HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tcora@PICA.ARMY.MIL (Tom Coradeschi (FSE) <tcora>)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Physics/Shuttle Question
Date: 21 Jan 93 13:55:35 GMT
Organization: Electric Armts Div, US Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ

mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
>I am not a big physics fan, so maybe one of you can answer this in
>plain english for us non-NASA [as of now, =8)] people.
>
>In microgravity, the weight of 'stuff' is less (quite less). And more then 
>once I've seen astronauts handle objects of much mass (and if on earth, 
>much weight) like they were feathers. OK, fine I understand that. BUT
>what allows the shuttle to not be effected by this? For example. If
>astronaut bob was standing in the shuttle, and grabbed a big-ol satellite,
>he reaches out and grabs it... ok? But what doesn't stop astronaut bob from
>accidently grabbing the shuttle or something? and turning it end over end?
>
>I am sure there is some simple answer to this, but I cannot think of it
>now. 

Consider that the mass of the object remains constant. And that any
momentum (linear or angular) is a mass-velocity product. Your ability to
move an object is going to be a function of this relationship. This is why
the sattelite rescue last year involved VERY slow movement of the object
once it was captured. The orbiter has substantial mass, and the bottom
line is that any attempt by an astronaut to "shove" the orbiter will
simply result in the astronaut moving. The same thing holds true on earth.
Stand up and press down with your feet real hard. Have you moved the earth
in orbit? No. You moved yourself up in the air. Lack of gravity doesn't
really change the way it all works.
-- 
 
                tom coradeschi    <+>    tcora@pica.army.mil
                            Loud Pipes Suck
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: Can You See A Shuttle Launch From Orlando?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:22:07 GMT

In article <93025.091237TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> <TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> writes:
>From the Orlando area you will see but not hear a launch at KSC.
>At least due to the traffic noise I was not able to hear anything
>related to the Shuttle, but I doubt that it will be possible.
>
If you are not in the middle of traffic, you should be able to hear the roar
from launch in Orlando (later of course).  I grew up in Orlando and saw and
heard MANY launches of the shuttle.

- Craig

-- 
Craig Huffnagle				      	      yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"My mom always said that rain was God crying,
	She also said it was because of something I did."      Jack Handey
------------------- Think of a disclaimer, it applies. -------------------
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:59:28 EST
From: <PDC103@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: To the moon? ... in NASA's dreams ...

You folks kill me...:)

After reading your posts on the shuttle moon question, I couldn't
help but join in.  The basic answer to the fundamental question here
is NO!!!!  The shuttle was designed for a maximum orbital height in
the order of 600 miles.  Granted, a circular orbit isn't the most
efficient way of transferring to the moon, but any sensible aerospace
engineer will tell you that it isn't going to happen regardless.

Getting the CSM to the moon and back (OK, the lunar module, too) is
a lot different from getting a DC-9 sized vehicle there and back.  If
you could, say in a wild hypothesis, fill the bay with Hydrogen and
Oxygen (or those nasty OMS fuels), you probably wouldn't have enough
to get there, let alone get back to Earth.  Nope, thanks to our great
former Vice President, we're in LEO, and in LEO we will stay.

-- Phil

P.S.  Delta V of 9 kps?  Is that from KSC??
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Can You Hear A Shuttle Launch From Orlando?
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:48:52 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

Downtown Orlando is about 35 miles from Merritt Island. Sound
travels at 0.21 miles per second, so one could not hear anything
until about 166 seconds (=2.8 minutes) after SRB ignition.

Anyone in Orlando want to listen for the sound and time the lag?

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom.alphaCDC.COM) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman)
Subject: Re: Can You See A Shuttle Launch From Orlando?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 17:53:26 GMT

<TNEDDERH@ESOC.BITNET> writes:

>From the Orlando area you will see but not hear a launch at KSC.
>At least due to the traffic noise I was not able to hear anything
>related to the Shuttle, but I doubt that it will be possible.

Depends on your altitude... I was flying back from the Orlando area 
a while ago, and I saw the launch from where I was.. about 10 miles SE of 
Orlando... I was only at about 1500'////// from the ground, who knows...
--
  |o| Marshal Perlman                       Internet: perlman@cs.fit.edu |o|
  |o| Florida Institute of Technology                        IRC: Squawk |o|
  |o| Melbourne, Florida                             Private Pilot, ASEL |o|
  |o| 407/768-8000 x8435                      Goodyear Blimp Club Member |o|
From: wasser@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Steve Wasserbaech)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Can You See A Shuttle Launch From Orlando?
Keywords: well . . . . .
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:32:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University


has been able to observe a shuttle launch?  I suppose we
should separate daytime and nighttime launches.  

  Steve Wasserbaech
From: wasser@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Steve Wasser)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Can You See A Shuttle Launch From Orlando?
Keywords: well . . . . .
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:42:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University


Take two (my apologies):
I've been wondering: what is the farthest from KSC anyone
has been able to observe a shuttle launch?  I suppose we
should separate daytime and nighttime launches.

 Steve Wasserbaech
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: aa429@Freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford)
Subject: Satelites
Reply-To: aa429@Freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Ford)
Organization: The National Capital Freenet
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 22:10:23 GMT


I observed that the TDRS satelites 1,4,5 were orbitting extremely close together.
Wouldn't they be able to be much more effective if they were orbitting further
from each other, so that data from around teh world could be shared between
the network of sattelites?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Ford [aa429@freenet.carleton.ca]  |    "Macbeth hath murdered sleep!"
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada			|    "Macbeth shalt sleep no more!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: scowen@wfpc3.la.asu.edu (Paul A. Scowen)
Subject: Re: Challenger Tribute
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, Arizona State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:04:48 GMT

I have found that one of the best tributes I've seen/heard is the piece of
music that Ron McNair was working on with Jean-Michel Jarre.  Ron was a 
saxophonist, and had worked on a piece of music that he would play in orbit
while it was recorded on the ground.  After the disaster, Jarre reworked the
piece as "Ron's Theme" and included it on his album "Rendezvous" that was
subsequently performed in that huge gig in Houston's downtown.  I always
get a lump in my throat when I listen to that piece of music.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Scowen				INTERNET: scowen@wfpc3.la.asu.edu
Department of Physics & Astronomy		  uk1@spacsun.rice.edu
Arizona State University		Tel:      (602) 965-0938
Tempe, AZ 85287-1504			FAX:      (602) 965-7954
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Scientists' deaths
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:30:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C1G205.H2z.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: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
-Subject: Scientists' Deaths
-Date: 25 Jan 93 19:27:17 GMT

-Several years ago (don't ask me how many) there were *several* postings, 
-including excerpts from British newspapers, about the spate of "suicides" and 
-"accidental deaths" of British space scientists in comp.risks.  If anybody is 
-really interested in doing the research, instead of just sarcastically 
-dismissing them as crackpot conspiracy fodder, they can look it up in the 
-Risks archive.

-Rick Kitchen

Is there any reason to think it *isn't* just the same sort of thing that
happened to Wall Street brokers in 1929? :-(

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: games@max.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DC-1 eventual construction question...
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:17:26 PST
Organization: 
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: max.u.washington.edu

Let me start by making 4 assumptions.

1:  The DC-X tests in a couple of months will be a success.
2:  MCD successfully builds more of the DC-X's as sounding rockets.
3:  Funding for DC-Y never materializes.
4:  We want the DC-Y and DC-1 to be built.


Now, the question is, HOW to we accomplish this goal.  Assuming that the
big G doesn't kick in money, we are left with convincing MD of the long
term commercial viability of further development.

I can't personally pony up the money to place an order for one, but I know
some people who might be interested in taking the risk. (And, NO, they would 
not have enough for more than a percentage of the price tag...)  The problem
is that if MD operates like Boeing, then they need a certain number of 
guaranteed saled before going into full development.  I don't know that if 
there are say 20 of these things built, that I can take my 1 and make a living 
with it.  (I.E. show a profit on it's operation.)

I am sure that somebody somewhere has crunched these numbers, and has a picture
of what it would take to operate a DC in a business environment.  Are there 
those among us that would put their money where there hearts are, and invest
(heavily) in such a venture?  (I know that we can assume the tourism market.)

Does MD have commercial carriers in the wings lined up for purchase of these
things, that we don't generally know about?

What kind of deal would it take for MD to plug on ahead?

	John.
From: earl@cco.caltech.edu (Earl A. Hubbell)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: solar sails
Date: 25 Jan 1993 07:53:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: alumni.caltech.edu

roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:


>-From: MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF)
>-Subject: Re: Solar sails
>-Date: 23 Jan 93 08:39:41 GMT
>-Organization: Abo Akademi University, Finland

>-There was another proposal as well. A small space probe suspended behind a
>-giant solar sail (2km across, total mass of one hundred kg(?)) would reach
>-Alpha Centauri in 250 years if we make a close flyby of the Sun - one solar
>-radius from the surface (0.7 million km). Is there a way to manufacture an
>-ultra-light sail able to withstand the temperature (4000-5000K at least)?

>Do you have access to the math behind that proposal? It should be impressive -
>for instance, the sail has to withstand something around 50 MW/m^2.
>(The inverse-square law wouldn't exactly apply as far as photon thrust is
>concerned at that distance, but it should be less than a factor of two off.)

Look in _The Starship Handbook_ by Mallove & (forgotten name).  It is fairly
low on math itself, but has references listed in the back.  You might also
check in _The Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets_ or _The Journal of Propulsion
and Power_ under solar sails.  

As I recall, the sail survives because the approach to the sun uses
some shielding body until perihelion, then the sail is deployed, and
heats up from there.  The optimal sail design has a highly reflective
solar surface (minimizing heat transfer to the sail), and an efficient
radiator for the outer surface.  Since the spaceward side of the sail 
is pointed at the background heat sink, and the inner surface is 
reflective, the actual temperature of the sail is kept to below failure 
levels (varying with assumed materials and failure modes).  

>John Roberts
>roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
-- 
"Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and *earl@alumni.caltech.edu
the stars?  Or to know what causes the trees to bud, *Earl Hubbell
or what changes a darkness into light?  But if you   *Opinions solely mine.
talk like that, people call you crazy." --Frankenstein                         
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: edm@gocart.eng.hou.compaq.com (Ed McCreary)
Subject: Re: 2001/2010 Rocket Engines - What are they?
Organization: Compaq Computer Corp
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:07:39 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:02:47 GMT, MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus Lindroos INF) said:

MLI> Any idea what kind of engines the "Discovery" and "Alexei Leonov" of "2010 -
MLI> Odyssey Two" were using? Obviously, they have to be pretty fuel-efficient [=an
MLI> exhaust velocity of at least 25km/s] since neither craft seems to have much

Hmm, It's been a while since I read 2001, although I saw the movie
this weekend, so I don't remember if they went into any details.  I do
know that 2010 does have a blurb on the Leonov's engines.  You may
want to grab a paperback and check it out.  My failing memory tells
me it used some sort of "low" temp muon catalyzed fusion.  I think
Luis Alvarez was supposed to have done the theoretical work for it.
(In the book, that is, although Clarke derived some details from
Alvarez's actual work)
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
edm@gocart.eng.hou.compaq.com                           _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
From: rpcamp@leland.Stanford.EDU (Robert Patrick Campbell)
Subject: Re: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 05:42:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.010055.1691@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....
>
>So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?
>
Well, I was done class early that morning and went home for lunch (I was on
M.S.Time).  I flipped on the T.V. and saw the shuttle about to launch.  I
found out later that this was post-explosion coverage, but when I switched
on the 'tube they had decided to show the launch sans commentary, just
listening to mission control.  So for me, it was "real time" with no
warning.  I just thought "cool--a shuttle launch," and couldn't believe it
when it exploded.

...Rob Campbell
   Stanford University
From: jarnis@mits.mdata.fi (Jarno Kokko)
Subject: Re: Galileo update?
Organization: Microdata Oy, Helsinki, Finland
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 13:39:08 GMT

In article <26JAN199316452669@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>In article <93025.205009IO20721@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>, Michael Petersen <IO20721@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> writes...
>>Could someone tell me if NASA has successfully deployed the high-gain
>>antenna on Galileo yet?   I heard that their most "aggressive" attempts
>>would occur after the the last Earth flyby.
>
>The recent hammerings have not opened the antenna.  The first hammering
>attempt turned the ballscrew an additional full rotation, but it has
>not budged since.  Despite 13,000+ hammerings at different frequencies
>and at various antenna temperatures, the ribs are still stuck.   One last
>attempt will be made by spinning up the spacecraft from 3 rpm to 10 rpm
>in March, but this is not expected to do much.  March has been designated
>as the deadline to open the antenna.  After that the focus will be
>on the Ida flyby in August and a low gain antenna mission.  One other
>event that may open the antenna is the Jupiter orbit insertion in December
>1995.  The solid rotor motor will fire for an hour and the resulting 
>vibrations may jar the antenna loose, but this is to be considered a long shot.
>     ___    _____     ___
>    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
>    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
> ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Every once in a while,
>/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | try pushing your luck.
>|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
>

Have people thought about combining hammering with the orbit insertion?
I think hammering when whole spacecraft is vibrating due to motor
firing would shake loose about anything :-) .. Or is it impossible
due to some minor technical detail? 

- Jarnis <jarnis@mits.mdata.fi>
From: lawson%ssdvax.decnet@lbgwy.mdc.com (Jim Lawson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nasa Select contact req ?
Date: 27 Jan 1993 16:09:07 GMT
Organization: MDSSC-SSD
Reply-To: Lawson%ssdvx1.decnet@lbgwy.mdc.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: netsun.mdc.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey (higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov) wrote:
: In article <1k4avqINNmt9@lynx.unm.edu>, lawson%ssdvax.decnet@lbgwy.mdc.com (Jim Lawson) writes:
: > My cable company is now under the impression that they need "permission"
: > to broadcast Nasa Select.
: > Do they ?
: No.  The government produces it and it's in the public domain.
: It *is* reasonable for the cable company to ask for written assurance of this.
: (From a source more authoritative than Bill Higgins, I mean.)

Kind of what I'm thinking, it might be my cable companys way of putting me off.

: > Who can I contact at Nasa Select to straighten this out ?
: This question has come up before-- should be in the FAQ-- but I don't
: have the answer handy.  Call the Public Affairs Office at NASA
: Headquarters and try to find out.  (202)453-8400.  If you get the
: answer, post it!

Thanks,
	I rang that number but it has been changed to (202)358-1600.
	I called that and they referred me to (202)358-1757. I left
	a message and am awaiting a call back.

--
Jim Lawson	Lawson%ssdvx1.decnet@lbgwy.mdc.com
		Alt:	Lawson@netsun.mdc.com or Lawson@bbs.ug.eds.com

Opinions/Comments expressed here are my own and no one elses !!
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as an ACRV
X-Sender: newtout 0.06 Jan  3 1993
Date: 20 Jan 93  23:40:04


da>>Under the terms of the Launch Services Purchase Act, NASA is prohibit
da>>from orbiting non-shuttle-specific payloads. Therefore,
da>>using the shuttle to orbit Soyuz spacecraft contravenes the LSPA.

AW>In a perfect world you would be correct. However, it is currently too
AW>easy for NASA to declare a payload Shuttle specific.

I dare them to declare that Soyuz is shuttle specific. I double dare
them. Go ahead, make my day.


da>>However, several U.S. commercial vendors can supply launchers that
da>>can easily orbit a Soyuz for a more reasonable price than the shuttle

AW>As you well know, I have long supported exactly this. It is obvious th
AW>using non-shuttle based logistics systems are both cheaper and more
AW>reliable. The problems are political and not technical.


There is a grand compromise inherent in all this that may work out to
almost everyone's satisfaction:

The Russians want to launch US comsats on Proton from Baikonur.
Protons are significantly cheaper for geosynchronous launches than
US comemrcial launchers.

NASA wants to launch Soyuzes inside the shuttle.
US commercial launchers are significantly cheaper than shuttle flights;
however, Soyus would probably require at least five ELV launches per
year (compared to two shuttle flights).
Proton cannot loft a fueled Soyuz to Freedom's orbit, and is still
not man-rated.

The solution?

Allow US Commercial launchers to orbit the Soyuzes from the Cape.

Allow Proton to orbit as many comsats as US launchers orbit Soyuzes -
a one for one treaty, so to speak. Only NASA loses, except it gets
a cheap ACRV. The US commercial launch industry gets to survive,
and the Russians get some business.



___ WinQwk 2.0b#0

--- Maximus 2.01wb
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle safety margins
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:23:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: acad3.1993Jan26.192341.1
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks

I know one thing a military arcraft will not fly (routine flights) in many
conditions that a commerical airctaft will fly..

I actually think that Kennedy is a bad place for a Space Port and that the
Shuttle could fly alot more times that what is has. They are just to cautious
due to the fact that the Shuttle is just to expensive, also it is under more
scruteny than the normal 747. Also the Commerical liner has a schedule to meet,
also it just migth have better I think that if the DC-X flys, it will quickly
become commercialized. 
Nice to see scheduled airline flights into orbit....

Other thing is that Military Aircraft are also dependent public and also
congressional views/needs..

REF: 747 versus C5 competition, 747 was competing with the what is now called
the C5, the C5 won and 747 became a major airliner with a good record.
One of the standard possible reasons for the C5 getting picked was more due to
the fact that the Congressmember who had the finger on the ppurse strings was
from the home state of Lockheed, which was going thru a hard times job wise..

So maybe the Shuttle is here because of more than need for space
but of economics?? and power plays..


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad2.alaska.edu
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Oak heat shields
Date: 21 Jan 93 05:19:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C16uzr.4pG.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

\I believe that what the Chinese are reported to be using is oak, not
/bamboo.  they are also reported to produce a lot of their space
\hardware in a refrigerator factory, or soemthing like that.  So much
/for Western requirements for Level 100 cleanrooms.

Back before the big cleanup I could have gotten you a good deal on
enough oak to have retrieved a couple Skylabs intact; but we weren't
able to sell it, the lumberyards don't take "windfalls" from people's
yards, because they might have old nails and stuff in them...  as if
we don't know where all the nails are...

It basically got hauled away with all the other fallen trees.  

\"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
/ in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

Yup. An industry too chicken(explicitave deleted) to learn about
post-stone-age devices such as metal detectors turned our potential
resource back into trash. I wonder how much they'd be paying for it
if it were from virgin forest that species were driven extinct for
instead of from our backyard.

Needless to say, I think I now support efforts to save the Northern
Spotted Owl. If the lumber mills don't want to live in the real world,
and throw away (possible total for the area) tens of millions of dollars
worth of good oak and pine in a time when everyone could have used
financial help in the cleanup, then I don't want to either.

God, I think you *could* have heat-shielded several Skylabs with that
wood...

\------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

Just so y'all don't think Mary wrote that...
-- 
Phil Fraering         |"...Who in the valley shed the poison tear
318/365-5418          |no one knows...
pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|An old legend of a mythical hero..."
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle