HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: Single SRB Ignition
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 17:19:59 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.145004.29836@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.185838.12280@sierra.com> dipietro@sierra.com (Stephen DiPietro) writes:
> 
> >1) What if the bird blows up on the pad?
> >
> >  According to a study done prior to STS-1,
> >  the maximum yield of an explosion on the 
> >  pad is about 0.25 megaton of TNT...
> >  (kiss the launch complex goodbye).
> 
> 
> .25 megatons?  Utter nonsense.  There isn't that much chemical
> energy in the fuel, by several orders of magnitude.

I know this isn't exactly what either poster was talking about,
but... I read a few years ago of a NASA study where one of their
aims was to find out just how big an explosion you could create
with the shuttle under any circumstances.  They decided that the
worst possible case was a full stack diving back onto the ground
at high speed.  The compression that would result from this impact
would cause an explosion with an effective yield of about 10kt if
I recall the report correctly.

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)
From: afwendy@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: LANDSAT
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:21:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41



Hi!  I need some quick info on LANDSAT (I think that is the acronym):  when 
it was built, when it was launched, and what is its mission.  For some 
reason, I seem to remember that it is a global positioning satellite, but I 
really do not know.  

Thanks for all info1

				wendy
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Extended Duration Missions
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:49:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr8.214900.13612
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

wmetz@vax1.umkc.edu writes:


>I just read that the new Extended Duration fitting in Columbia will only allow
>for 16 day missions...Am I wrong or has it been rather recent that they were
>still claiming 28 day missions would be possible?  What caused the considerable
>downsizing and is a further upgrade planned?

	I believe the 28 day figure refers to Endeavor.  It may also be that
they plan to start Columbia out at 16 and work their way up.  Anyone want to
confirm or deny this?

			Josh Hopkins
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Extended Duration Missions
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: 10 Apr 92 08:06:04 -0600

In article <k24tam=@rpi.edu>, kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.214900.13612@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>wmetz@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
> 
> There is a planning effort underway to use the 28-day capability for Freedom
> utilization flights during the man-tended phase of the space station.  This
> effort appears to be moving forward.  Previously, there was a study going on
> concerning the requirements for a 60- and 90-day orbiter, but the latest 
> word I have is that the requirements were just too great.
> 
The Long Duration Orbiter (LDO) study is not dead.  Current plans call for a
three phase implementation of the LDO.  The first phase in about 1996 would be
a 30 day capability, followed in about a year with a 60 day capability, with
the final phase being the 90 day Orbiter.  LDO is different from EDO in that
LDO requires the space station to supply some services.  Most of the power will
come from the space station with all but one Orbiter fuel cells being shut 
down.  Look for a Development Test Objective (DTO) next year which will perform
an on-orbit shutdown and restart of a fuel cell.

Unlike LDO, the EDO is totally self-contained and thus does not require
external power and services from other vehicles.  To date, only the 16 day
EDO capability has been purchased for OV-102.  Very little EDO hardware has
been purchased for OV-105.  Endeavour will most likely have a Regenerative
CO2 Removal System (RCRS) installed sometime before flight 12, but that is
about it.  To get a 28-day Orbiter will require some hard requirements for a
28-day free flying Orbiter and of course the budget to purchase the EDO
hardware.

-- 

Pat Oliver -  	Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC
		OLIVER@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
		All standard disclamers apply.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Jokes on 1st of April
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:46:52 GMT

kjellr@sofus.dhhalden.no (Kjell Are Refsvik) writes:

>Hi,

>Heard some rumors stating that the STS-45 crew played practical jokes
>on each other on this flight. The rumors stated that they dressed as libyans 
>when waking wach other up, and also engaged in other jokes as well (as 
>kidding around with a baby alien (toy) (As seen in the movie Aliens)).

>Sounds nice that it+s some humour on board the shuttle as well as lots of 
>hard work.

>Can anyone of you comment on this?

	The astronauts are just like the rest of us.  Naturally they goof off,
play with their food, throw paper airplanes and (when it's not dangerous), 
play with the hardware.  A good book or video  by astronauts includes this
kind of thing.  When I talked to Steve Nagel (who commanded the GRO mission and
is scheduled to fly his fourth mission in about a year), he mentioned that
the SRB seperation motors tend to get gunk on the windows.  Apparently 
it's a tradition to offer to wash them during EVAs (though none ever has, for
obvious reasons). School spirit is also high among many astronauts, and you
will often see their college banners taped to lockers and so on.
	If anybody knows the details of the jokes on the last mission, please
post them.

			Josh Hopkins
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle bad for the environment?
Date: 14 Apr 92 10:40:40 EDT

murphyed1@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>In article <kuk60aINN1vg@girtab.usc.edu>, efranqui@girtab.usc.edu (Eduardo Franqui) writes:
>>My question is in response to a one paragraph article in the latest Newsweek
>>magazine.  I unfortunately do not have the copy any longer and I am incapable
>>of remembering what it exactly stated, however it stated that the Space
>>Shuttle was environmentally damaging due to the release of ozone damaging
>>material during its takeoff.  Of course whatever fuel it uses can not be
>>environmentally safe, but the magazine would not go out of its way to
>>mention the obvious unless they believed the situation to be worse than
>>believed.

Wrong.  They will mention it, true or false, if it will sell magazines.

>Well, I don't know about the SRB's, but the main engines couldn't possibly be
>damaging to the enviroment.  All fuel is made of is H2, and O2.

This seems to go around every couple of months.

The SRBs use ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizer.  Some fraction of that winds
up as stratospheric free chlorine, which then proceeds to catalyze the ozone-
to-oxygen reaction.  6 Shuttle launches per year generate 1% of the free
chlorine that volcanoes produce annually, which is about 5% of what industrial
sources produce.

100 Shuttle launches a year would be a problem, and NASA "plans" to replace
the SRBs with liquid fueled boosters if they ever reach that kind of launch
rate.  Since they won't reach that rate, there is no need to replace the
SRBs (for that reason, anyway).

This has been carefully studied numerically by people who understand what
they're doing.  It has been carelessly and maliciously misquoted, over and
over again, by people who want to send humanity back into the trees.
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Single SRB Ignition
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:36:48 EDT

edotto@uipsuxb.ps.uiuc.edu (Edward C. Otto III) writes:
>dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>.25 megatons?  Utter nonsense.  There isn't that much chemical
>>energy in the fuel, by several orders of magnitude.
>>Think: the energy content of hydrogen/oxygen, per mass, is just
>>several times that of TNT.  For the vehicle to explode with a yield of
>>250 kilotons, it would need to have an initial mass of perhaps
>>100,000 tons (when the SRB fuel and structural mass are accounted for).
>What about the 2.2 Million pounds of solid rocket fuel, eh?

1,100 tons.  Off by two orders of magnitude.  And the energy content of
SRB fuel is probably less than that of LH/LOX, per unit mass.
From: alan@lancaster.nsc.com (The Hepburn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Restated - Are the tires still pliable after space?
Keywords: euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:06:22 GMT
Organization: National Semiconductor Corporation

In article <3699@phred.UUCP>, petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) writes:
|> In article <1992Mar25.184332.5256@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
|> >
|>  
|> >If anyone answered the question about whether the tires are inflated
|> >or solid, I didn't see the post, and I'm curious about that too...
|>  
|> The tires are not solid. They are inflated to 315 PSI.
|> 
|> 

...sounds pretty solid to me :-)


-- 
Alan Hepburn           "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain
National Semiconductor       a little temporary safety deserve neither
Santa Clara, Ca              liberty nor safety."
alan@berlioz.nsc.com                              Benjamin Franklin
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: LANDSAT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:57:38 GMT

afwendy@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (WENDY WARTNICK) writes:



>Hi!  I need some quick info on LANDSAT (I think that is the acronym):  when 
>it was built, when it was launched, and what is its mission.  For some 
>reason, I seem to remember that it is a global positioning satellite, but I 
>really do not know.  

	Landsats are for Earth observation in various wavelengths.  There have
been five launched, and six and seven are supposedly in the pipeline.  As I
recall, Lansat 5 can resolve about 10m on the ground, which isn't as good as
more recent ones. (SPOT1&2, and I think at least one Soviet craft)
	If you've ever seen pictures of the Earth from orbit that weren't taken
from the shuttle (or Apollo, Gemini) they are most likely from a Landsat.  
Landsats ability to see in the infrafred is particularly usefull for things 
like plant monitoring.  I have a poster of the state of Illinois, in which you
can actually see large buildings in town.  
	
		Josh Hopkins
From: 473furtaw@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Space Camp
Date: 11 Apr 92 14:55:52 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Apr9.193755.2907@vax.muskingum.edu>, jo_moore@vax.muskingum.edu (Joel Moore) writes:
> I don't know whether this is true or not, but the first time I went to 
> Space Camp I was told that the _Space Camp_ was filmed before the actual
> camp had even opened!

What do you mean by the filming took place before the camp actually opened?
Space Camp became reality in 1982, but I'm almost sure the filming took place
in between summers.  I'm also friends with the then Reservations Manager of 
Space Camp/Academy, and she told me a few interesting facts about the filming.
Many employees can be seen in the movie; all signs that said "Alabama" (as in
the Space & Rocket Center) were covered since this was to have taken place
near Kennedy; and when "Andie" was told to do something and wasn't sure if a
_real_ astronaut would do it, she would go to the Reservations Department and
call Sally Ride in Houston to find out.

Scott Furtaw
Space Camp/Academy '4-timer'
473furtaw@gw.wmich.edu
From: fink@acf3.NYU.EDU (Howard Fink,C3,83500,663-2266)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Need coordinates of the Continents
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:45:00 GMT
Organization: New York University

Mathematica 2.0 has a set of packages, one of which contains WorldData,
which has coordinates of every country on earth, along with several
functions for viewing same.  Ask around.

Howard Fink
From: forrepr@eng.auburn.edu (Philip R. Forrest)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Extended Duration Missions
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:46:48 GMT
Reply-To: forrepr@eng.auburn.edu
Organization: Auburn University Engineering

Hey, I don't care what anybody says...I don't wanna be the ground support
guy who opens the hatch after 28 days in orbit !! WHOA !! That will make the
Chicago Bears' locker room smell like a flower shop !!  :-D

Seriously though, the I have heard from the Landing Support Officers that
the ground support at EDW and KSC always complain about the odor in the 
crew cabin after a mission.

Does anybody know if they plan to add any in-flight housekeeping equipment 
(ie - an air freshner) to either the LDO or the EDO ??

Just Curious...

---
Phil Forrest - A NASA/JSC Co-op student who hates being back at school :-(
From: jo_moore@vax.muskingum.edu (Joel Moore)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space Camp
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:37:55 -0600
Organization: Muskingum College

OK, as someone who has attended Space Camp twice, and hopes to go back soon
in the adult program (or maybe as a councilor), ignore the movie!
I thought it was a pretty good movie, but it was alomost totally fiction!
I don't know whether this is true or not, but the first time I went to 
Space Camp I was told that the _Space Camp_ was filmed before the actual
camp had even opened!  Also, they hire college students as councilors, not
real astronauts.  They also don't launch the shuttle from that close to the
camp as they did in the movie.  It's a good movie, but it isn't REAL!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| jo_moore@vax.muskingum.edu  |                                              |
|-----------------------------|    I saw a werewolf drinking a pinacolada    |
| Joel Moore                  |    at Trader Vick's...                       |
| Muskingum College           |    His hair was perfect!                     |
| New Concord, OH. 43762      |                           -Warren Zevon      |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dddurda@pine.circa.ufl.edu (DURDA)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Launch Manifest
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:27:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: uflorida.35018
Reply-To: dddurda@pine.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: University of Florida, Dept. of Astronomy  (astro.ufl.edu)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4


 in article <1992Apr2.124223.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> Pat Oliver writes:

>I don't know where the above dates came from, but the current working dates
>for the next three flights are:
>
>STS-49   7 May 92
>STS-50   9 Jun 92
>STS-46  11 Jul 92

 ...with talk of pushing the launch date of STS-49 up to 5 May (pending the
outcome of the inspections following the FRF).

 What will be the launch window for a 7 May or 5 May launch date? How does
the launch window shift from day to day?

  --Dan

--------------------------------------
Daniel D. Durda

Dept. of Astronomy
Univ. of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611

durda@astro.ufl.edu
--------------------------------------
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: One SRB...
Date: 6 Apr 92 14:43:09 EDT

noe@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Roger Noe) writes:
>In article <1992Apr04.001636.25331@crash.cts.com> gandalf@pro-electric.cts.com (Ken Hollis) writes:
>>I suspect that the first thing the RSO would do in this case is destroy the
>>vehicle also, and just to think the astronauts have that nice red light
>>they see that illuminates about 2 seconds before the Range Safety system
>>activates and destroys the vehicle.
>Are we talking about the shuttle?  I thought there was no range safety
>device on the orbiter vehicle itself, just the SRBs and ET.  Wrong?

Correct, but activating the SRB and ET range safety charges while the orbiter
is still attached voids the manufacturer's warranty in a big way.	:-)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Extended Duration Missions
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:49:44 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.080604.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov writes:

>The Long Duration Orbiter (LDO) study is not dead.  Current plans call for a
>three phase implementation of the LDO.  The first phase in about 1996 would be
>a 30 day capability, followed in about a year with a 60 day capability, with
>the final phase being the 90 day Orbiter.

I am very interested in this.  Can you tell us more?  At what point in the
planning process is LDO?  Has it gone beyond study into formulating a plan
with the intent to implement it?  At what level within NASA is this getting
support?

I recently talked about this with one of the astronauts, and I was told that
this was studied recently.  He said that anything beyond 28-35 days caused
too many problems with too many orbiter systems.  They just weren't meant to
be shut down and restarted (The fuel cells seemed to be just one of many con-
cerns).

>LDO is different from EDO in that LDO requires the space station to supply
>some services.  Most of the power will come from the space station with all
>but one Orbiter fuel cells being shut down.  Look for a Development Test
>Objective (DTO) next year which will perform an on-orbit shutdown and restart
>of a fuel cell.

Yeah, I heard about that DTO.  The comment was, "Why would anyone want to shut
down a perfectly good fuel cell?"  Sounded like some pilots I know, when asked
if they wanted to go parachuting, responded, "Why would anyone want to jump out
of a perfectly good airplane?"

>Unlike LDO, the EDO is totally self-contained and thus does not require
>external power and services from other vehicles.  To date, only the 16 day
>EDO capability has been purchased for OV-102.  To get a 28-day Orbiter will
>require some hard requirements for a 28-day free flying Orbiter and of course
>the budget to purchase the EDO hardware.

I would think doing an SLS-3 in preparation for LDO and SSF would more than
justify adding the capability for a 28-day EDO.  We haven't done anything like
that for 20 years, and we never have with modern monitoring equipment.  Besides
crew biology there are orbiter reliability, ground support, and dual-orbiter
ops that need to be studied.  I wouldn't think finding a use for the capability
would be that much of a problem.

Mike


-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: One SRB...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:37:37 GMT

orly@girtab.usc.edu (Mr. Nitro Plastique) writes:

>In article 6880, John F. Woods writes:

>>Correct, but activating the SRB and ET range safety charges while the orbiter
>>is still attached voids the manufacturer's warranty in a big way.       :-)

>VERY FUNNY! Let's settle this One-SRB thing once and for all. Go rent
>"Spacecamp"; this situation is explained very well by the NASA computer. 
>Forget about calculating the moments of inertia, stresses & strains on
>the shuttle and the ET. If this situation would occur, we'd have a bunch
>of crispy astronauts, a life-size shuttle jigsaw puzzle, and the NASA
>janitors would be really pissed.

>			Victor Orly

	One (or more) words of warning:  Much of what goes on in _SpaceCamp_
is poppycock.  There is no AI robot (or NASA computer for that matter).  There
is no preheating or whatever their explanation for SRB ignition was (it either
goes when you hit the switch or it doesn't).  They don't let Campers sit in
the shuttle, there is no space station do dock with, and if you launch a 
bunch of kids on an unprepared shuttle, they will die (they don't get off
duty astronauts to be counselors).  Of  course, that doesn't mean it's not a
good movie.  Just don't try to learn about shuttle ops from it.

			Josh Hopkins
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solid Rocket Boosters (old and new)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 15:48:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr12.220205.13302@umiami.ir.miami.edu> jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu writes:
>Did NASA ever decide if they were or were not going to go ahead with
>development/production of a second generation SRB ?

The second-generation SRB, the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor, has been
underway for a little while now, although it is in serious budget trouble
and may not have long to live.

>I heard it was supposedly a single unit with more thrust than the current
>ones to allow the SSMEs to avoid the throttle up to 100+% power after the
>rollover.

It's still a segmented design, although with fewer segments and a redesigned
joint.  There were proposals for one-piece SRBs, but NASA didn't bite.  ASRM
is meant to be a bit heftier than the current design, increasing payload.
It is also designed to have a thrust dip around the time of maximum dynamic
pressure, eliminating the need to throttle the SSMEs down and then back up
again.  (The SSMEs will continue to run at 100-odd percent of their original
nominal thrust; the point of the exercise is to eliminate the need to mess
with the engines at a crucial time.)

>Also, just how do you hold one of those suckers down to test fire it ?

Clamp it down solidly and light the match.  The loads are large by rocket
standards but nothing much by civil-engineering standards.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: brent@cco.caltech.edu (Brent R. Eubanks)
Subject: Re: Solid Rocket Boosters (old and new)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:02:16 GMT

jdeitch@umiami.ir.miami.edu writes:


>Also, just how do you hold one of those suckers down to test fire it ?


They test the boosters on a horizontal testbed, bolted down tight!


-- 
Brent Eubanks                "The meek shall inherit the Earth --
brent@cco.caltech.edu         The rest of us will go to the stars." -- R.H.
--