HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Sea Dragon?
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:06:31 GMT

In article <1gp19cINNb5b@uniwa.uwa.edu.au> scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher)  
writes:
> dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:
> 
> >lift-off weight 45,360,000 kg.
>                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                  |||||||||||||
>                  No way :-)    

Why not?  45360 metric tons is less than the weight of
a battleship.

Did you ever see the Japanese cartoon where the beleagured earthlings
convert the battleship Yamato (sunk during WWII, but now dry since the 
seas had dried up as a result of the bombardment of earth by the aliens) 
into a starship?  The intrepid band takes off, and after many adventures 
reach the home planet of the aliens and save earth!  It was actually
pretty clever how the blended the lines of a battleship into a 
plausible looking starship.
--
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: budd@ccrs.emr.ca (Mark Budd)
Subject: Request for "Space News" info
Organization: Canada Centre for Remote Sensing, Ottawa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:31:38 GMT

Hello!

  I have a friend who has a subscription to a weekly newspaper called
Defense News.  He has told me that the same publishers produce a paper
called Space News.  Could anyone who has heard of this please pass on
any opinions as to what it's like?  Preferably people who don't work for
the paper :-).  E-mail responses would be preferred.

Thanks,
    Mark

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:23:23 GMT

In article <1go9buINNn59@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.183545.9958@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>We're talking about Iraq right? No air opposition right? Complete Coalition
>>domination of the airspace right? SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything
>>Iraq had right? After 28 years of trying, the SU never managed to down a
>>SR71 right? Why think Iraq could? What can a satellite do for tactical
>>recon that a SR71 can't?
>>
>
>To the best of my knowledge,  and i am sure henry knows more on this subject,
>NO SR-71  ever flew within Russian borders (or Air Space).  i suspect
>they also stayed out of Warsaw Pact areas and china.

They've certainly overflown Cuba. That's public record. Whether they've
overflown the SU or China is unconfirmed though it's known that China
downed U2s. Over in Sci.Military a Swedish poster says their air forces
have tried to do intercepts on SR71s coming from the East without any
success for several years.

>Satellites also have one big advantage no Plane ever will.  Infinite hang time.
>
>With cheap space access,  we could in an emergency,  put 4 sats in Molniya
>orbit over an emergency area  or we could put a few birds in
>90 minute orbits inclined over an area,  and just watch the video.

Molniya orbits require fantastic optics, and it would take more than
a few LEOs to give coverage, 10 minute footprint over any given area
twice a day. If launch costs were free, this still isn't cheap.

>Satellites also have a big legal advantage.  THey are called "National
>Technical Means"  and protected by treaty.  SR-71's are called spy planes
>and when they enter someones air space,  That is an act of war.

If spying, by any means, is an act of war, then we're at war with 
everyone in the world. I know of no instance where an overflight
triggered a war. Besides this thread is about tactical recon over
a battlefield, not strategic recon over countries that aren't 
already engaged in hostilities. Our NTM are sufficient for most
strategic recon now. Recon over a battlefield can't start a war
because the war is already in progress. Remember it was Space
Command who wanted sats for Desert Storm that started this whole
thing. My point was that that request was a case of turf battle
and not a military necessity.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:28:54 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 <1glf0hINN5v9@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:

>Right now,  all staged rockets are vintage 60's/50's designs.  they have
>absolutely no margin for safety.  neither does the shuttle.  

No, existing rockets, including the Space Shuttle, have very generous
safety margins.  They also have poor safety records, compared to other
transportation systems.  That's because they don't fly often enough to
prove the design, in the statistical sense, and each copy flies only 
once (or, in the case of the Shuttle, a couple times a year).  So you
can't test the copy before you put it into operational service.  This
is important because no two vehicles of the same design are identical.
There's always some variation.

Safety margins are nice, but they aren't enough.  If you pushed Gary
hard enough, I'm sure he'd admit that, despite all those enormous
safety margins he designs into generators, they do still throw the
switch on one before it leaves the factory.  



>If a 747 had to change engines every time it flew,  a ticket would
>cost 10 times as much.  

If you had to repaint a 747 each time it flew, the ticket would
cost ten times as much.


>You seem stuck on stress the same way Bi-Plane builders were in the 20's.

Nah.  He's stuck in the 1930's, when companies like Dornier were
building two-stage airplanes for the trans-Atlantic route.


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:07:52 GMT

>In <1992Dec11.175719.24880@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

> Snide remarks not withstanding, chamber pressure isn't the only form
> of stress on a vehicle. While I like Truax's Sea Dragon proposal
> 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 
> in another area when the objective remains to get a vehicle from 
> surface to orbit in a single leap. The high speed pumps, not combustion 
> chamber stresses, are the main reliability concern of liquid fuel rockets
> anyway.


Uh, Gary, the Sea Dragon concept used *pressure fed* engines, which
don't *have* pumps.  Instead, it used big, dumb, strong fuel tanks,
pressurized with compressed gas.  This limits you to lower chamber
pressures than in pump fed engines (otherwise the tanks are too
heavy), but can be much simpler.

Moreover, your comment is nonsense even without this fact.  Lower
chamber pressure lowers thrust mainly because it lowers the mass flow
rate through the engine (the coefficient of thrust also decreases a
bit, but not enormously).  Viewed another way, the mass flow required
to get a given amount of thrust is proportional to one over the Isp.
Isp does increase somewhat with increasing chamber pressure, but
rather slowly.  The load on a pump increases linearly with the
pressure it is required to supply, however.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: juan@nuala.hal.COM (John Thompson Reynolds)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Date: 17 Dec 92 16:00:48 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.


Just a nit, but SSTO stands for Single Stage To Orbit, and what everybody
has been proposing is Single Stage To Orbit AND return to the ground in
a non-destructive manner.

I suspect that SSTO is considerably easier.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:13:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
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 <1gq87gINNbvs@nuala.hal.COM> juan@nuala.hal.COM (John Thompson Reynolds) writes:


>Just a nit, but SSTO stands for Single Stage To Orbit, and what everybody
>has been proposing is Single Stage To Orbit AND return to the ground in
>a non-destructive manner.

>I suspect that SSTO is considerably easier.

Yes, a single-stage launcher was proposed to place the
first US satellite in orbit, but Vanguard (and, later,
Redstone) were selected instead.

Atlas, which orbited the United States' first manned
spacecraft, was stage-and-a-half.
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: 19 Dec 1992 17:21:27 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>Furthermore, you assumed that the KH-11 is the benchmark (also known as
>the Szabo yardstick) without the resultant drop in costs which would occur if
>you could rapidly deliver sats to orbit. 
>
>You don't have to add lots of fuel, thrusters, and other sensors, treat the
>camera and sat as a throw-away item.
>



Doug,  actually the problem with both the KH-11 and 12 is that they were
done as totally black world projects.  costs over-run like crazy
because there are no competitors,  little oversight and security
over head costs galore.

I think if you built light recon sats as just ordinary classified
projects, you could do it for a heck of a lot less.  part of the problem
with these birds is that they are built with multi-year lifetime and
super rad hardening.  you are right on when you say they should
be throwaways.

look at the russians.  they launch one-two a week and used to
burn them up manuevering them because they had plenty to go.

we should look to develope cheap sats to go with DC-1.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: "trivial engineering"
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:00:10 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 <BzA75H.6Lp.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>I believe my post was in response to an argument that since designing a new
>engine for a comercial airliner (and establishing its reliability) is so
>easy, that therefore designing and proving a new rocket engine ought to be
>pretty easy too. I was pointing out that designing a new jet engine
>*isn't* particularly easy.

I never said it was easy.  It's not.  That's why you have to *pay*
people to do it.  I don't understand why you fail to see the
difference between "not easy" and "impossible."  (Then again,
I don't understand why you fail to see the difference between
Al Gore and Albert Einstein. Perhaps the similarity of names
has you confused. :-)


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: aerospikes
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 04:11:00 GMT

On Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:41:19 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:

HS> In article <BzFK5F.Dwn.1@cs.cmu.edu> MUNIZB%RWTMS2.decnet@consrt.rockwell.com ("RWTMS2::MUNIZB") writes:
>If lack of *flight-test* data is seen as the long pole in the tent 
>(holding things up), why isn't it being flown on the admittedly 
>experimental DC-X (and DC-Y)? 

HS> Because DC-X and DC-Y are *not* experimental in that sense.  They are
HS> proof-of-concept vehicles for single-stage-to-orbit launchers.  They're
HS> trying very hard *not* to be an experiment in any other way; in particular,
HS> they are *not* in the business of advancing engine technology if they can
HS> avoid it.

The DC-X is going to have a data collection system.  As I recall,
they're going to collect what I'd call a standard barebones set of
measurements--angles, rates, accelerations of the airframe, control
deflections, and other vehicle states, which probably include a
variety of engine parameters.

Flight data is always of great value for validating ground predictions
(e.g. CFD, wind tunnel, etc.) so the DC-X data will probably be of
greater value than one might originally think.  
--
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: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Re : Relay to Follow Galileo?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 16 Dec 92  07:53:22

Because of the proximity to the sun during the Venus swingby, the Galileo
project managers realized that the antenna, and some other delicate equipment, 
required shielding from the solar flux. Therefore, the opening of the antenna 
was delayed until Galileo was relatively far from the Sun.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Why have both manned and auto capability on DC-[XY1] & Buran?
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:13:09 GMT

I understand the DC-X will, like the xUUSR Buran shuttle, have
capabilities for both unmanned automatic operation and piloted
operation.  I suspect similar capability is expected for DC-Y and DC-1
should they be built.

Given that the thing can fly automatically, why add pilots?

I'm not sure what manned piloting means in this context, and what it
gains over auto operation; especially since providing space, controls,
seats, life support etc for the pilots is very expensive on the mass
budget.

In what sense is the Shuttle piloted?  What about Apollo?

[I'm not talking here about the capacity to _carry_ people, and I
certainly don't want to start the manned-vs-unmanned flamewars again;
I'm strictly refering to the actual driving of the craft.]

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
      If I hear "Jingle Bell Rock" one more time, I will _scream_!
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Presidential DC-1?
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:00:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz4Iyr.C1y.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: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
-Subject: Re: absolutely, positively overnight
-Date: 11 Dec 92 19:01:00 GMT
-Organization: UDSI

-If the President used one,  then you'd have to buy at least 4-5.
-first there is the dual backup, so no terrorist knows which one he is in.
-then the secret service would want one or two to fly escorrt, rigged out
-with weapons, in case of alien hijackers.  plus the press would need one.

That seems to be the standard method for helicopter flights to Camp David
(at least based on personal observation), but not for the 747(s) - the
mode of flight is different.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 16 Dec 92  07:50:58

No matter which way you cut it, a TDRS is too heavy to be launched to Jupiter 
orbit from the shuttle (remember it needs to carry fuel for Jupiter orbit
insertion, as well).
 
One of the problems with the space activist commnity is that we tend to make
half-a**ed designs here on the net, instead of what we should be doing:
creating an environment where things simply don't go wrong in the first place. 
That's what TQM is all about.

--- Maximus 2.00
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:30:26 GMT

In article <71783@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
> Nope. Just about everything on that mission could have been divied up
> and flown on other Shuttles. The Space Vision System on any flight which
> has the RMS. No RMS scheduled? Add it to a mission and then add SVS.
i
	This would work except for one major requirement of the SVS, a
clear payload so that visibility and movement wasn't hindered.

> USMP? That's one pallet. LAGEOS was another. What was Columbia carrying
> in the rest of the payload bay? Room for two more pallets, at least.
> Put differently, LAGEOS and USMP-1 could have been flown on any mission
> with space for one pallet in the payload bay. That's most missions.
> Even the TDRS/IUS flights have room for one more pallet or good-sized
> payload. 51L had TDRS/IUS and the Spartan satellite in the payload bay,
> so the capabilty is there. The LBNP? That's a middeck experiment, suitable
> for just about any Shuttle mission. The crew was too busy? Okay, then
> fly the EDO pallet for the mission and spread the work out over four or
> five more days. This was Columbia, afterall.
>
	I agree with flying the EDO.  It's there, and the incremental cost
of extending a flight by 5 days has to be a heck of a lot less than 
flying an entirely new mission.
 
> By the way, now NASA is planning to fly STS-62 carrying ONLY the USMP.
> At least, that's all that appears on the manifest for the mission posted
> here a couple of weeks ago. How on Earth is NASA going to justify THAT?
> 
> -Brian
> 
> 


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:51:00 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 <Bz0890.AxF.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:

>Hmm... every report that seems to come out says that the reason it's possible
>now is because of the NASP materials research.

That's marketing speak.  In fact, Phil Bono at (what was then) Douglas 
Aircraft studied SSTO designs during the 1960's and concluded it was
possible with the technology available then.  Of course, new materials
make it easier today, and McDAC will (over)emphasize that in their
marketing brochures to make the project sound exciting and high-tech.


>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?

They would be overkill.  The DC isn't as heavy as the Shuttle, so
it wouldn't get as hot.  Besides, the shuttle's heat shielding has
been a maintenance nightmare.
From: young@spinifex.dg.oz (Philip Young)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:42:57 GMT
Organization: Data General Australia

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

[...]
|>								... unless
|> you have realtime downlink in the footprint of the satellite, very close
|> to your target, you wait for the satellite to pass over your downlink station
|> and download the image. This can take up to another 12 hours. [...]
 
|> Gary

Ever hear of relay satellites?  Do you believe DoD doesn't have anything
at least as good as TDRSS, in quantity?

-- 
Philip
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Stationary 'orbits' over the poles
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:24:20 GMT


In article <Bz0n1E.vM.1@cs.cmu.edu>, 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
|> For the poles, forget about tethers.  What you want is some kind of giant
|> charged ring that you use sunlight to spin, creating a force from the
|> magnetic field of the Earth that balances gravity...

James Reed asks:
>Yeah, but what happens next time the Earth's magnetic field reverses?

> :-) :-)

Good question.  I guess you either ride the change (if it's graudal) over
to the other pole or just reverse the current (if it's quick).

Or, you take the opportunity, before the reversal, to build a whole bunch
of supports to the whole ring, until it's completely self-supporting,
removing your dependence on the magnetic field, or on a continuous supply
of energy!

Ha ha!  Gaia's Halo!

-Tommy Mac
-----------------------------============================================
Tom McWilliams              | What a tangled web we weave, when at   ". |
18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu      |              ,  .first we .practice .*'  .|
(517) 355-2178 -or- 353-2986|            '. '  . . to decieve    ,      |
a scrub Astronomy undergrad | After that, the  ,          +             |
at Michigan State University| improvement is tremendous! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Chase planes
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 12:58:51 GMT


-From: PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR
-Subject: Aurora
-Date: 15 Dec 92 15:00:50 GMT

-I was speaking only of the sightings reported in the August 24, 1992,
-AW&ST issue. I was not speaking of previous articles, such as:

-I still think that the sightings reported in this August 24 issue
-are not better than UFO sightings:

-2. April 1991 sighting: daytime, but the craft was said "dwarfing an
-   F-16 chasing it". This casts a doubt on this sighting: is it usual
-   that US military planes chase US secret aircrafts? (well, maybe it
-   was an exercise). Same questions about the witnesses.

It's common to have chase planes flying along with an aircraft undergoing
tests. One of the two Valkyrie supersonic aircraft was destroyed when a
chase plane crashed into it.

STS-1 (and perhaps other Shuttle flights) had chase planes active during
the landing approach.

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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:22:28 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 <1992Dec16.110241.28404@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>I'm not trying to educate Truax. I'm sure he's aware of the various
>causes of vehicle stress. It's not clear that you are, however.

You're right, I clearly didn't understand that the major cause
of stress in a pressure-fed rocket was the pumps.  Thanks for
"educating" me. :-)