HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Aurora
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 10:16:13 GMT

In article <STEINLY.92Dec16152132@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:
>In article <BzCzo5.76z.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes:
>   In article <1992Dec15.141754.9124@spider.co.uk> colint@spider.co.uk (Colin Tinto) writes:
>
>      [Aurora sightings off Scottish Western Isles, speculated Aurora
>       range of 5000 miles]
>
>      Hang on - 5000 miles - that means it can just reach Scotland from the East
>      Coast USA before having to turn back ?   Something not quite right...
>
>   Assuming that it's launching from the continental USA. Seems much more
>   likely to me (given the sightings over the Netherlands as well) that
>   one of the long-runway US bases in the UK or Germany is `home' to an
>   Aurora.
>
>Nah, not isolated enough, rumour seems to be that the forward
>base is a US NATO base in Scotland. 

How about Greenland? The USAF "says" they recently closed three
forward bases, but who's going to go look?

Gary
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "success oriented"
Date: 12 Dec 92 02:26:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz4K84.CwD.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: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
-Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
-Date: 11 Dec 92 17:56:29 GMT
-Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA

-I'd be curious to know the exact date, sometime in the last 20 years,
-when "success oriented" became a pejorative phrase.  Yeah, the project
-is success oriented.  Just like Project Apollo.  The alternative, I
-guess, is for a project to be "failure oriented."  I like success better.

In that context, I'd say that "success oriented" means that everything in
the design process has to work right the first time, or the project is
judged a failure. (In other words, the design process *assumes* success
at every stage - there are no provisions for setbacks.) Perhaps another
term would be better - like "recklessly self-assured".

I don't think you could call Apollo success oriented - there were numerous
backup design paths, redundant test spacecraft (for instance, five Lunar
Orbiters were made and used, though three were sufficient to map the
Apollo landing sites), and the program progressed in many incremental
stages, testing various aspects of the mission in turn. It was considered
a very high priority to have a successful mission within a specific time
frame, and they approached the problem by throwing vast quantities of
money at it.

The DC program is more success oriented than Apollo, but that's part
of the idea of the design approach (as you point out) - taking higher
risks in the design process with the potential payoff of lower design
costs, and *perhaps* shorter design time.

But even DC is testing things in stages - two generations of prototype
craft, and a careful testing sequence for each prototype. So perhaps
"success oriented" is not the best way to describe the program.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: 18084TM@msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Jet Lag
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:29:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz49Go.5G1.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

>>The big problem with
>>transoceanic flight is that it would be much to expensive (and besides the
>>jet lag would be awful :-).

>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.

That's why they call it 'jet-lag' instead of 'boat-lag' or 'horse-lag'.
(Imagine the problems with tranporter-lag :-)

-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! '.  , .'       |
------------------------------===========================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: grasso@rintintin.Colorado.EDU (GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A)
Subject: Re: Greek jet engine (Was: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:22:57 GMT

In article 26326, (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>I think the ancient Greeks, who built a working jet engine,
>lived a little more than 50 years ago.

Interesting. Would you care to elaborate?

	-Chris Grasso
	 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: willson@seas.gwu.edu (Stephen R. Willson)
Subject: Re: Aurora
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:13:40 GMT

For anyone who is interested, Popular Science had an article in it about
two or three years ago that made reference to Aurora.  I can't remember
what exactly was in the article, but it might be worth taking a look at again.
-- 
-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 Stephen R. Willson    | A fitting end to a screwy campaign year...
 willson@seas.gwu.edu  | Here to swear in the President of the United States,
 (202) 395-4922        | Larry King!                         -The Miami Herald
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 20:40:58 GMT

In article <#!m2+7g@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>bating that.  I am dismissing Allen's claim that we could have flown STS-52
>on a $10 million Pegasus and accomplished all of its objectives.

I'll accept that. However, it does look like that for the cost of that
flight we could have accomplished all its objectives AND conducted the
SSTO tests and likely would have enough left over for the entire DCX
development and test series.

Just because Shuttle can do something doesn't mean it is cost effective.

  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: Roger.Wilfong@umich.edu  (Roger Wilfong)
Subject: Re: Greek jet engine (Was: Terminal Velocity of DCX?)
Organization: UofM Hospitals
X-Newsreader: FTPNuz (DOS) v1.0
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:47:00 GMT

In Article <1992Dec17.154644.23836@mksol.dseg.ti.com> "pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)" says:
> 
> Imagine a sphere, mounted on an axle.  Place a nozzle perpendicular to the
> axle, fill the sphere with water and light a fire underneath.  If the nozzle is 
> L shaped, you can make the sphere spin.  The porblem is, if the water is not
> hot enough when it starts to spin, the rig will stall at the bottom, water will
> gush out and kill the fire.  
> 
 
You can get rid of this problem by extending the tube(s) into the sphere 
about 1/3 of the diameter of the sphere.  That way it stays above the water 
level and the liquid water doesn't spray out.
From: i0c0256@rigel.tamu.edu (IGOR)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Micro-g in KC-135
Date: 14 Dec 92 00:30:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1gfti1INNaqj@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon) writes...
>What causes the microgravity in the KC-135, the centripetal 
>acceleration at the top of the parabola, which may cancel the gravity 
>acceleration,  or something else???

No this is it. But you begin to be in microgravity conditions BEFORE the top
of the parabola since you still have the thrust of the engine before they
are reduced to simply counteract the air drag.
 The trajectory then used is an ellipsoid
from a family that includes the vertical straight line...  

But Mc Elwaine or Snarfy could prove us otherwise :-) (existence of antigraviton
in high atmosphere or another use of ballbearings)

> 
>claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov
> 
>Claudio Egalon
> 
> 


Igor Carron
Nuclear Engineering Department
Texas A&M University
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: AmRoC
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 13:48:16 GMT


gh6677@ehibm3.cen.uiuc.edu (George C Harting) writes:
 >I was wondering if anybody had any recent info about Amroc's Hybrid
 >rocket?  

FYI... they have a test firing for one of their latest motors
scheduled on the 15th of this month out at Edwards AFB...

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: seal@leonardo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Seal)
Subject: Re: : Relay to Follow Galileo?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:41:58 GMT

In sci.space it is written:

>>But we're talking about a multi-Billion dollar program here. I just
>>wouldn't want to take that risk. That is a lot of money the throw away
>>because the "stupid" antanna won't open.. And this will further make the
>>image of NASA tarnish even more. Yet another American blunder.. we don't
>>need it. How are we going to argue that we need to go to this planet and
>>that planet if we can't build the hardware to do the job???
>>
>>
>>        -- Ryan Korniloff
>>        -- rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu

>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!!!
>-Brian

Let me add a brief spout:

It is always easy after a failure (with 20-20 hindsight) to say 'jeez,
how stupid.  why the heck couldn't you just have done X instead?'
from my POV, there are a billion things that can go wrong that can
royally
screw up a mission, and you try to avoid the major ones, and the ones
you can eliminate easily (i.e. w/o $$ or complexity or exhaustive analysis).
I think the view of space mistakes can be somewhat overblown because a lot
of people (not necessarily Ryan, just in general) don't really understand
how difficult it is to do what we do.  The HGA looked like a good choice.
It had performed well in a space environment previously.  And the test
program was supportive.  But it happened anyway.  It may look easy to you
with hindsight, but don't think for a second that the project staff of
Galileo is kicking themselves because they picked a 'stupid' design.

also:  the next attempt is the dec. 28 ballscrew hammering.  it is not
what i would call 'coaxing.'  from now on, it is brute force that will
be used.  I've heard they might even yield the pins or the antenna ribs
during the hammering.  (this, of course, would be fine.  any portion of
the fully deployed HGA bigger than a paper plate would probably provide
better performance than the LGA).

also:  from what i know, opening the antenna immediately after launch would
probably have had the same result.  the problem was that the lubrication
in the pin mountings had worn away during transport and/or launch.  i think.

regards,
ds

standard disclaimers and all that.  
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Seal                 |  Jet Propulsion Laboratory  |     sunset: 7:54pm
seal@leonardo.Jpl.Nasa.Gov |       Mission Design        |   temp: 82 degrees
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:57:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.134936.15434@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>DC-X development was actually a lot cheaper. Put the cost of a Shuttle
>flight in a CD for a year and the interest you earn will pay for the
>DC-X development effort.

Uh wait, didn't you post that SDIO's DCX program cost totalled $1.2 billion?

Gary

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DC info
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:51:54 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <mike.724092287@starburst.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes:
>  How different will the RL200 be from the RL10-A5's used on DC-X?  Is
>it simply a scaled up version of the same (RL10).

That's the intent, although such scaleups aren't always straightforward.
In this case, most of the bits and pieces have already been tested.

>>It is a separate engine which will be used for DC-Y if built. Some of the
>>RL-200 engines will have extendable nozzles and will be sustainer engines
>>for DCY and others will have non-extandable ones and will be used as
>>boosters. Except for the nozzles, they will be the same.
>
>  How many RL200's would be used on the DC-Y/DC-1 designs?  

Four of each flavor, by current plans.

>  Boosters?  on DC?  I take it normal LEO operations would not require
>booster RL200s, but is this sort of a strap-on capability for larger
>payloads and/or more demanding orbital inclinations?

No, it's four engines, out of the eight on a DC, which shut down midway
up.  Booster/sustainer is established terminology for this.  Nothing
falls off.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:18:09 GMT
	<1992Dec10.192026.16340@ke4zv.uucp>
	<ewright.724096589@convex.convex.com>
	<1992Dec13.182843.9876@ke4zv.uucp>
	<ewright.724447336@convex.convex.com>
	<1992Dec16.124640.29309@ke4zv.uucp>
	<ewright.724544050@convex.convex.com>
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: ewright@convex.com's message of 16 Dec 92 22:14:10 GMT

In article <ewright.724544050@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:


   >Neither the Soviets nor the US had serious contingency plans in 
   >place in the race to the Moon. 

   Oh?  Diverting an Earth-orbital mission (Apollo 8) into a
   circumlunar flight, because of a rumor that the Soviets were 
   going do it first, sounds like a contingency plan to me.  Unless
   you're rewriting history again.

That's not a contingency plan. A contingency plan is
"oh shit, the Saturn pogoed and blew, it will take
two years to fix, we better switch to the Uranus VI,
we just figured the problem with the variable nozzles on
those..."

Of course there were no Uranii in the real world...

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSTO Concepts FAQ
Date: 18 Dec 92 16:13:24
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Distribution: usa
	<1992Dec18.012552.10183@cs.rochester.edu>
	<STEINLY.92Dec17183740@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Dec18.025923.12966@cs.rochester.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: dietz@cs.rochester.edu's message of Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:59:23 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.025923.12966@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:


   In article <STEINLY.92Dec17183740@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:

    >Now, DC-1 wants something like 300 tons total, so 75 tons LH2
    >and 225 tons LOX? That's still 30 fuel trips, maybe doable with
    >three shifts in 24 hours, but I don't think you can do it in 8 hours?
    >Not with one crew.

   You mixture ratios are off.  The oxygen/hydrogen mixture ratio
   in the SSME is 6; in the Saturn J-2, 5.5.  At a ratio of 6
   this would be about 43 tons of hydrogen and 257 of oxygen.
   About 20 trips.

Ouch, I'm not doing well here, for some reason I was thinking
4:1 and writing 3:1...

   However, the launcher would almost certainly have fuels piped to it
   directly from remote storage tanks, as NASA currently does at the
   shuttle pads.

But now we're getting further and further from the "DC concept"
with fixed launch platforms and some serious ground infrastructure instead,
at this point an honest cost evaluation should include running
the tank farm and pipes, those are fixed costs almost independent
of flight rate and this starts to look more like the shuttle.
No more popping off from the nearest convenvient airport at
short notice...

|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: aerospikes
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 01:41:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

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)? 

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

It would be a fine thing to do with a DC-Y after its main test program
has concluded, but first things first.

>"requirement for large cross range (1500 nautical miles with crew and 
>cargo) and through it, the ability the ability to launch and land in one 
>earth orbit."
>
>I seem to recall this as an Air Force driven requirement, and that the 
>original NASA requirement was less stringent.  The paper states the 
>original requirement as a return to a preselected [launch?] site every 24 
>hours (approximately 15 orbits), rather than one orbit.  Any idea what 
>the requirement will be for DC-Y (and DC-1)?

Depends on who's writing the specs.  I think McDD's lifting-body DC-Y
design is capable of doing the one-orbit mission.  There were people who
opposed trying for such production-oriented capabilities on the first
prototype, as an unnecessary distraction that would interfere with the
proof-of-concept mission.

Substantial cross-range is indeed primarily a military requirement,
driven by the one-orbit mission, whose basic rationale is deploying a
spy satellite -- or doing any of a number of other things -- in wartime
conditions where coming around again in a predictable orbit is likely
to result in being shot at.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:46:18 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 <1992Dec15.202935.10304@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

>	I know about the scramjet test article flown on an X-15, but
>I'd never heard of a serious attempt to propel an X-15 with
>scramjets.  I've read a fair amount of the NASA papers from '67
>forward on scramjet research, and believe me, they had (have) a ways
>to go before they could actually propel something.  

Well, maybe you should try reading *all* the papers.  They were
far enough along for the project to appear in a Congressional
budget request.

>The diagnostics were crude in the extreme, and the computational models 
>were in their infancy.  

Yeah, but they weren't afraid to take risks and build hardware.


>	In short, it is not a matter of just "cojones".  That attitude will
>get you nothing but dead planes, programs, and pilots.  According to
>Yeager, one of the reasons he was successful as a test pilot was his
>aptitude for understanding the hardware and why and what it was
>doing.  

The key word there is "hardware."  We don't run many development
programs today.  We run research programs instead.  Very few of
them ever produce hardware.  The NASP program is a perfect example.
There has been a little bit of component testing, but we're years
away from having a flight article, if it is ever built.  Instead,
we've spent gigabucks on computer models and still have no idea
if they're correct because, despite what the simulation advocates
like to say, you cannot repeal the GIGO Law.


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

So, what hot, fast things have you built this week?
From: scott@psy.uwa.oz.au (Scott Fisher)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sea Dragon?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 04:56:12 GMT
Organization: The University of Western Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: wapsy.psy.uwa.oz.au

dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) writes:

>lift-off weight 45,360,000 kg.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                 |||||||||||||
                 No way :-)    Perhaps it's living in a place that uses pounds
that has confused you?  Using my calculator to convert to pounds (weird units
you guys use in the US) that comes to... 100,001,682 pounds...now that means
very little to me but 45 million kg sure sticks out like a sore thumb to my 
metric eyes :-)

>2 stage, water launched, pressure fed motors. 
>both stages reusable 
>recovered by unaided atmospheric and hydrodynamic deceleration only

Does this mean they are allowed to free-fall back to earth and splash?

>The book says little more about it but talks about benefits

Regards Scott.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Scott Fisher [scott@psy.uwa.oz.au]  PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).                
                                                             _--_|\       N
Department of Psychology                                    /      \    W + E
University of Western Australia.      Perth [32S, 116E]-->  *_.--._/      S
Nedlands, 6009.  PERTH, W.A.                                      v       

Joy is a Jaguar XJ6 with a flat battery, a blown oil seal and an unsympathetic 
wife, 9km outside of a small remote town, 3:15am on a cold wet winters morning.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space