HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: liquid fuels
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 17:52:18 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <Bz6CL8.D5u@zoo.toronto.edu>

>Sorry, wrong.  Cryogenic fuels fly in the payload bay on every extended-
>duration shuttle flight.  The shuttle's fuel cells use liquid hydrogen
>and liquid oxygen, and the extended-duration pallet for the cargo bay
>(first flown recently) is basically a set of LH2 and LOX tanks.

   Well, it's only flown once actually. Why on earth isn't EVERY
   Columbia mission an EDO mission? Budgets?
   Anyway, the EDO pallet doesn't carry anything like the amount
   of LH2 Centaur would have had.

>Shuttle/Centaur, the launch system originally meant for Galileo (as well
>as the other two, but it was the massively-overweight Galileo mission
>that drove its specs), died partly because of an acute attack of timidity
>after Challenger, partly because people distrusted some aspects of Centaur's
>construction, and partly because Centaur+Galileo was so heavy that it led
>to problems like needing to jettison its fuel before an emergency landing.
>A somewhat smaller LOX/LH2 stage with more conservative construction could
>probably be certified for shuttle use even now, but nobody wants to try.

  Thank goodness it didn't fly on Shuttle. Whatever GD did to make
  Centaur more powerful for the Shuttle was a real headache. The thing
  has failed twice in the last year or two. If that had happened on
  a Shuttle launch, we'd never have heard the end of it from the
  anti-shuttle folks.
  
  -Brian
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn history
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 18:42:14 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <ByyIEK.7H4@zoo.toronto.edu> <Bz0tLs.t0@access.digex.com>
  <Bz20np.n1H@zoo.toronto.edu>

>In article <Bz0tLs.t0@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>>The first Saturn I flew on 27 Oct 1961, actually.
>>
>>So if the Saturn I  was ready in 61,  why didn't they use it for
>>Gemini?
>
>The test flights needed to make it ready (by von Braun's standards) covered
>the next several years.  For one thing, the first few flights had no upper
>stage and were incapable of making orbit.
>--
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
>
    Besides, wasn't the driving force in the Gemini delays of 1964 the
    spacecraft, not the booster? Titan II was more or less ready.
     
    -Brian
    
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:33:23 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec15.213937.21958@nntpd2.cxo.dec.com> j_butler@ponil.enet.dec.com () writes:
>I have always wondered what was done to the instrument package to allow it to
>survive such forces. I have some awareness of "ruggedization" necessary to
>allow various electronic components to survive launching from an artillery
>piece, and tactical missiles/rockets. I also have some knowledge of the
>accellerations experienced by the Sprint system and HIBEX experiments...
>none of which came CLOSE to 350G! 

Smart artillery shells experience thousands of gees at launch.  A few
hundred is no big deal; dropping the probe a meter or two onto a hard
floor would expose it to much more (and with faster onset, too).

Actually, the surprising thing is how *little* special design is needed.
I dimly recall reading an article about the electronics packaging for
the Copperhead laser-guided shell:  basically, they just built very
high-grade printed-circuit boards, made sure the components were securely
anchored to them, and made sure the boards weren't very big and were
solidly supported at their edges.

If you want to see special design in the Galileo probe, look not at the
instrument package but at the heatshield...
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: dieter@informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Dieter Kreuer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What is a VSAT?
Followup-To: sci.space
Date: 14 Dec 1992 09:42:32 GMT
Organization: i4
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: frueh-koelsch.informatik.rwth-aachen.de

In article <1992Dec11.175249.21479@athena.mit.edu>, mock@space.mit.edu
(Patrick C. Mock) wrote:
> 
> 
> Does anyone know what does VSAT (Very Small Aperature Terminal) mean 
> in the context of satellite communications?

It means an earth station with a very small dish (and therefore limited
power and sensitivity). There are VSATs which fit inside a briefcase,
with the dish inside the lid. The signal emitted by a VSAT is too weak
to be directly received by another VSAT, therefore, there is a so
called hub-station in the middle of the net, which has a much bigger
dish and sensitivity, so that it can receive all the stations in the
net and retransmit their messages with higher power. The hub transmis-
sions can then be received by the VSATs. So, you need two satellite 
"hops" to communicate with another VSAT. The increased propagation 
delay, the channel access scheme and the high bit error probability of
this low link budget communication leads asks for special communication 
protocols, which distinguish VSATs form other satellite communication
systems.

-----------------------                  ---------------------------------
     Dieter Kreuer      ##     ======== / dieter@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Lehrstuhl Informatik IV __   /// /#    /  dieter%informatik.rwth-
     RWTH Aachen        ##  /// # #   /             aachen.de@uunet.uu.net
     Ahornstr. 55       ## /// ##### /...!informatik.rwth-aachen.de!dieter
W-5100 Aachen, Germany  ====      # / PHONE:  +49 241 80 21413
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Sea Dragon?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:18:11 GMT

I see many references to Bob Truax's Sea Dragon design.

Can anyone point me at a reference, or post a summary
of the Sea Dragon?

Thanks.

--
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
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Tourism
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:54:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz9DnB.68p.1
	<HUGH.92Dec13194443@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

A bloke called (hmm, something like Drunken Loony, ah, I remember)
Duncan Lunan did a presentation on space tourism (the economics and
practicalities) at the Brighton Worldcon in 87. He had figures showing
that at $1 million a head you could get at least $100 million for an
orbital hotel (maybe it was $200m), without having to push the
advertising too hard. If you can get the price down to $10000 you can
get several $bn.

Think it was Duncan Lunan (from Imperial (?) College, London). Ask
around on the .sf. groups, I bet there are others there who remember
the talk.

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Shuttle thermal tiles
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:24:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz4H9s.Ao6.1
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: loren@pixar.com (Loren Carpenter)
-Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
-Date: 11 Dec 92 18:36:00 GMT
-Organization: Pixar - Pt. Richmond, CA USA

->>BUT: if the main place where NASP materials seem to be being used is
->>the heat shielding, and its re-entry temperature is lower than the
->>shuttle's, wouldn't shuttle re-entry materials be just as useful?

-	Indeed.  I have an engineering sample of the white tile material.
-	It has a color, density, hardness and stiffness similar to a fine
-	grained foamed chalk.  At first it seems like a smooth styrofoam,
-	firm and warm, but little white dust particles flake off as you
-	handle it.  It would be easy to stick a pencil clear through a tile,
-	though it would probably crack.  A moderate hailstorm would require
-	replacing all of them.

I don't think it's quite as bad as it sounds - the outer surface has a
hard coating. Also, I understand much of the Shuttle surface (presumably the
upper surface) is now covered with some sort of "thermal blanket" rather
than the tiles. 

Inspecting tiles on the DC-1 would probably be a nuisance in terms of its
expected low maintenance requirements, but it seems to be only a small
fraction of the maintenance effort required by the Shuttle - I think they
normally just run a visual check, which might take a day or two. From
listening to post-flight briefings, I gather that losing two or three tiles
to runway debris might be considered typical.

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

It's interesting to recall the extreme concern over the thermal tiles
before STS-1. Many people were convinced that the tiles would all fall
off during reentry. (The fact that Enterprise lost many of its tiles during
transport, and that Columbia lost some off its engine covers during launch
added to the concern.) Now it seems to be treated as a solved problem (except
for the weight, of course, and the inability to fly the Shuttle through
rain during landing). I got to play with some Shuttle tile replicas
at the Technology 2002 conference - they're being promoted as a solution
to some Earth-based problems.

Speaking of thermal protection - I saw some video taken on the flight
deck during reentry - if you look out the front windows on the way down,
you see a bright orange glow.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 13 book
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:22:04 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <72000@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
> "Houston, We've Had a Problem" is a NASA/Government Printing Office
> non-technical account of the Apollo 13 accident. It is about a ten
> page magazine-sized booklet.
> 
> I only know of one other "book" about the accident, that being
> "13: The Flight That Failed". I think the author was Henry S.F. Cooper...

Correct.  H,WHaP is pretty lightweight.  Cooper's book is the most detailed
treatment I've seen.  I'm not aware of any other books entirely on the
accident.

Murray&Cox's "Apollo" does a good job on Apollo 13.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:15:46 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 <1992Dec10.195138.16873@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>And electrical engineers were building and operating multi-megawatt
>power systems long before aircraft ever left the drawing board. We
>know something about reliability engineering too. We like things simple
>and robust. Every safety critical circuit has a separate backup, usually 
>using a different design that is unlikely to share common failure points.
>Simple redundancy is all fine and good, but can lead to redundant failures.

There are different ways of designing redundancy into a system.  Some
reduce the probability of a failure, others increase it.  Engineers
are taught to recognize the difference, maximize the former, and minimize
the latter.  Your multi-megawatt generators wouldn't work very well,
either, if the engineers were the kind of blithering idiots that you
assume everyone who works on SSTO must be.


 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: : Relay to Follow Galileo?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:17:24 GMT

BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>The folding, umbrella-type antennae have been used at least ten times
>in space (that is, two each on TDRS-A, TDRS-C, TDRS-D, and TDRS-E, one
>on ATS-6 (late-70s pathfinder comsat) and one on Galileo.
> 
>Only the one on Galileo failed to open on command, and there is still
>hope it will be coaxed open. (They haven't tried brute force yet.)

>Lesson:  OPEN THE DAMNED ANTENNA IMMEDIATELY AFTER LAUNCH!!!

And again writes,

>  Ryan...
>   
>  Galileo's umbrella-type High Gain Antenna was left in the folded
>  position because it was thought that the high temperatures it would
>  encounter during the Venus flyby portion of the mission could warp
>  the antenna. They attempted to open the antenna only after the Venus
>  flyby, when Galileo flew farther from the Sun. It was jammed.
   
>  Cassini, I think, will have a standard hard HGA, similar to the
>  Voyager and Magellan antennae. I hope the Galileo problem does not
>  prevent future spacecraft from using the folding antenna design. It
>  worked quite well on the TDRS satellites.
>  
>  -Brian

Is there a possiblity that, despite Galileo's HGA parasol, solar heat
could have still been a factor in its failure to deploy?  Especially
when one considers that for the nine successful deployments out of
ten, cited above, every corresponding spacecraft never left earth
orbit, while Galileo got as close to the sun as the planet Venus.

Curt






Newsgroups: sci.space
From: doom@elaine36.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brenner)
Subject: Re: Crystal growth in space - Bad NASA economics
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Distribution: sci.space
Date: 12 Dec 92 18:37:29


Thanks for typing in these excerpts.  If you hadn't done it,
I would have. 

> What follows are some excerpts that match the overall
> authors' feelings that protein crystal growth in space has
> little economic advantage over Earth-bound growth.

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration (though not much).
Really they're saying that nothing that has *yet* been done
has justified the expense, and there needs to be some
careful thought about what should be done.  One way of
looking at this article is that it's an advertisement
directed toward biologists: they want them to submit their
unsolved protein crystal growth problems.  Still another way
of looking at it is that it's an ad for using the
Soviet-built facilities rather than the US systems.  

All in all, I thought this article was unusually frank,
considering that the researchers are themselves engaged in
microgravity research.  Don't they know that they're
supposed to claim that everything is coming up roses?  

Their names deserve to be recognized: 

     Barry L. Stoddard 
     Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
     Seattle, Washington
 
     Roland K. Strong 
     Division of Biology
     CalTech
 
     Anthony Arrott 
     Payload Systems
     Cambridge, Massachusetts
 
     Gregory K. Farber
     Deptartments of Chemistry and Molecular Cell Biology 
     Penn State 



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:01:34 GMT

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?
> 

The team at JPL have reprogrammed Galileo with new compression techniques
that will allow retrieval of about 90% of the planned science data,
if I'm not mistaken.  Also, I doubt we could put one together by
'95 with the current management.  Technically it's probably doable,
but it's hard enough getting the funding for the currently planned missions.


--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Earth Movie
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: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:54:46 GMT


-From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
-Subject: Re: Earth Movie
-Date: 9 Dec 92 03:30:37 GMT
-Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

-There are two movies that will be made.  The first is called the Earth Zoom
-movie, and will cover a 48 period after the flyby as the spacecraft moves
-away from the Earth.  The second movie is called the Earth/Moon Conjunction
-movie, and the first images for that won't be taken until December 16.  
-At this time from the spacecraft's perspective, the Moon will appear to
-pass very close to Earth, and can be captured in a single field of view
-of the SSI camera.  168 images are allocated for this movie and it will
-be taken over a 14 hours period.  The movie will show the Moon passing
-by as the Earth slowly rotates beneath it.  As far as I know, both movies
-will be ready for the December 22 press conference, and most people will
-see it for the first time on the evening news the same day.

Will either of the movies be comparable to the movie made for the first
Earth flyby - with the Earth appearing to be the same size over the period
of observation?

What kind of software is required to make such a movie? Based on observation
of the earlier movie, it appears to be more than simple overall magnification -
the change in magnification of the "nearest" (center) portion of the Earth
must be greater than the rest as the distance from the spacecraft to the
Earth changes - otherwise, the Earth would appear to "distort" over that
interval.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:04:28 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 <BzDKw5.3no@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

>HE indulged in creative accounting?  I think the contract for DC-X was $58 
>million, not a "couple hundred million."  

That sounds right.  McDAC has also spent some of its own money in
addition to what it got from the Air Force.  I believe the contract
required McDAC to spend at least an equal amount, so that puts it
into the hundred-million-dollar range.  *Not* the billion-dollar
range.
 

>The average total cost of a shuttle mission is a little over $500 million 
>not a billion+.

Only if you learned math from the "Hitchhiker's Guide."

Divide the amount of money NASA spends on the Space Shuttle program
every year by six flights per year.

$500 million ain't even close.














Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert)
Subject: Re: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Constance
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:14:29 GMT

garym@telesoft.com (Gary Morris @pulsar) writes:
>sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:
>>Will entry be observed by the camera on the orbiter? 
>I wonder if Hubble could see the entry?
If you put it into Jupiter's orbit .. :-)
 Hartmut Frommert                 <phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>
 Dept of Physics, Univ of Constance, P.O.Box 55 60, D-W-7750 Konstanz, Germany
                                           -- Eat whale killers, not whales --
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Titan IV Costs
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 13 Dec 92  21:21:26

Brian Stuart Thorn writes
 
>On the topic [Titan IV], does anyone know how much has been spent
>on Titan IV since first flight? AvLeak shows launch costs at
>between 186-207 million dollars, or about half what a Shuttle costs
>(being charitable and not counting the kitchen sink at the KSC
>cafeteria). I'm curious how much we have paid for Titan IV to
>launch six payloads versus how much we paid for four times that
>number of Shuttle missions in the same amount of time.
  
    Hmmmm...  I don't have the cost to date, but the current
estimated cost for the Titan IV program can be found in the DoD
Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) which are released quarterly.
The most recent one was released in October.   It didn't get a lot
of attention, but the Titan IV program cost increased by about $
4,300 M.  Current expected Titan IV program cost is $22,674 M in
current dollars, for 65 vehicles.  That's an average cost per
vehicle of $342 M. However, some this cost includes a share of the
specific Titan-IV development cost and some costs of the Titan-
Centaur program.  The Titan-Centaur program is about $700M, and the
development cost is about $1500M, so we have for 65 vehicles, an
adjusted cost of about $20,474 M, or about $315 M/vehicle (no upper
stage).  A Centaur upper stage is about $ 45 M, for a cost of about
$ 360 M (including upperstage for GEO delivery)
  
    Titan IV                      $ 360 M (w/ Centaur upper stage)
    Titan IV                      $ 315 M (no upper stage)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wales Larrison                         Space Technology Investor

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:31:14 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.125638.29623@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Let's fly them on Mir and use the hundreds of millions saved on some other
>>worthwhile project.

>You seem to think that the Mir Cosmonauts are just floating around up
>there waiting for paying work. 

Not waiting but I'm sure customers with hard currency get priority. There
would be no problem flying those experiments.

>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.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------129 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:07:41 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 <h0l2prg@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>>Ever hear of the "Manned Orbiting Laboratory"? A Gemini with a very
>>Spacelab-like module launched together by Titan III.

>Yeah, I've heard of it.  I've also heard that it was cancelled about 25 years
>ago, and that none of them ever flew.

You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).
Newsgroups: sci.space