HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle a research tool (was: Re: Let's be more specific)
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:04:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.161638.6125@cerberus.ulaval.ca> yergeau@phy.ulaval.ca (Francois Yergeau) writes:

>>Commercial launch services cost the government 30% to 50% less then when
>>government buys and operates the system itself. It is therefore very clear
>>that doing otherwise would be very beneficial.

>This has never been demonstrated for manned spaceflight, but may very
>well be.  

So what is so special about human space flight? Do you actually believe
that Shuttle is the best that can be done?

>But didn't I read not long ago that MacDD would not operate DC?  Who would?

I understand that American Airlines has indicated some interest. Why
not them?

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------107 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: hughes@gary.enet.dec.com (Gary Hughes - VMS Development)
Subject: Re: Logo on Delta rocket
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:03:43 GMT


In article <C0ILM5.L2o.1@cs.cmu.edu>, MILLS@ASTRO.dnet.ge.com (Bob Mills 609-490-3211) writes...
>soc1070@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU (Tim Harincar) writes
>>
>>What about the big RCA logo on the Delta rockets (as seen in "the
>>Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology")? I hope RCA had to pay
>>for that.
>>
>I'm not 100% sure, but I think it worked something like this:
>1.  Customer (RCA Americom) contracts with satellite vendor 
.
.
[rest deleted]

In addition to the reasons already mentioned, in the case of the Delta 3920,
RCA funded a significant part of the development costs of the launch vehicle as
well. They needed something to launch their second generation Satcoms (aka
Advance Satcom family) and the shuttle schedule was too late. The 3920 design
goal was to carry an Advanced Satcom and it's associated PAM-D.

For those launches, they were entitled to a giant logo :-)

In general, the Delta often had the logo of the client organization along with
the triangular Delta logo (sometimes the Delta logo had a mission logo merged
into it) as far back as Aerial-1 (UK satellite). Some of the SDIO missions
(Delta Star, Delta Stake) have had interesting logos.

gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: neff@iaiowa.physics.uiowa.edu (John S. Neff)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
Organization: The University of Iowa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:54:50 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.171539.9059@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
>Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
>Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:15:39 GMT
>In article <725984212snz@chrism.demon.co.uk> chris@chrism.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>>What's due to replace the shuttle in 2007 - the DC?  
>
>NASA people have been responsible for two attempts to kill the DC
>program. However, Goldin hasaid that if it works, they will use
>it.
>
>>I *sincerely* hope
>>that the shuttle fleet won't be "run down" in anticipation of a 2007
>>cut-off, regardless of whether or not a replacement is *actually* 
>>available by then!  
>
>That's the rub. Shuttle and NASA procurement process are both so expensive
>that there simply isn't any money available for NASA to develope a
>replacement.
>
>>If NASA's historical record is anything to go by,
>>a replacement due to enter service in 2007 is unlikely to be ready by
>>then....
>
>DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the
>proof of concept vehicle.
>
>  Allen
>-- 
>+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
>+----------------------112 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

My view is that there better be a follow on to the shuttle if NASA does
not want to have egg on its face. I also think there will be pressure to use
as much of the shuttle hardware and operating systems as possible in order
to save money and time. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: lord@tradent.wimsey.bc.ca (Jason Cooper)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: *** BUSSARD RAMSCOOP ***
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 14:17:47 PST
Organization: TradeNET International Trade Corp.

rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:

> Since fusing protons is so hard, why not use deuterons?
> They fuse at a lower temperature, and the reaction only
> requires regrouping the nucleons, rather than invoking the
> weak force to transmute p->n.  The Earth's d/p ratio is ~.0001.
> Perhaps the ramscoop collector could selectively enrich d,
> by selecting for atoms having a magnetic moment.
> 
> Rich Schroeppel  rcs@cs.arizona.edu
> 

Actually, it's roughly 1:6500 (I _think_).  The thing is that it doesn't 
provide much energy.  Besides, the p-p fusion was only planned to be used 
at velocities at which the beta- decay would be common enough to actually 
be UTILIZED.  What do you mean by enriched, and, if it's not too much of 
a stoop for you, could you explain "magnetic moment" to a Grade 11?

                                                Jason Cooper
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:32:24 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 <1993Jan5.003325.26043@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>We could fly Soyuz on an Atlas or Titan. 

Why?  If we're buying Soyuz spacecraft from the Russians, 
it would make a lot more sense to buy the boosters also
and skip the integration problem.

>We could build a small station with room and power equal to Shuttle. We 
>could dock the two and get far more work done for far less money. 

Who is "we?"  If you mean NASA, I don't think so.  A space station
like you're talking about would be more of a construction project
than an R&D project.  NASA isn't set up to handle those.

(On the other hand, I don't think you need to limit your thinking
to small space stations.  If you're working with the Russians, why
not put an Energia third stage into orbit?  Convert it into a "wet"
lab, and you've got a habitable volume bigger than Freedom.)


>We don't use Russian rockets; we use Atlas or Titan. Both routinely rebuild
>their launchers to conform to payload interface requirements and NASA's
>evaluation of Soyuz as ACRV indicate that using Soyuz with US aerospace
>standards isn't a problem.

However, we haven't man-rated the Atlas or Titan since the 60's.  
The current assembly lines for those vehicles are pretty much
booked already. You could expand them, of course, but the lead
time for a man-rated Atlas or Titan would be several years.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:02:33 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 <1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>Attacking a US carrier battle group is going to raise tensions
>>a bit anyway, don't you think?

>Use of one or more nuclear weapons is going to invite an escalation which the
>attacking force will not wish to solicit, due to the stigma attached to them.

Oh?  Suppose you see two headlines in the New York Times.

One says, "6000 sailors perish in sinking of US carrier group."

The other says, "Nuclear weapon used to disable unmanned satellite."

Which would set your blood to boiling more?


>It is likely we have a quick-launch replacement capability, either through 
>air breathing mysterious aircraft or (more likely) derivative ballistic 
>missile capability, on land and at sea. 

The US Navy considered coverting one Poseidon missile on each
submarine to a satellite launcher, however this was never carried
out.  (Unless it was done in secret.)  However, no US SLBM or ICBM
has the payload capacity to replace a large communications or
reconnaissance satelite.


>Sure it didn't. However, the UN voted to remove Iraqi troops by the use of
>force and thereby did so accordingly. 

No, the US voted to remove Iraqi troops and the United States did so
accordingly.  (With help from some of our allies, yes, but no serious
observer suggests that we would have failed without that help.)

Besides, your claim was that "international public opinion" would
*prevent* nations like Iraq from making hostile acts.


>Ah. But for anything less than a full-scale nuclear exchange (which translates
>to 99.987% of the possible conflicts which will occur in the next 20 years),
>public opinion and what individual nations think DOES count.

Keep saying that, and people like Saddam Hussein will keep
showing you that you're wrong.
From: jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Chiron (was Re: asteroids beyond Jupiter)
Followup-To: sci.astro
Date: 4 Jan 1993 19:10:35 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

In article <stephens.726164789@gdim> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes:
>
>Now that you mention Chiron, could someone give me a few references
>to popular articles on Chiron. I know a space artist who wants to
>paint as it in its outgassing phases. Sky and Telescope articles would
>be ideal. He wants to make the painting realistic. 
>Thanks.

Hmmm... the closest thing I have to a 'popular' article on Chiron is an article
by Alan Stern in the September 1992 issue of Astronomy, "Where Has Pluto's 
Family Gone?" (pp 41-47).   Chiron is mentioned in a couple of paragraphs on
pp. 46-47, with just some basic information.  Your best bet would be to look
at the research literature on Chiron -- there are a few papers published each
year about Chiron.  For information about outbursts I'd recommend Luu and 
Jewitt (Astron. Jour., 1990) and Buratti and Dunbar (Astrophys. Jour., 1991)
as two examples of recent papers about outbursts on Chiron.

(Incidentally, I'm doing some research on Chiron, and will be going up to
Palomar this week with Bonnie Buratti to get some more data.  Unfortunately,
it doesn't appear that the weather will be cooperating for most of the run...)
:-(

Followups to sci.astro.

-- 
Jeff Foust                        Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   			   	 jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov
 	  Final score of the Interstellar Space		Deep Space 9
	  Station Softball Championship Game:		Babylon    5
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 02:58:46 GMT

In article <72958@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>    Excellent news about Soyuz ACRV, but even considering Shuttle
>    launch costs, it seems cheaper to launch by Shuttle or Russian
>    booster instead of Titan or Atlas. 

For station logistics, we should use Atlas(Titan)/Soyuz for crew transfer
and Zenith Star HLV's for material. This will save us $2 to $3 billion
per year (we can start on the Lunar base with the savings) PLUS produce
significant reductions in overall US launch costs.

>    Neither is man-rated, and

There is no need to man rate. It adds cost but doesn't affect
safety. If it where your money would buy the $70 million 98% safe
Atlas or the $90 million 98% safe Atlas?

>    If it is your contention to replace Shuttle with Atlas-Soyuz, that's
>    another matter. I think it would cost too much to reconstruct Atlas
>    manned launch facilities for just two or three launches per year,
>    and I think manned Titan III/IV is now a pipedream.

As I said, there is no point in man rating. Facilities costs can be paid
with the interest on the savings. In addition, I assume we would be looking
at 10 to 20 launches per year.

If you want to refute, let's see some concrete numbers.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------109 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: new Shuttle toilet
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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 18:41:18 GMT


-From: mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo)
-Subject: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
-Date: 7 Jan 93 05:11:01 GMT
-Organization: University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

-Well, it occured to me after being subjected to a little CNN Headline News
-peice this evening regarding the new $23 MILLION DOLLAR toilet that will
-be flying aboard the shuttle Endeavour (GAO is somewhat concerned about
-this btw) that no mention has been made regarding this sort of thing
-with respect to the proposed manned, operational Delta Clipper program.
-Since DC-1(,2,3...) will have the ability to stay in LEO for at least
-some days with astronauts aboard, one wonders what kind of accomodations
-they will have while not engaged in flight activities (i.e. sleeping, eating,
-and what comes as a result of eating).  A great deal of time, effort, and money
-has been spent on STS to accomodate humans living in space during
-week long missions in this regard.

That *does* sound pretty expensive, doesn't it? I understand that this price
includes the development and verification of the design as well as construction
of the first model. Additional copies should be "cheaper" (if you can call it
that).

A few mitigating factors that might be considered:
  * I understand the pre-Shuttle toilet facilities took around an hour
    to use (for solid waste). Depending on how you do the accounting,
    we pay something like half a million dollars per astronaut-hour
    in orbit. (This would be particularly applicable on a Spacelab mission,
    for example, where human activity is the main point of the mission.)
    An hour or more per astronaut per day using a more primitive system
    represents considerable waste of an expensive resource.
  * The new Shuttle toilet is supposed to be considerably better than the
    earlier model, particularly for use on long-duration missions. It can
    be operated in several modes, and thus should be less likely to fail
    completely, making it less likely that the astronauts would have to
    resort to baggies. In addition, it doesn't have to be removed from the
    orbiter between missions, which could help with processing time and costs.
  * The same design is supposed to be usable on SSF, and I suppose could
    be adapted to DC-1. (There are no immediate plans to replace the toilets
    on the other three orbiters.)
  * The baggy system is not as sanitary as the toilet, and the health of
    the astronauts is a valid concern. A sick astronaut can't do as much
    work as a healthy one, and it would be a shame to have to cut short
    a long-duration mission due to health problems.

I watched part of the NASA Select press conference, and taped the rest. 
I'll try to find the time to watch the entire press conference.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Followup-To: talk.politics.space
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:07:49
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu>
	<1992Dec17.110426.8596@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec17.1
	<1992Dec21.164114.1@fnala.fnal.gov> <1992Dec24.022440.27944@ke4zv.u
	<1993Jan05.172440.14403@eng.umd.edu>
	<1993Jan06.212430.15120@eng.umd.edu>
	<1993Jan07.203533.10511@eng.umd.edu>
	<ewright.726514832@convex.convex.com> <C0Js9I.87@zoo.toronto.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: henry@zoo.toronto.edu's message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:20:05 GMT

In article <C0Js9I.87@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

Note changed followup:

E.W.>
   >Of course we didn't.  The United States has gone to war numerous
   >times in the past.  It has never needed permission of the United
   >Nations before.  It was George Bush who set that (dangerous) precendent.

   Careful here...  I don't know exactly what legal maneuvers took place
   when the US formally joined the UN, but if the UN Charter has the status
   of a Senate-ratified treaty, that means it has the force of law in the
   US... and one of the clauses in there is a renunciation of war as an
   instrument of national policy.

   Of course, that just means everybody calls it a "police action" instead...

You mean like Korea? ;-)

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Just because there's a reason          			*
*  Doesn't mean it's understood              Specials, 1979	* 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:43:47 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ida.726473333@atomic> ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt) writes:
>>The stability produced by that spin is actively undesirable if you have
>>a maneuverability requirement...
>
>Heliogyros would actually be quite good at this.  You wouldn't have to
>turn the plane of rotation; you could just "feather" the blades 
>when moving towards the sun.

Thrust modulation schemes are indeed an alternative to turning the sail.
(You should have seen the first Canadian Solar Sail Project design...
thrust modulation up the wazoo.  It would also have had the most moving
parts ever launched in a single spacecraft, and deployment would have been
a mechanical nightmare.  That's where pushing for maneuverability leads...)

Unfortunately, in the case of the heliogyro, there is a design constraint:
having to feather the blades adds awkward complications at the hub, since
now the hub ends of the blades must remain clear of each other through
a 90-degree pitch change.  If you limit required pitch changes, the
packaging problems at the hub are simplified, because you can stack the
blades in multiple layers.  Since you want a large number of wide blades
to compensate for the heliogyro's fundamental scaling disadvantage (area
scales linearly, rather than quadratically, with diameter), packaging
is a real problem at a modest-sized hub.  With 90-degree pitch changes,
layers have to be separated by a full blade width.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:18795 sci.astro:13674 news.answers:4954
From: ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt)
Subject: Re: russian solar sail?+
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date:  8 Jan 93 06:08:53 GMT

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>The stability produced by that spin is actively undesirable if you have
>a maneuverability requirement.  A sail designed to be deployed in Earth
>orbit, in particular, has to do 90-degree turns twice per orbit (to get
>full advantage of sunlight in the "downwind" half of the orbit and
>minimize losses during the "upwind" half).  JPL got away with it because
>their design was launched to escape by conventional propulsion.

Heliogyros would actually be quite good at this.  You wouldn't have to
turn the plane of rotation; you could just "feather" the blades 
when moving towards the sun.
  
  Unfortunately for the heliogyro, this isn't the best way to escape.
Except when you are moving directly into the sun, the sail can always
be tilted to produce some positive change in energy.  (Sometimes it's tilted at 
an extreme angle).  The sail angle changes continually, so as to always
maximize the component of thrust along the velocity vector, and thus maximize
the change in kinetic energy.  I have made some computer models of this, and
this does seem to be the best method.

  The heliogyro isn't so unmanueverable as to be impossible for planetary
orbits.  I figured the maximum rate of precession to be about 55 degrees/hour
This rules out very low orbits, but they were impossible anyway due to drag.

   Dave Patterson, Guest on this account
  
  

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:14:13 GMT

In article <ewright.726167217@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:

>>DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the
>>proof of concept vehicle.

>If we can get *someone* to fund the proof-of-concept vehicle.  DoD
>may still have the deepest pockets around, but I certainly hope
>McDAC is looking at other sources also.

There will be no private financing of a SSTO proof of concept. The current
and projected market is simply too small and not profitable enough to
warrent private capital.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------110 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space