HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: what the little bird told Henry
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:41:40 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 <1992Dec14.161903.327@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

>Promoting the first X-30 as a "real" space-plane was not a good idea.
>We work on SCRAMjet technology (not the actual engines) and can tell
>you that there is a lot of work yet to do to really understand the
>physics of fluid flow and combustion in that environment.  Unless you
>want to spend seriously painful sums making and breaking engines
>(these puppies AIN'T easy to test!), we need detailed info on the
>physics so that what is built has a higher chance of success.  

Interesting NASA and the US Air Force were quite ready to test
a scramjet-powered plane (the X-15C) during the 1960's, except
that Congress wouldn't appropriate the money.  But today, we 
can't even try without developing a lot of new physics.  Guess
somebody must have misplaced a lot of data in the last 30 years.
(Or maybe just misplaced his cajones....) 


>Even so, the performance of the first article is likely to disappoint
>(ref.: XP-59 Airacomet), so overblowing the first one, like was done
>with NASP, is risky to the program as a whole.  I think this lesson
>also can and will apply to the DC.

If, instead of building the XP-59, we had embarked on a long research
program like the X-30, the first US jet aircraft would have flown
sometime after the Korean War.  Meanwhile, Russian MiGs would been
blasting our Mustangs out of the sky.  

You're right.  There is a lesson to be learned there.
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Date: 20 Dec 1992 18:37:12 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <phfrom.413@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
>ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>You heard wrong.  One MOL flew (unmanned).
>
>Could somebody provide data ?




According to a friend of mine who was a MOL engineer.  One MOL flew
Manned.  only it was called ASTP.  


.
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 18:32:05 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1gvl1jINN84@mirror.digex.com>


>Here seems a stupid one?
>
>SVS needed a clear payload bay in order to test full arm extension.???
>
>Now when a satellitte is carried up, it is inside some shrouds and often
>a turntable spinner.  Also bigger payloads are on racks.
>
>Why not towards the last day of flight,  EVA two astronauts and jettision
>the miscellaneous hardware.?  sure it's sapce junk,  but they could
>wrap it all together on some cables and deploy a large mylar drdrogue
>shield so it's radar visible and has high atmospheric drag.  it should come
>down in a few years, if the drag is sufficient.
>
>any guesses?


  No, that's not a very good idea. We don't need more Space Junk floating
  around up there no matter how easy it is to see.
   
  On the other hand, when a TDRS/IUS is sent on it's way, it opens up
  a great big space in the payload bay. Plenty of room for the RMS
  Space Vision System's needs. So, if it needs a clear payload bay for
  tests, fly it on STS-54 (TDRS-F/IUS) or STS-51 (ACTS/TOS). I don't
  understand how this idea escaped the person who replied to my original
  post.
  
  -Brian
  
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 12/11/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Magellan, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:06:26 GMT

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                          MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                            December 11, 1992

1.	Magellan continues to operate normally, transmitting a carrier plus
40 bps X-band signal which is precisely tracked by the DSN (Deep Space Network
stations to provide gravity data.

2.	The present command sequence is designed to automatically shift the
telemetry to the 1200 bps rate if the tracking pass is over a 70 m
station, based on the DSN station allocation schedule as of the time
the reference file was prepared.  In the event the station assignment
is changed, some telemetry may be lost because the 34 m stations
cannot successfully receive the 1200 bps rate due to the Transmitter B
noise spur.

3.	Spacecraft temperatures remain in the expected range.  Bay 7, which
contains the CDS (Command Data Subsystem), is at 51 degrees C with a cycle
depth of 65 degrees.

4.	The spacecraft has completed 6294 orbits of Venus; 658 so far in
Cycle 4, which will end on May 25, 1993.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | The 3 things that children 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | find the most fascinating:
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | space, dinosaurs and ghosts.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Orbit Question?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:29:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Bz9wz3.7pu@world.std.com> tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes:
>[Molniya series]
>they spend only about a half an hour south of the equator, and the other
>11 and a half north of it.  Very efficient.  I wonder why the Canadians 
>don't lease time on the CIS's satellites?

Canada doesn't do much in the far Arctic, where Clarke-orbit satellites
are impractically low on the horizon, so we don't really have the need
for the extra complexities of moving satellites.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:19:52 GMT

aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>(Michael V. Kent) writes:

>>What I don't believe is that you'd get any knowldgeable
>>volunteers to fly a Spacelab mission on a Titan IV.

>Well we will launch that 400 pound Italian satellite. You remember, the
>one NASA spent half a billion launching instead of putting it on a $10M
>Pegasus?

Allen, it's a good idea to be subtle when you know your evidence is flawed.  
That way we're less likely to notice.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Space docking
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:57:02 GMT

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

>gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>That's an interesting question anyway. How is docking with Freedom
>>supposed to be handled? 

>Unless it's changed since I saw it described, basically the shuttle gets
>close, and then the station's arm reaches out, grabs it, and moves it
>into position.  For some of the early assembly, it'll be vice-versa with
>the shuttle arm doing the work, but the shuttle arm isn't strong enough
>to move the whole shuttle around routinely.

>This makes considerable sense, in general.  For routine use, you want a
>docking method that tolerates considerable error.  Getting within the
>"capture volume" of an arm is a lot less fussy than making the docking
>yourself.

This is also consistant with what I've read about rendezvous procedure.  Since
SSF is both expensive and fragile ground control is planning to be very 
careful about slinging big vehicles around it.  Rather than aiming for the 
docking port, you aim for a spot next to it, and set up your trajectory so that
if the vehicle looses power at any point it will just glide on by.  Once you
get close, the arm guides you in.

It's possible this could change if we decide to use the Russian APAS system.
From what I've heard it's very rugged and well thought out.
-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
From: higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSF Deputy Dir. Interview
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:59:45 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec12.132745.167@indyvax.iupui.edu>, tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes:
[interesting interview with Marty Kress deleted]
>           
>           Non-Journalistic Asides {NJAs}: All the people I met from NASA
>           wore great suits.  Is there a NASA tailor hidden away somewhere? 
>           Special style kudos to Tyrone Taylor, NASA project manager for
>           the town meetings.  As a grubby student journalist I found myself
>           completely out-gunned on the sartorial flank. 

I disagree.  You were wearing your pants decorated with a pattern of 
chili peppers that day.  I thought you cut a fine figure.  My
compliments to your tailor. 

>           I liked Kress.  There was no lean forward and stare you in the
>           eye, "Listen to me I'm a big shot" b.s.  He seemed very genuine. 
>           Not bad for a Notre Dame graduate.  

We ND graduates are everywhere.  But some of us have better suits than
others.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:06:41 GMT

In article <71783@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>>Can't you just admit that a lot more happened on STS-52 than the launch of
>>LAGEOS so we can put this issue to rest?

> Nope. Just about everything on that mission could have been divied up
> and flown on other Shuttles.

[A list of alternatives deleted.]

Perhaps this is true, as it is for most missions.  That is the advantage of
the modular concept of STS.  Spacelab, the robot arm, SPAS, the Spacelab
pallets, etc can be mixed and matched to perform a variety of missions on the
same flight.  NASA could have shuffled the mix and combined things a different
way.  Perhaps a different mix would have been more efficient.  I'm not de-
bating that.  I am dismissing Allen's claim that we could have flown STS-52
on a $10 million Pegasus and accomplished all of its objectives.

> fly the EDO pallet for the mission and spread the work out over four or
> five more days. This was Columbia, afterall.

This is a good idea.  I've posted several times that I think every Columbia
fly should be an EDO flight, and that every Endeavour flight should be flown
its max 10 days.  The marginal cost of an extra day on orbit is so small com-
pared to the turnaround cost that even if the astronauts did nothing but
sit around in LBNPs, it would be cost-effective.  And I think we could find
additional work for them to do anyway.

The Shuttle is a limited resource that ought to be used to the fullest extent
possible.  My point was to dismiss Allen's claim that the Titan IV can do any-
thing the Shuttle can do (It can't, and Spacelab is one example).

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
Flight Test Engineer                           Tute-Screwed Aero '92
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
These views are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:39:59 GMT
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <1992Dec17.104748.8173@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Oh. Oh. My source is a post by Nick Szabo Sept 19th of last year where
>he quotes a Mir Press article on suited time for sale. Since they offered
>John Denver a ride for $10 million, this must be out to lunch.

Right, quote Dr. Asteroid Roboto for a price of man-in-space. 


                    I have talked to Ehud, and lived.
  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Apollo 13 book
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 21:00:47 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>I'm looking for a book I heard about a number of years ago regarding the
>Apollo 13 mission and near disaster. I believe it was called "Houston,
>We Have a Problem" or something like that. I thought it was by Buzz
>Aldrin but a library search found nothing. It's an account of the
>engineering behind the Gold Team that brought the astronauts safely
>home. Has anyone heard of or have such a book? Where can I get it?
>Thanks & happy ho ho.
>
>Phil Biehl
>Home Row, Inc.
>
>--
>philb@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
>Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-0636 (1200/2400, N81)
>

 "Houston, We've Had a Problem" is a NASA/Government Printing Office
 non-technical account of the Apollo 13 accident. It is about a ten
 page magazine-sized booklet.
 
 I only know of one other "book" about the accident, that being
 "13: The Flight That Failed". I think the author was Henry S.F. Cooper,
 but I can't swear to it.
  
 -Brian
 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gregw@highland.oz.au (Greg Wilkins)
Subject: Re: cancelled apollos
Organization: Highland Logic
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 22:19:05 GMT

Henry writes:
 >116 (the fifth J CSM) flew the first crew, 117 the second, and 118
 >the third.  111 (the last H) was Apollo-Soyuz.  119 (the last[?] J)
 >was allocated as Skylab rescue if necessary, then shifted to Apollo-
 >Soyuz backup.  Where 115 went I'm not sure.

In the Moscow science and technology park, there is a apollo CSM and
a Soyuz on display mated with what looks like a fake docking module.
So maybe this is CSM 115?

Great place to go if you want to get close to a lot of space hardware,
and they don't mind touchy feely there, so you can walk up to the odd 
satelite sitting on the ground, deploy its antenae, push it back etc.

It is right next door to a big display of soviet  cow milking machines
and for some reason the soviet space and milking technology look very very
similar :-)  But hell it works (the space hardware that is, I have my doubts
about the milking machines -> I never found any milk in the old USSR)

Greg Wilkins @ Highland Logic 
       Snail : Suite 1, 348 Argyle St., MossVale, NSW, 2577, Australia
       Email : gregw@highland.oz.au
       Phone : (+61 48) 683490  or direct: (+61 2)8107029
       Fax   : (+61 48) 683474 

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: j_butler@ponil.enet.dec.com ()
Subject: Re: Galileo's Atmospheric Probe Passes Health Checks
Keywords:  Galileo, Jupiter, Ames, JPL
Reply-To: j_butler@ponil.enet.dec.com ()
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:39:37 GMT


In article <1992Dec15.170442.1866@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, 
baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:

..
>     The probe will make history's first entry into the atmosphere
>of an outer planet on Dec. 7, 1995.  It will slam into Jupiter's
>atmosphere at 115,000 mph, fast enough to jet from Los Angeles to
>New York in 90 seconds.  Deceleration to about Mach 1 -- the speed
>of sound -- will take just a few minutes, causing a buildup of heat
>so intense it will be like flying through a nuclear explosion.

..


>     Entry into Jupiter's atmosphere is the most hazardous in the
>solar system because the planet's immense gravitational pull
>creates tremendous speeds.  At maximum deceleration, as the craft
>slows from 115,000 mph to 100 mph, the probe will hurtle against a
>force 350 times Earth's gravity.

>     Its incandescent shock wave will be as bright as the sun and
>reach temperatures up to 28,000 degrees Fahrenheit.  After entry,
>the fore and aft heat shields of the deceleration module will be
>shed by deploying a small pilot parachute and then a large main
>chute, exposing the descent module to Jupiter's hydrogen/helium
>atmosphere.

>     The probe's total weight is 747 pounds.  The deceleration
>module weighs 484 pounds.  The inner descent module carries seven
>scientific instruments, weighing 66 pounds.

..

>     As the probe passes through Jupiter's colored cloud layers,
>its computer will receive information, process it and transmit the
>coded signal to the Galileo orbiter, which will relay the data by
>radio to Earth.  The probe descent mission will last about 75
>minutes.  At this point, a combination of extreme heat, high
>pressure and degraded battery power will silence the probe forever.


OK...

I have always wondered what was done to the instrument package to allow it to
survive such forces. I have some awareness of "ruggedization" necessary to
allow various electronic components to survive launching from an artillery
piece, and tactical missiles/rockets. I also have some knowledge of the
accellerations experienced by the Sprint system and HIBEX experiments...
none of which came CLOSE to 350G! 

How does NASA and JPL expect the probe to survive the deceleration? It must
be pretty close to slamming into a piece of boilerplate! 

At first it seemed that if the probe survived entry, the pressures and temps
it experienced would be trifling in comparison...but the heat shields that
would/could have protected it must be jettisoned.

Realistically...what chances do the scientists, engineers, and planners
at JPL give the probe of being able to fulfill its mission objectives?

Regards (and kudos to the designers and builders of the probe!),

John B. 

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher)
Subject: Re: No asteroid flybys (was Re: Cassini Undergoes Intense Design Review)
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:09:43 GMT
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.

>Nope.  It was announced in *Aviation Leak* that the policy of seeking
>asteroid flybys has been dropped to keep costs down on Cassini. :-(

Swell. WIth our luck the damn thing will probably wind up colliding
with an asteroid, which collision would have been recognized had
we but continued the search for flyby possibilities...
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:20:52 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec14.034918.7060@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rkornilo@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ryan Korniloff) writes:
>Well why did the HGA have to be cloed up in the first place? If it is too
>big, then couldn't they have used a more powerful transmitter? I would
>have rather tried to avoid such a chance for failure...

They would have preferred a rigid antenna, and some early Galileo designs
had one.  But power is always in very limited supply aboard a spacecraft,
and as they got more ambitious the data-rate requirements grew, and once
the rim of the dish got big enough to hit the edges of the shuttle cargo
bay, there wasn't much to do except go for a folding antenna.  Very similar
antennas have worked very reliably on the TDRS series.  It looked okay,
especially since the plan was to unfold it before Centaur ignition, when
the astronauts could have dealt with problems (in the same way they dealt
with Compton's snagged antenna).  The revised flight plan, including the
Venus encounter that required keeping the antenna folded for thermal
protection, was put together on a shoestring in the wake of Challenger.
(This is also why they can't back off the antenna motor -- the relay
that would have permitted that got used for something else in the
hardware changes needed for the new flight plan.)
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 17:02:45 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <7gm27s@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>	Given a figure of $500 Million a flight, useful work can be:
>10 hours/day * 6 astronauts * 5 days = 300 hours.  Divide this into the
>above number nd you get $1.6 Million.  If this is a EDO flight of 10
>days, your on-orbit costs drop in half.  So, I'd assume that 
>


I think your number is a tad optimistic.  I think the shuttle suits
are only good for 4-5 Hours, before a recharge is done.  
Also While you have a crew of 7,  at least two would stay in board.
The pilot and the Arm operator (He may need an assistant).
Henry is the roving expert on this.  so I get.
(oops,  also i guy stays suited up in the airlock  as an emergency helper.
8 hours/day (2 suit sorties) * 4 astronauts * 5 days = 152 hrs.
Less if you need another guy on the flight or middeck.
so i ball park it in at 3.5 million/hour.  not counting additional
depreciation on the suits.  

I would imagine the CIS is still making a killing at 5 million/hour.
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Saturn history
Date: 12 Dec 1992 16:24 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <71518@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) 

>     Centaur on the Saturn? I think I remember that it was considered
>     as a fourth stage for Saturn 5 (with early Voyager planning?) but
>     I believe you're confusing the RL-10 and the Centaur. RL-10
>     powered the S-IV (predecessor to the J-2 powered S-IVB) but I
>     don't think Centaur ever flew anything other than Atlas or Titan.
>      
>     -Brian

The Saturn I/Centaur configuration is the original Saturn I multistage vehicle.
I confirmed this when re-reading General Medaris's book. He specifically
names the Centaur as the Saturn I upper stage.

I also somewhat confirmed the troop transport via missle in the book. General
Medaris does not give specifics so my memory is assuming that the specifics
were laid out in the "Rocket Scientists"

The Centaur was considered as the upper stage (4th) for the Saturn V. That was
to support the Grand Tour by the original Voyagers. This little beastie had
the Nerva as the Third stage with the Centaur as the 4th! Man Talk about 
Delta V or lift capability! I saw this scenario carefully laid out in one of
the Marshall books on what was called the "Apollo Applications Program". This
little configuration could lift two Voyager class full up ground tours. Would
have been cool wouldn't it.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville