HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:25:11 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep27.145843.6543@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL]) writes:
>... heard that making the SRBs a one piece expendable rocket would come out
>to be cheaper than the reusable o-ring SRB. It would be less complex, and it 
>would not have any o-ring problems. Plus you wouldn't have to spend money on
>retrieving it and cleaning the salt water out of it...

There are two separate issues here.

It has been seriously suggested that NASA is not really saving any money by
recovering the SRBs, because the cost and complexity of refurbishing pretty
well balances the cost of just building more, especially when you consider
larger production runs.  The main value of refurbishment appears to be
public relations rather than cost saving.  Given that, it's still a fairly
reasonable thing to do.  I haven't seen any detailed analysis suggesting
that NASA is actually losing much money on this choice.

But if you decide tomorrow to abandon SRB recovery and refurbishment,
you're *still* stuck with the O-rings and the segmented design.  You can't
just wave a magic wand and get rid of the joints.  The things are made in
Utah and shipped to the Cape by rail; you can't *do* that with a one-piece
design.  The production machinery makes them one segment at a time.  The
cranes in the VAB stack them one segment at a time.  And *there is no
one-piece design* available off the shelf -- at the very least, after
setting up new production facilities and modifying cranes and etc., you'd
have to test-fire a few one-piecers to make sure that casting that big
a charge in one operation works consistently.  This isn't a simple change.

You might be able to simplify things a little bit if the joints didn't
have to come apart again afterwards, but even so, you really don't make
changes to something as crucial as those joints without at least some
test firings to confirm that you haven't made an awful mistake.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: marcus@illusion.chi.il.us (Marcus Hall)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Keywords: barge
Reply-To: marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall)
Organization: Magic Numbers Software, Bloomingdale, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:54:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.043536.13152@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>That was also one of the original siting requirements for the Manned
>Spacecraft Center (now the Johnson Space Center): easy access to a
>deep water port.

>-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
>      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

OK, so why was this considered important for JSC?  So that the Saturn 5
that is rusting on display there could be shipped there??

marcus hall
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Ballast on Shuttle? (was Re: SRB & Mac Portable...)
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:14:17 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Sep29.010424.14172@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
> Bill Higgins writes:
> #Can NASA be persuaded
> #to fly, say, my teddy bear as contingency ballast?
> 
> How massive is your teaddy bear? :^)

Well, only a pound or so.  But I'd be willing to replace his stuffing
with lead shot, or small uranium bricks, if it will help his chances.

During the first and second stage         Bill Higgins   
flights of the vehicle, if a serious      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
irretrievable fault should occur and      HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
the deviation of the flight attitude of   HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined       SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS 
value, the attitude self-destruction
system will make the vehicle
self-destroyed. 
     --Long March 3 User's Manual
     Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985)
From: S.L.Fagg@bnr.co.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 1 Oct 92 11:37:05 GMT

David Woodsworth writes:
> > Josh 'K' Hopkins writes:
> >
> > My question, who are the two females mentioned above who are neither US nor
> > Soviet?
> 
> One of them was Roberta Bondar, a Canadian.  She flew early this year, I
> believe.

The other was Helen Sharman, a Brit., who visited Mir last year.

-- 
Regards

Steve Fagg      ( S.L.Fagg@bnr.co.uk +44-279-402437 )
BNR Europe Ltd., London Road, Harlow, Essex, CM17 9NA, UK

*** "Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers, won't drown". ***
From: slcj4@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: What is the SSME and J-2 data on the shuttle
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:19:16 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

Can anyone tell me the purpose and content of the Space Shuttle Main Engine
(SSME) and J-2 databases.

They have something to do with the performance of the engine but I would 
like to know more.

Thanks
Mark Parsons
slcj4@cc.usu.edu
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Gravity in Space
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:14:16 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <EemnrUC00WBKA3x68W@andrew.cmu.edu> wo04+@andrew.cmu.edu (William F. O'Dell) writes:
>What would it take to create gravity in space.

A good reason, and a structure big enough to get respectable centrifugal
force with a low spin rate.  (High spin rates are bad for the inner ear.)

>Couldn't say Space
>Station Freedom be put on a spin to create gravity? How much power would
>they need?

There's no power requirement after spin-up, but you'd need to redesign
the whole thing for the stresses.  Furthermore, many of the things that
are supposed to be done aboard Fred rely on *absence* of gravity.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: nabel@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Derek Nabel)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Reason for failure of tether experiment ??? (Short)
Date: 2 Oct 92 03:50:54 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

Does anyone know the reason why the tether jammed on the recent 
shuttle mission?

Please send all responses by email.  I will summarize responses.

Derek
CSU Lifer
nabel@lamar.ColoState.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: tes@nomad.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 14:58:43 GMT

I have heard that making the SRBs a one piece expendable rocket would come out
to be cheaper than the reusable o-ring SRB. It would be less complex, and it 
would not have any o-ring problems. Plus you wouldn't have to spend money on
retrieving it and cleaning the salt water out of it. (Though there would turn
out to be quite a few SRBs laying around in the ocean.) 

                                                          Tom
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:16:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Sep28.185307.7435@psisa.psi> robin@pencom.com writes:
>> ... And *there is no
>> one-piece design* available off the shelf -- at the very least, after
>> setting up new production facilities and modifying cranes and etc., you'd
>> have to test-fire a few one-piecers...
>
>Actually, Lockheed and Martin-Marietta (I think it was MM) submitted an SRB  
>design that was pretty much as you describe (the one you said "can't" work).

Where did I say it "can't" work?  There were at least two such proposals;
I believe Aerojet's was first.  Nothing particularly wrong with them,
provided you bear in mind that this is a *new SRB design*, not a trivial
variation on an old one, with all that implies in changes to support
facilities and need for qualification testing.

Actually, far and away the best proposal for a new SRB (short of the best
method, scrap them and build an LRB) was George Koopman's proposal to
build an HRB using Amroc's hybrid-rocket technology.  And he was willing,
as I recall, to fund development himself if NASA would promise to buy a
working, tested final result.

>I don't think they planned on shipping by rail tho'.  

The Aerojet proposal specified use of a production facility on the Florida
coast not far from KSC, with shipment by barge.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: Re: Wasps on shuttle?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:45:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.123850.1@bbs.mdcbbs.com> niblack@bbs.mdcbbs.com writes:
>
>I have not been keeping up with the shuttles lately, but I am curious about how
>all the animal life reacted on the last suttle flight (at least I think it was
>the most recent flight).  Especially how the wasps built a nest in micro-grav.
>
>Thanks,
>Shawn


The wasps did very little.  Although they kept buzy, it was very disorganized
and they made little progress towards making a nest.  There were a few
isolated cases of constructivness by them, but very little.  
Reminds me of the jay leno joke, in the context of the wasps (actually I 
thought they were hornets werent they??) anyhow, in the context of
the report of non constructive work by the usually hard working insects,
he gave the following explanation:
"hell, what did you expect?  They are government Employees now!"

I think that was the only funny thing that man ever said.
No offence to any govt employees  :)


Derek

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He lived a life of going to do.
	And died having nothing done"
			-J. Albery

IN OTHER WORDS:  JUST DO IT!


Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:18:21 GMT

In article <Bv9tM0.LwC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>But if you decide tomorrow to abandon SRB recovery and refurbishment,
>you're *still* stuck with the O-rings and the segmented design.  You can't
>just wave a magic wand and get rid of the joints.  The things are made in
>Utah and shipped to the Cape by rail; you can't *do* that with a one-piece
>design.  The production machinery makes them one segment at a time.  The

In a related topic, one of the reasons that the Stennis Space center, where
they test rocket engines (all Saturn and Shuttle liquid fueld motors are
tested there), is located where it is is so that they can move the parts BY
BARGE over water.  It was alot more important for Saturn first stage
testing.

Neil Kirby
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.uucp (Kenneth C. Jenks [GM2] 483-4368)
Subject: Re: Ballast on Shuttle? (was Re: SRB & Mac Portable...)
Keywords: ballast
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Sendefrom: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:31:32 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.183919.1@fnalc.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
>Boy, *this* is intriguing.  What form does the ballast take?  Can we
>buy souvenir ballast that has flown into space?  Can NASA be persuaded
>to fly, say, my teddy bear as contingency ballast?

Lead.  I don't know much more than that.  I can dig around if someone
can think of a good reason why I should.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "It is mankind's manifest destiny to bring our humanity into space,
      to colonize this galaxy.  And as a nation, we have the power to
      determine whether America will lead or will follow.

      I say that America must lead."  -- Ronald Reagan
From: David_Woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca (David Woodsworth)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-47 "by the numbers"
Date: 1 Oct 92 05:46:58 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Josh 'K' Hopkins writes:
>
> My question, who are the two females mentioned above who are neither US nor
> Soviet?

One of them was Roberta Bondar, a Canadian.  She flew early this year, I
believe.

David Woodsworth

--
The preceeding opinions are shareware and yours to try for 30 days.  If you
wish to continue using them after that time, please send $10.09 CDN to:

                  david_woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Reason for failure of tether experiment ??? (Short)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 01:07:52 GMT

On 2 Oct 92 03:50:54 GMT, nabel@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Derek Nabel) said:

Derek> Does anyone know the reason why the tether jammed on the recent 
Derek> shuttle mission?

Well, the mission commander and pilot gave a paper at SETP last 
Saturday saying that there was a protruding bolt head (or maybe
it was a screw) in the reel that the line hung up on.  It hung
up once and they managed to release a little more line but the
second hangup was unfixable.  The tether reel is like a fishing
reel, that the tether is wound along the reel hub in a layer from
edge to edge.  The protrusion was at the end of the reel, on the
side wall.

--
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
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More 0 ring problems....
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:58:11 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <cshotton-011092165847@oac2.hsc.uth.tmc.edu> cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Chuck Shotton) writes:
>> But if you decide tomorrow to abandon SRB recovery and refurbishment,
>> you're *still* stuck with the O-rings and the segmented design.  You can't
>> just wave a magic wand and get rid of the joints.  
>
>Why not? The magic wand is as simple as a welding rod. If your talking
>about not recovering the SRBs, simply stack 'em up and weld the joints all
>the way around. Instant one-piece casing.

Maybe *you* are willing to weld the casings with solid fuel inside them.
I think I would watch from several kilometers away.  Should be quite an
impressive display... evolution in action... :-)

Even ignoring that little problem, qualifying a welding process for this
is not going to be simple.  Remember, even a pinhole leak will rapidly
enlarge itself.  Again, we're talking about what amounts to a new joint
design, not a trivial modification of the old one.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: barge access to NASA centers
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 03:52:38 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct2.205426.7293@illusion.chi.il.us> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes:
>>That was also one of the original siting requirements for the Manned
>>Spacecraft Center (now the Johnson Space Center): easy access to a
>>deep water port.
>
>OK, so why was this considered important for JSC?  So that the Saturn 5
>that is rusting on display there could be shipped there??

As far as I know, that's the only Saturn V (not "Saturn 5", please,
that was never its name) that made the trip.  But site planning had to
consider the possibility that large hardware might be built and/or used
there someday.  Remember, this was all being done in great haste at a
time when the shape of the Apollo program was ill-defined; avoiding bad
mistakes was more important than making optimal choices.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: mcmillan@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: STS-47 "by the numbers" -2-
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:24:05 -0600

            STS-47 "by the numbers"  continued

Mission commander Gibson is making his fourth flight, and all have been on
different orbiters (he needs to fly Discovery next to become the only man to
fly ALL orbiters).  He's the twelfth human (and eleventh American) to make
four flights.  Brown, Davis, and Jemison are the last three of their 
15-member class of 1987 to reach orbit (that's often the price of getting
attached to a delayable science mission).

The different US and USSR/CIS approaches to manned space activities is well
reflected in the record book.  Man-hour statistics show continuing Soviet/
CIS dominance:  almost eight percent of human experience in space is Sov/CIS
experience.  Population statistics reflect more frequent US missions:  The
US now has far more than twice as many orbital travellers as the USSR/CIS
(176 versus 74), and more than twice the tickets (338 vs. 160).

In 1991 the Soviets had three manned missions (only two launches) with 8
cosmonauts, for 778 man-days.  The USA had six missions with 35 astronauts,
for 265 man-days.  Grand totals to the end of 1991 are USSR 8166, USA 2406
man-days in space.  In the first half of 1992, two Russian crews (one launch)
with five people accumulated 388 man-days;  4 US launches (28 crewmembers)
accumulated 279 man-days.

The current Sozuz TM-15 (launched July 27) is their last manned mission of
the year.  The new Mir crew of Solovyov and Avdeyev will return to Earth
about next Jan. 20 (177 days) after being relieved by Manakov and
Polishchuk on Soyuz TM-16 (Jan. 12 launch); the third seat may not even be
occupied.  In contrast, after STS-46 and -47 there are another three planned
NASA shuttle missions:  STS-52, 53, and maybe even 54, each lasting a week 
or so.

It adds up to make the STS-47 (105-02) mission statistically highly
significant!


Copyright @1992, James E. Oberg.  This summary is prepared privately by
space historian and trivialogist Jim Oberg for the amusement of flight crew,
flight controllers, newsmen, and the general public.  Any published/broadcast
references to these factlets and statistics should have the common courtesy
to acknowledge their source.  The author has done his double damnedest to
verify authenticity & accuracy of all data but takes no responsibility for
the consequences of errors, except personal embarrassment and penitence.            

-- 

Stokes McMillan -  	Flight Evaluation Office (VF3)  NASA JSC
			MCMILLAN@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: tjb@NeoSoft.com (Timothy J. Bogart)
Subject: Re: Ballast on Shuttle? (was Re: SRB & Mac Portable...)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:57:59 GMT

Actually, the flags they fly help cause the need for ballast.  The
beastie is nose heavy.  Ballast is lead weights  mounted on the
longerons in the back.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mac Powerbook to fly on STS-52
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:10:55 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

I wrote:
>(If you want to be picky, modified Grid portables have flown on every
>shuttle flight, as far as I know, but those things are such oddballs that
>they barely qualify as commercial computers...)

Turns out that a correction is in order...  The early GRiDs [sic] were
indeed peculiar machines with little resemblance to the usual run of
commercial computers, but I'm told that the ones currently in use are
pretty close to commercial MSDOS machines and run much of the same
software.  (They're physically a bit strange, but even there the
differences between them and commercial portables have diminished.)
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: perlman@sun2.cs.fit.edu (Marshal Perlman )
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Manifest
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:20:58 GMT
Reply-To: perlman@sun2.cs.fit.edu (Marshal Perlman )
Organization: Advanced Technology Dept., Harris Corp, Melbourne, Fl.

Does anyone a shuttle manifest...if so...please send it to me VIA EMAIL.

Thanks.


 Marshal Perlman <> Florida Institute of Technology <> (407) 768-8000 x 8435
                 Private Pilot - Airplane Single-Engine Land


Marshal Perlman protected by Federal Copyright Law, with all rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No part of Marshal may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
translated, transcribed, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means manual,
electric, electronic, electromagnetic, mechanical, chemical, optical, or
otherwise, without prior explicit written permission from CPEX development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Space Shuttle
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: get serious
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 23:32:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.193327.1433@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>                      Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Space Shuttle
>
>               NASA should build an experimental space shuttle based on 
>	  U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [...] "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
>	  GENERATING A SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to
>	  inventor Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971.

Why NASA?  Why a Shuttle?  If this idea works as advertised, flying in
the face of all experimental evidence so far, why not put in on
something that will make a profit, like a ground-effect vehicle or a
private experimental aircraft?  They're a whole lot cheaper than
Space Shuttles.  Go bug somebody else.

Oh, angst.  Why do fruitcakes always try out their nutty ideas on NASA?

>                                        Robert E. McElwaine
>                                        B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC

My already-low opinion of the B.S. degree in physics has just ratcheted
down another notch.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon is people who'll work
      hard enough to bring them about."
                -- Ashleigh Brilliant