as a solution
J> to some Earth-based problems.

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.


--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:45:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec16.163114.4715@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>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.
>
>No offense but I would like some backing for that.

Also, for purposes of this discussion, the difference between cost and
price is relevant.  It's not as if they had any competition; they can,
and probably do, set prices far above their costs.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Chicken Guns (was Re: "trivial engineering")
Date: 18 Dec 1992 18:15:34 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

The F-16 in the early 80's was having a real problem with bird strikes
fracturing the canopies, so i heard for a while the air force
was launching Frozen turkeys and chickens at the aircraft
to test canopies.  i guess the frozen bit was to make the birds
harder.

it was a tidbit in the paper.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: Ben Burch <Burch_Ben@wes.mot.com>
Subject: Re: No asteroid flybys (was Re: Cassini Undergoes Intense Design Review)
Organization: Motorola, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 12:10:08 GMT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7537BFD1001B081@ben_burch.pb.wes.mot.com>
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-Xxdate: Tue, 15 Dec 92 06:11:41 GMT

In article <schumach.724381783@convex.convex.com> Richard A. Schumacher,
schumach@convex.com writes:
>Swell. WIth our luck the damn thing will probably wind up colliding
>with an asteroid, which collision would have been recognized had
>we but continued the search for flyby possibilities...

I should probably let this one go...  Oh well...  Have you ANY concept of:

A. How unlikely this is? I mean, I am more likely to win the lottery by
   a long stretch, and I don't buy tickets.
   
B. How lax this would be on the part of mission planners?  I'm quite
   sure that they know of all of the close encounters with asteroids,
   probably this is spit out from a standard piece of mission planning
   software.
   
I mean, its very slightly likely that this mission could run afoul of
a misplaced pebble, but one can hardly plan around that.

-Ben Burch
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 16 Dec 92 14:52:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec16.145221.805
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1glgrrINN6jj@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.175719.24880@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>on several grounds, the low chamber pressures lead to very high
>>loads on the turbopumps because so much more fuel per unit time
>>has to flow to achieve the high thrust required with low pressure
>>engines. Reducing stress in one area can lead to increased stress 
>>
>I dont think that is an unsolvable problem.   THe Saturn F-1's sucked
>fuel like no tomorrow.   The soviet's haul fuel to feed those
>big protons and energiya engines.

I agree. My point was that low pressure engines don't necessarily mean
lower stress, just different stresses.

>Horizontal take off  is not simple.   while it makes people comfortable
>it means the bird has to sit a long time in the soup,  sucking in 
>O2  and feeding the engines.   The stress is high.  the heat buildup
>is enormous.     NASP is going berserk on this problem.
>Flight near MACH 12  can be a real trick.  
>
>McDaC, chaose to just fly right out of this soup  and take a simpler
>approach.  

I basically agree with this too. MACH 12 is a tough thing in heavy
atmosphere, but most flyback booster designs didn't try to achieve 
MACH 12 before switching to rocket power. Note that I'm not wedded
to SSTO concepts here.

>Wings are not useful if they only generate lift up to abou;t  20 miles,
>and you have to keep climbing another 130 miles.

Well that sort of depends. If you can get above most of the atmosphere
with wing assist and air breathing engines, your job of getting to orbit
is made much easier. Again I'm not wedded to SSTO, the jets don't have
to continue to orbit with you. They can be part of a flyback booster.

>Also if an HTHL, is going to be mostly lifting body,  then so will the DC.
>
>As i understand it, it will blunt fly down to mach 3 and then roll
>tail first.  engines will provide terminal management.  most velocity
>will be shed by passive shielding.

That sounds more like a re-entry capsule, ala Apollo, than a classic
lifting body that can glide all the way down to a landing. The only
difference with Apollo seems to be substituting rockets for parachutes
in the terminal phase.

Gary
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: People who can't count costs (Was Re: Terminal Velocity of
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 18:30:52 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: world
  <ByuqKM.F2@access.digex.com> <1992Dec7.173321.2812@ke4zv.uucp>
  <BywyEy.7uE@access.digex.com> <ewright.724698268@convex.convex.com>
  <18DEC199221284228@judy.uh.edu>

>The flight rate by the way oh thou ignorant of basic math is 8 this year
>with four flights scheduled in the first four months of next year. It is
>beginning to be obvious that the flight rate of 8 per year is more of a
>political than technical nature. If you were to account in this manner
>the costs are even lower.

   I don't think the Congress convened and said "NASA can't fly more
   than eight missions per year". Actually, the eight-per-year (seven
   on the slate for '94) is more of a 'let's not press our luck'
   decision than a 'can we justify more than eight a year' decision.
   NASA occassionally cites fuel costs as being involved, but that's
   hooey, IMHO. I think they are staring down that long dark one-
   failure-in-25-flights statistic and thinking 'let's not push
   the flight rate any more than we have to.' Wise decision, I'd say.
   If you ask me, they should fly Shuttle sparingly until Freedom is
   ready to launch, and then accelerate to 12 flights per year. 
   That's one per month, a track record that they've demonstrated
   several times in the past few years, and are about to again, as you
   noted, from December '92 to April '93 (with only 3 Orbiters, BTW.)
   
>ONLY if you take every single budget item in the entire NASA budget that has
>any relationship to manned space activities and then divide by the number
>of flights per year, then you will get a >$500 million per flight costs.

>Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

   It basically comes down to a point of what one considers
   operational costs and what one considers related costs. On the
   operational side, counting Launch Control, OPF engineers, and
   fuel costs, Shuttle is still the most expensive. Of course, nothing
   else has to launch human beings, so comparisons are very tricky.
   On the related costs side of the budget, with the exception of the
   DC Revolution endlessly touted here on the net, new launch systems
   will still need major launch facilities (and standing armies), big
   computerized Mission Control Centers, and numerous contractors. These
   things are counted in Shuttle budgets, but not in Titan IV, NLS,
   or Spacelifter budgets. Of course then, the others look mighty
   cheap.
   
   I myself have given up the idea of comparison/contrast of launch
   vehicle costs, it's a Kobayashi Maru scenario if there ever was one.
   Instead, I'll let McDAC prove they can do it cheaper than Shuttle,
   since the DC-1 is the only thing on the drawing boards with similar
   objectives (sending up humans and payload and bringing them back.)
   
   -Brian
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:33:51 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

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.
>
>were market failures. Actually I was thinking of the P-39 when I

(Stuff deleted)


Actually another case was the YB-49  and YB-50?  those were
northrops  flying wing prototypes,  the turbo-prop  and the jet versions.

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

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.



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gh6677@ehibm3.cen.uiuc.edu (George C Harting)
Subject: AmRoC
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:56:25 GMT

Hello out there...

	I was wondering if anybody had any recent info about Amroc's Hybrid
rocket?  Perhaps even hybrid rockets in general...
	Personally, I like the company's philsophy of building a rocket with
a true commercial market in mind - i.e. no pork barrel government money for
development and started independently.  
	However, it seems that they have always been running into 
problems trying to get their design to work (I think only one successful test
of the 75Klbf engines ever worked).  And they have never had an actual launch!
	Anyway,have hybrid rockets ever been used?  I heard that they may have
been for small missiles but nothing as large scale as Amroc's.

					George

I have no friggin' .sig!



Xref: sparky sci.space:17938 sci.astro:13309 alt.sci.planetary:426
From: paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Keywords: Galileo, Jupiter, Ames, JPL
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:55:13 GMT
Organization: Taniwha Systems Design

In article <1992Dec15.213937.21958@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> j_butler@ponil.enet.dec.com () writes:

>How does NASA and JPL expect the probe to survive the deceleration? It must
>be pretty close to slamming into a piece of boilerplate! 

I think that the jokes about NASA and lawyers are getting a bit stale :-)

	Paul


-- 
Paul Campbell    UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul     AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P
Use up your Quayle jokes now while they're still good "Quayle for Pres. in '94"
     Q: Why is Marilyn Quayle like Marion Barry?
     A: They both suck a little dope.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
Date: 17 Dec 92 14:27:01 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <BzDCqA.3sI@brunel.ac.uk>, mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes:
> 
> It wasn't Duncan (though he was there) but Patrick Collins, of the
> School of Management, Imperial College.  He wrote an article on the
> subject in Analog about the same time.  He now works in Japan and has
> an email address, but I haven't got it yet.


More of interest, Pat is working on *Space Tourism* in Japan.

Guess who'll have the furst space hotel?

>    ', ,','    |       Del Cotter       mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk      |    ', ,','  
-- 
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax			|  Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc      @ uk.ac.ox.astro		|           Saint Germain...
================================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space