HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Energiya's role in Space Station assem
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:59:03 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug11.175149.29058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.152009.29998@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>With the current budget situtation, it is extremely difficult to fund long-lead
>>items. As noted, NASA does not operate under a multi-year budget.
>
>The DoD is constitutionally forbiden to run under allocations lasing more
>than two years and they rarely get them. Yet they build $100 billion
>aircraft carriers and other hardware.

Yes, and the cost overruns are truly horrendous. Political procurements,
and all single customer government procurements are political, rarely
ever come in on budget or on time. In fact, contract "adjustments" on
a year to year basis are SOP. Without them, most military contractors
would quit the business. Name *one* major military procurement that
proceeded on a fixed price basis with *no* adjustments. Congress is
notorious for "stretching out" procurement in a way that saves money
this year, but adds horrible extra costs in the "out years" if the
full procurement ever is actually filled. Recent examples include B1B, 
B2, and Seawolf. ATF is travelling down the same road.

[deleted]
>No I didn't and I have already pointed this out to you. The new components
>are commercial procurements. They will be developed and operated by the
>private sector who will put its own capital at risk. This means that NO
>government money is expended until services are provided. Shuttle will
>continue to operate with the same funds it uses now until the cheaper
>replacement comes on line.

NASA can't legally sign a binding procurement contract that promises to 
buy X launches for Y dollars from Z corporation over multi-year periods. 
And there is *no* other market for these Shuttle replacements. The 
"out years" are total speculation. If your plan is sound, then show 
us that the manufacturers have built the systems on *speculation* 
with no assurance whatsoever that they will be purchased, because 
that's the way it actually works. If you can show that, then your 
plan deserves consideration. Otherwise, it has about as much reality
as a Star Trek episode.

The Rockwell Shuttle has the great advantage that it is *operational*
today. Construction costs are already sunk and can't be stretched or
killed by Congress. Only operational costs are ongoing. Expendibles
must include construction costs for *each* flight and that's highly
dependant on the *rate* of production. Since Congress can slow or
speed that rate at will, no firm numbers can be predicted with any
degree of certainty.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dbsjwb@Edm.Arco.COM (James Bielak)
Subject: Re: Star Trek (anti-)realism
Originator: dbsjwb@doofus
Reply-To: bielak@arco.com
Organization: ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:14:02 GMT


In article <92224.180315IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Nicholas C. Hester
<IA80024@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes:
|> In article <1992Aug11.004823.5046@sugra.uucp>, ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng)
|> says:
|> >
|> >My favorite in science fiction space travel like Star Trek and Star Wars
|> is
|> >the asteroid field.  Never mind that even crowded fields they are still
|> (in
|> >reality) mostly space.
|> 
|> Being mostly ignorant about these things, what would an asteroid field
|> look like if one flew into it?  I always assumed that it would be alot
   ^^^^^^^^^^
|> calmer, w/o the asteroids tumbling like in StarWars.
|> ___
|> 
|>     Nick Hester                     "Time time time
|> ia80024@Maine.bitnet                 for another peaceful war..."
|> ia80024@Maine.maine.edu                     - Warren Zevon
|>                                        "Roland the Headless Thompson
|> Gunner"

I'll bet they are alot quieter than the roar you hear when they go past
in the movies! ;^)

-- 
bielak@Arco.COM             ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
james.bielak@Edm.Arco.COM   2300 W. Plano Parkway PRC-D1139A
(214) 754-6184              Plano, TX 75075
From: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: 21 Aug 92 09:49:08 EDT
Reply-To: clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones)
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp
In-reply-to: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)

In article <Bt8nGw.7LJ.1@cs.cmu.edu>, jch+@cs (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
>mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov writes
>> Also, Soyuz will need to be certified for a
>> possible water landing.  We do not have areas like the steppes of Asia
>> to land in like the Russians.  
>
>Uhhh, this may be stupid, but why not just land on the steppes of
>Asia, or any other flat land surface that happens to be within reach
>when an emergency hits?  It's not like the capsule would be reused,
>nor need we worry about the Russians getting their hands on new
>technology :-)  Heck, they'd probably appreciate the return of their
>raw materials.

As has been pointed out already, Soyuz IS capable of water landings.  The
cosmonauts practice this all the time, two or three Zond reentry capsules
(which are basically Soyuz descent modules) made water landings, and at least
one crewed Soyuz capsule has landed in a lake.
--
Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: richard@csi.on.ca (Richard Martin)
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Organization: Carp Systems International, Kanata, ON
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 14:34:35 GMT

If not Nevada, where _could_ we put a permanent beanstalk?  Kilimanjaro?  The Andes?
Richard.
From: geisler@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Erikk Geisler [MOSL])
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Strange circles on Globe
Date: 18 Aug 92 03:06:28 GMT
Organization: Software Technology Lab - NASA/Johnson Space Center

The strange circles seen on NASA Select graphics are the ground tracking
station footprints.  I use a set of files which contain the azimuth/elevation
pairs for a particular station.  Its altitude and lat/lon are also employed.
Based upon the orbiter's altitude these footprints are regenerated (I use
a delta of plus/minus 2 NM).  The notches reflect areas which obscure the
line of sight of the tracking station's dish.  Noticable "keyholes" reflect
the gimbal limits of the dish.  

A variety of other footprints are also displayed.  The TDRS footprints, the
South Atlantic Anomaly, and the orbiter's horizon footprint (a faint red
circle around the orbiter model).  These are all collectively known as
ground area targets.  A number of applications in our area (Flight Activities
and Pointing) compute AOS/LOS times for these targets.  The graphics as
seen on Select allow the visualization of targets.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu (Gregg Giles)
Subject: National Space Plane
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 02:14:11 GMT


   Assuming all goes well, the National Space Plane (NSP) should replace the
current shuttles (Columbia class). How is the progress of these craft coming
along? I was pretty impressed with the technology which must be developed
for it. Hot stuff. (Or at least it will be in orbit.) <Grin>
   Are there any NASA anonynmous ftp sites that might have such info?
If there are, please Email me. Thanks
.
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Giles (Dynamix, Inc.)                 BIX: ggiles 
All opinions expressed are my own.          Internet: ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: rfedkiw@crenshaw.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Subject: Axisymmetric Navier Stokes Equations
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 21:30:09 GMT

I'm trying to do a calculation of the full compressible Navier Stokes
equations for flow past an axisymmetric blunt body.
So, I put the equations into axisymmetric form and multiply
through by 1/Jacobian = r = distance from centerline (of axisymmetry).
I need to do this to put the equations back into conservative form for 
my method.
The obvious problem is that the equations are no longer valid along
the axis of symmetry (where r = 0). The Jacobian here is infinite.
I'm not quite sure what the implications of an infinite Jacobian are,
but from looking at my equations it becomes obvious that they cannot 
be used to solve the flowfield at r=0.

I was wondering what sorts of methods ae in common practice to solve
for the flowfield near r=0.
The solution is important here since this is where the flow passes
through the strongest portion of the shockwave. (It's a normal shock
at r=0 and the heating is high, also this is the where the stagnation
streamline lies.)
So, I need a good method, this might be the most important part of the flow!

Any help is greatly appreciated.

(I've thought about bounding the domain of the grid away from r=0,
 by 1/2 of a grid cell, but what boundry condition would I use?)

Ron Fedkiw

--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu)

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: cornutt@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (David Cornutt)
Subject: Re: communication question (LOS)
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:47:09 GMT

mmm@leland.Stanford.EDU (michael murray) writes:


>If there are three TDRSS satelites orbiting the earth, why does shuttle 
>communication experience a loss of signal?

>It seems to me that with three satelites, there could be constant coverage of
>shuttle communication.  Therefore it leads me to believe that NASA designed
>the system to include an LOS region.  WHY?

Well, not designed, as such...

The problem is that, athough there are enough TDRSs in orbit (acutally
four, now) to cover the whole Earth, there is only one ground terminal,
at White Sands.  A TDRS positioned to cover the exclusion zone (which is
roughly over India) would be so low to the horizon at White Sands that
reception would be very spotty due to atmospheric effects, and there
might also be problems with excessive signal strength at certain points
on the Earth's surface creating interference with terrestrial services.
(Some of the frequencies used by TDRS are not allocated exclusively
to space services.)

There were two solutions proposed a few years ago to solve this problem,
neither of which ever got funded.  One was TDRS-to-TDRS relay, but
everyone eventually decided that would take too much TDRS resources
to make it work right.  The other was building a second ground terminal
in Spain; the problem with that one was the cost of getting the data
back from it to the U.S.

So, everyone has just learned to live with it.  Actually, your last
sentence reminds me of some discussions we had back in the early days
of SSF, when we thought there was going to be continuous coverage.
Certain "ground ops concepts" rely on the existence of the ZOE, namely:
when do the ground controllers get to go to the bathroom?  :-)

-- 
David Cornutt, New Technology Inc., Huntsville, AL  (205) 461-6457
(cornutt@freedom.msfc.nasa.gov; some insane route applies)
"The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of my employer,
not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary."
From: cole@SAMSON.phys.virginia.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Strange circles on Globe
Date: 23 Aug 92 03:18:22 GMT
Reply-To: cole@SAMSON.phys.virginia.edu
Organization: Dept. of Physics, University of Virginia

I have noticed that the representation of the terminator 
(sunrise/sunset line) is notched instead of smooth.  My
guess is this represents the terminator on successive
orbits.  Is this correct?
From: mjensen@herman.gem.valpo.edu (Michael Jensen)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Crew separation for safety
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:11:50 GMT
Distribution: world


|> >  The Europeans have been working on a launch system which greatly 
|> >distances the crew and the engines- the crew sits out in a capsule in the
|> >front, which can be detached and landed separately in the event of trouble.
|> >
|> >Why does the space shuttle have the crew sitting right on the tank?  It
|> >seems to be the dumbest thing imaginable.
|> 
|> This is going to sound harsher than it's meant:
|> 
|> "Compared to what?"  or better yet, where *are* you going to put the crew?
|> If we look at any liquid fueld stack, there doesn't seem to be anywhere
|> that isn't effectively "sitting right on the tank."  In Apollo, there was
|> the heat shield between the crew and the CSM fuel.  I seriously doubt that
|> the CSM and even more of a laugh, the LEM, would do much to stop things
|> from going wrong if the Saturn stack blew.  Gemini had the experiments and
|> the retro fuel between it and the Atlas, Mercury much the sameonly less of
|> it.
|> 
|> The idea of a seperate and separatable crew compartment has had merit in
|> the past.  Of the three stacks mentioned above, only Apollo had any way to
|> get the crew free - the escape rocket tower.  If you don't mind the mass,
|> in a game wehere payload is damn expensive and every ounce counts, crew
|> escape is possible.  STS-1 had ejection seats.   When you have a Saturn
|> class booster, 7.5M # thrust first stage,  100 tons to LEO (or was it 100
|> tons to Lunar Injection, 300+ tons to LEO, I forget) , there's room in
|> the energy/mass budget for escape systems.
|> 
|> But there's no place besides the blockhouse on the ground that isn't
|> effectively "sitting on top the tank."
|> 
|> Neil Kirby

Just as an additional point of info... there IS work going on designing a new
launch system to suplement the shuttle for getting crews up to Space Station
Freedom.  It is based on the HL-20 "lifting body" designed by the "skunk works".
It would use a "Titan" style launch system, and be basically a "mini-shuttle" which
would ride into orbit on the Titan.  This would allow for return to using a "escape
rocket" similar to that used during Apollo.  The reason that we can't have such a 
device on the shuttle (much like Neil said) is because of the mass of the shuttle
you would end up wasting huge amounts of money to get anything similar.  Due to the
design of the shuttle, such a system (ie the Apollo one) is not feasable.


-- 
Michael C. Jensen				mjensen@gellersen.valpo.edu
Electrical Engineering				jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov
Valparaiso University				mcj0716@exodus.valpo.edu
"I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody )
Subject: How are station workers getting paid?
Summary: How are station workers getting paid?
Keywords: Freedom, salary
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 15:32:18 GMT

I was just thinking about the 75,000 people currently working
on the space station.  I figure between salary, benefits and
overhead, they must each cost about $100,000.  This means that
even without hardware, the station is costing $7.5B.  Since the 
station budget is only about $2B, where is the rest of the $$
coming from and how is there ever going to be enough money for
hardware?
From: hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re : MIR & HST flights
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:22:17 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

Greetings and Salutations:

>Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Manifest [from Ken Hollis]
>From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
>Two quickies:
>>      SPACE SHUTTLE PRELIMINARY AUGUST MANIFEST Dated 29 JULY 92
>>STS     Date    Time   Window   deg.   km  Orbiter  Payload
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------>>
61   7 Dec 93    -      -       -     -   End-05  HST REV-1
>
>Isn't this bumped from a November visit, or is my memory failing? 

I believe that it more likely has just slipped.  With Atlantis going to
Palmdale, all of the orbiter plans had to be rearranged.

> 66   9 Sep 94  Atl-14  Mir
>Around 2 years? Who got bumped ? Or was this flight added to the Manifest? 

This flight is added from last manifest.  Atlantis will be going into OMDP
(Orbiter Maintenance Down Period) at Palmdale and the plan is to fit a docking
adapter for MIR.  When it gets back to KSC it will be fixed from being at
Palmdale.  STS-66 represents the next flight of Atlantis.



-- 
-----------------------------------------------
Ken Hollis  INTERNET: HOLLIS@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV
            SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::HOLLIS

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle Manifest [from Ken Hollis]
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 19:57:18 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

Two quickies:

In article <1992Aug17.053629.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>      SPACE SHUTTLE PRELIMINARY AUGUST MANIFEST Dated 29 JULY 92
>              Eastern           Inc.  Alt.
>STS     Date    Time   Window   deg.   km  Orbiter  Payload
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 61   7 Dec 93    -      -       -     -   End-05  HST REV-1

Isn't this bumped from a November visit, or is my memory failing? 

> 66   9 Sep 94  Atl-14  Mir

Around 2 years? Who got bumped ? Or was this flight added to the Manifest? 
Can we bend/borrow/hack hardware and plan a USEFUL visit within 24 months? 
I suppose planning is already on track for 3-4 months.

And when does the Russian visitor fly? 

			inquiring minds, etc...

				
                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Tethered Satellite
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:52:07 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

In article <92232.092111U59757@uicvm.uic.edu> U59757@uicvm.uic.edu writes:
>On the last STS mission (Atlantis, I believe), a satellite was carried into
>orbit. This satellite was on a long tether, which was dragged through the
>earth's atmosphere in order to generate electricity. Was this mission
>successful in doing this? Please post answers in NETNEWS.

The satellite was supposed to be deployed away from the earth rather
than down into the upper atmosphere. It was not a success because the
tether jammed when they tried to reel it out. A board of inquiry is
investigating why this happened. None of the science objectives were
achieved, but about 30 hours of data was collected which will be 
interesting for other scientific purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kdawson@AFIT.AF.MIL (KEVIN D. DAWSON)
Subject: Re: National Space Plane
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB OH
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:22:01 GMT

>There's this little detail called hypersonic flight to deal with first!...

>Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
>rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.

Indeed,
 Durring a briefing here at the Air Force Institute of Technology a briefer
told the audiance that the "bubble" for the cockpit may go by the wayside.
He also mentioned that they were not too worried about getting up to Mach
speeds but were concentrating on getting FROM high mach speeds to orbital
speeds.

I'm afraid I cant get anymore detailed than this, heck I'm only the cameraman
here borrowing the boss's computer and ... OH NO HE's SPOTTED ME!!!

kdawson@afit.af.mil
From: rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ron Carter)
Subject: Finally getting to my 20 year old experiment (a derivative)...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 06:59:04 GMT

I came across a short article that describes an experiment
that is scheduled for the September mission of Endeavour,
in which a batch of fertilized frog eggs will be videotaped
to see how zero gravity affects the eggs as they turn into 
tadpoles...

*sigh*

And it was only a bit more than 20 years ago that my proposed
experiment for SkyLab won the regional (but not the nat'l it
would have needed to get -on- SkyLab) high school competition.

The experiment was titled:

Development of Frog Eggs in Gravity/Zero Gravity Combinations

One of the challenges then, was to fit a self contained (power
and all) experiment into a ridiculously small package (seem to
remember 4 inches by 4 inches by 12 inches) with an equally
small weight.  I came up with a stripped down camera back that
worked in unison with a series of mirrors to take photos...

Granted, the egg experiment that is scheduled -is- alot more
sophisticated (and a bit(!) different) than mine was, but 
still...  My package not making the finals, and the death of
SkyLab, changed my entire life...

I would like to believe (probably highly foolishly) that a
piece of me goes with this current experiment.

And NASA -never- did get my name spelled right on the award
that I received...  Was Dan Quayle working at NASA then?  :-)

Regards,
--
Ron Carter |   Denver | Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
  Director | Colorado | "A ... mind stretched by a new idea can never
rcarter@nyx.cs.du.edu | go back to its original dimensions."  -Holmes
From: chris@valley.jpl.nasa.gov (Christopher Demke - FSE Sun SFValley - 818-905-0200)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: National Space Plane
Date: 17 Aug 1992 20:14:51 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: valley.west.sun.com

In article <BszqoD.E6o@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.021411.10148@nntp.uoregon.edu> ggiles@cie.uoregon.edu (Gregg Giles) writes:
>>   Assuming all goes well, the National Space Plane (NSP) should replace the
>>current shuttles (Columbia class). How is the progress of these craft coming
>>along? ...
>
>In a word, it's not.  Even the X-30 -- which is planned to be strictly a
>research aircraft, not a replacement for anything -- is stuck in "technology
>development" stage because Congress so far is unwilling to fund building


  What is the expected payload capacity of the X-30 (if it ever gets
built)?  I was under the impression that it is far less than a Space
Shuttle.  I think our best bet is with the DC-X, DC-Y, etc.  Hopefully
McDonnell/Douglas can keep their head above water long enough to finish
the project...


			Chris Demke
			Sun Microsystems
From: kdawson@AFIT.AF.MIL (KEVIN D. DAWSON)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: National Space Plane
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:46:13 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology, WPAFB OH

In article <kdawson.14@AFIT.AF.MIL> kdawson@AFIT.AF.MIL (KEVIN D. DAWSON) writes:

>>There's this little detail called hypersonic flight to deal with first!...

>>Brad Whitehurst    |   Aerospace Research Lab
>>rbw3q@Virginia.EDU |   We like it hot...and fast.

>Indeed,
> Durring a briefing here at the Air Force Institute of Technology a briefer
>told the audiance that the "bubble" for the cockpit may go by the wayside.
>He also mentioned that they were not too worried about getting up to Mach
>speeds but were concentrating on getting FROM high mach speeds to orbital
>speeds.

>I'm afraid I cant get anymore detailed than this, heck I'm only the cameraman
>here borrowing the boss's computer and ... OH NO HE's SPOTTED ME!!!

>kdawson@afit.af.mil

Oh yeah,
	while I'm out wasting bandwith, if they do get rid of the cockpit (
well the blister for it any way) couldnt they take it one step further and 
make it into a "Virtual Reality  Cockpit" ?
Kevin 
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle