HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scooper@kepler.physics.uq.oz.au (Steven Cooper)
Subject: What is DC ??
Organization: Physics Dept. The University of Queensland
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:09:38 GMT


Pardon my ignorance folks, but what is this DC thing?

I get the idea that it's a single stage to orbit vehicle which lands vertically
under power. Is this true?
Who is designing/building it? 
From other posts I gather some initial tests will happen next year.

Now, I'm really confused about how you make an SSTO. As far as my meagre 
understanding goes, the final velocity of a rocket is the exhaust velocity
times the logarithm of the mass ratio. How easy is it to get 5 miles per second
with a single stage? I thought that exhaust velocities were only about 3000 m/s 
which would require a mass ratio of about 14. With payload and fuel for landing
this sounds quite difficult.

I'd be grateful for any information.

Thanks in advance,

Steven Cooper ( c/- C.Smith's account)

scooper@kepler.physics.uq.oz.au
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:09:42 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <ByuqKM.F2@access.digex.com> <1992Dec7.173321.2812@ke4zv.uucp>
  <BywyEy.7uE@access.digex.com> <1992Dec9.140455.6628@ke4zv.uucp>
  <ewright.724092627@convex.convex.com> <71520@cup.portal.com>
  <ewright.724353431@convex.convex.com> <1992Dec16.102412.27942@ke4zv.uucp>
  <ewright.724533084@convex.convex.com>

>In <1992Dec16.102412.27942@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>One Shuttle flight is a bit less than half the projected cost of DCX
>>development to flight test. It doesn't even begin to cover costs for
>>the development of DCY which requires different structures and engines,
>>or of DC-1.
>
>McDonnell Douglas has estimated the total development costs of the DC-1
>at $1.5 billion.  I don't recall exactly how much money has been spent
>on DC-X, but it's in the range of a couple hundred million.  NASA spends
>over a billion dollars on each Space Shuttle flight.  I think you've
>indulged in some creative accounting.
>

 The Space Transportation budget this year was about $5 billion, if
 memory serves. NASA flew 8 Shuttle missions this year. You have done
 the 'creative accounting' here, I'd say. 
 
 -Brian
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 18:36:26 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec16.092029.27518@ke4zv.uucp> <1992Dec16.202219.2063@eng.umd.edu>
  <1gvlmnINN9c@mirror.digex.com>

>we should look to develope cheap sats to go with DC-1.
>
   I thought we were already developing cheap sats, but these are to
   go up with Pegasus, Taurus, etc.

   -Brian
   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: EVA costs
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:46:24 GMT


-From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
-Date: 17 Dec 92 10:47:48 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

->In article <1992Dec16.125638.29623@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
->>Last I heard they're
->>willing to rent Cosmonaut time at $5 million an hour plus launch costs
->>for any experimental equipment you want them to use.

-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.

Great - I use one of your posts as a reference, and you promptly retract
it! :-)

I presume the John Denver deal didn't involve any EVA, so that doesn't rule
it out yet.

While it wouldn't be fair to divide the cost of an entire Shuttle mission
by maximum EVA time to get US EVA costs, I expect a more reasonable
accounting method would still get a figure up in the millions of dollars
per hour. Don't the EVA suits have a certain maximum number of hours they
can be used per flight?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...)
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 10:55:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.182820.9627@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <ewright.724353431@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>>Also note that the cost of one Shuttle flight is about the same
>>as the entire DC development program.
>
>Not quite. It wold take about 1.5 years of Shuttle funding to develop DC. Now
>for the cost of a Shuttle flight, you could run a program to answer all the
>open technical questions and have enough left over to buy a Titan IV to
>launch the payload which would have gone up in the Shuttle.

According to Wales, a Titan IV with no upper stage costs $315 million
to *purchase*. A little bird told me in Email that flyaway cost is
between $550-$600 million dollars including integration, stacking, fuel,
and that standing army supporting the launch facilities. Now that's higher
than the historical flyaway cost of a Shuttle launch. Wales had figures 
showing Shuttle operational costs at $270-1000 million per flight depending 
on the number of flights per year, with a demonstrated capability of $170 
million per flight in 1985 with 9 flights. Variable cost per flight is 
around $55 million and fixed costs are roughly $2 billion a year, so flight 
rate is critical to costs.

Now I'm amazed that you could find engineers to do about $1.2 
billion in free work to allow them to develop DCX *and* pay you 
the $430 million *extra* to allow you to launch a Titan IV instead
of a Shuttle.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject:  D-21 recon drones 
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:46:15 GMT

Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>>anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>>>>But they didn't call the SR-71 the Recon-STRIKE-71 before LBJ's mangling for
>>>>nothing.

Kelly Johnson claims that SR-71 (and its siblings) would have been competitive
with F-15 and B-1 programs but they were kept out by political considerations.

>>>Yep.  And I also heard about the drone launch accident that downed both
>>>the drone and the host SR-71...
>>
>>That actually happened in pre-SR-71 days, to an M-12 (the drone-carrier
>>variant of the A-12).  However, the problems are felt to be manageable,
>>last I heard:  Lockheed was saying "feasible" when NASA Dryden talked
>>to them about carrying HALO up to Mach 3 on SR-71-back.

>    The drone in that case was quite a package, too. As I recall, the drone
>was a Mach 3+ ramjet design, intended to be a drone recon plane for doing
>flyovers of hostile territory.

Right, though in the SR-71 realm some people say that Mach 3+ is shorthand
for Mach 4.

>It was (bear with me here, it's been a while
>since I read this) fueled by boron hydride, with roughly twice the energy
>density of regular jet fuel, built almost entirely of magnesium, and intended
>to fly a photo run, return to friendly territory, eject a photo package, and
>self destruct with explosive charges. In fact, the charges were set to blow
>if the altimeter read below 10,000 feet in operational use.

What I read suggests that the drone was supossed to ditch at sea near Hawaii.
The payload would be recovered in the air similar to the process used with the
Discoverer capsules.

>At any rate, during
>the first test the separation went bad, the drone either flew into the carrier
>or blew up immediately adjacent, and the carrier went down.

The drone suffered an engine malfunction during seperation and pitched into the
midsection of the carrier aircraft killing one of the two crewmen and 
destroying both vehicles.  The drones were later flown from B-52H pylons over
China several times but the results were mixed.

>    I wish I could remember where I read this... anyone else out there able
>to confirm this?

My source is William Burrows' _Deep Black_.
Since this has migrated from the original topic I suggest interested persons
hit the library or take discussion to sci.aeronautics and sci.military.

-- 
Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
                        Ho^3     !=L
From: techno@zelator.in-berlin.de (Frank Dahncke)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Scud Missile technology
Date: 10 Dec 92 00:01:42 GMT
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System

In <n1084t@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>I have yet to uncover exactly what a Scud missile is.
>I know what it does. I know that its NATO derivation (SS-1A) is similar to the 
>earliest Soviet missile, the SS-1 - a V-2 derivative - but the Scud is in no
>way a dervivative of the SS-1.
>Is the Scud a liquid fuel missile? Is it a solid? If liquid, what fuels does
>it use? What is its engine designation? What design bureau created its engine? 
>What is its specific impulse?

All those and similar questions can and will be answered on
sci.military.

				  Hope this helps,

						  Techno
-- 
| techno@zelator.in-berlin.de ||| Please do not e-mail from outside Germany ! |
| techno@lime.in-berlin.de   / | \  Hardcore ST user ! ====================== | 
| Nothing that's real is ever for free, you just have to pay for it sometime. |
|                                       (Al Stewart)                          | 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:45:46 GMT

In article <ewright.724699264@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <ggm2ljr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>
>>	I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1.  Allen seems
>>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."
>>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.  
>
>What bothers me is the attitude that, "If NASA couldn't do it,
>nobody can."
>
	That's not exactly what I said.  But of course you cut out the
part where I went on to say that I think DC-X has a much better
chance.  I'm simply saying that don't belive what anyone tells you
no matter who it is, NASA, SDIO, or MacDac, etc.  Look for the
proof in the pudding.

>Okay, NASA built one airplane, the Shuttle, that doesn't work
>very well.
>
	Doesn't work very well, or work as designed.  Granted, it
ain't flying 26 tiems a year or anything like that.  But what it
is doing, it is doing well.  Perhaps DC-1 can do it better.  I think
if even half of the promises of DC-X are truue, DC-1 can do a lot
better.  But, look for the proof.

>Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and other companies quite
>regularly build airplanes as advanced and complex as the Space
>Shuttle (the Shuttle has 6 main computers, the B-757 has over
>200) that work quite well.
>
	I wonder how you count computers.  Do you count the
multiplex-deplexers on the shuttle, the sensor units and more?
I doubt that the B-757 has 200 comptuers that control the entire
plane.  I do believe it has 200 where various ones control various
parts of the plane.  That's two different things.

>This does not suggest, to me, that NASA is so all-efficient
>and omnicompetent that if they can't do it, no one can. 
>
	Of course, if you set up the strawman, you can cut him down.
  
>If anything, it suggests the project will work as long as
>you keep NASA the hell away from it.
>
	"Objection honor, conclusion based on evidence not included."
Not that I disagree, simply that your conclusion does not follow from
above.



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DoD launcher use
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:48:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Bz81Bx.sK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>>>... SR71s and U2s that can fly above anything Iraq had right? 
>>I don't know whether Iraq had any of the Soviet heavy SAMs, but unless
>>those aircraft have capabilities far beyond what's revealed, they can't
>>fly above *those* missiles' ceilings.
>
>Just what is the ceiling on those missiles?  And it should be noted that even
>if they can reach the required altitude they probably are no match for SR-71
>speeds and ECM.

Ceilings are poorly known and references differ, but the SA-5 Gammon must
surely have a ceiling of at least 100,000ft and probably more -- it's
substantially larger than the Nike-Hercules, which has made practice
intercepts (of missiles!) at 150,000.  Reaching extreme altitudes briefly
is no big deal for a large, heavy SAM.

There is no requirement to match the SR-71's speed.  Being in the right
place at the right time is sufficient.  The SR-71 may be fast, but it
is not very maneuverable, meaning it can't dodge much.

Countermeasures are a valid point, but now we're into ECM and ECCM and
etc. -- a seesaw battle rather than inherent invulnerability.

>>As far as I know, SR-71s never actually overflew the USSR...
>
>According to Burrows' _Deep Black_ "The Russians have repeatedly charged that
>they have been overflown by SR-71s, and the Cubans have made the same
>allegation: the Pentagon has denied the former and admitted the latter."  Now
>just who you believe (and what definition of "overflown" you use) is up to
>you.  But the Soviets have repeatedly expressed frustration over the fact that
>they can't shoot Blackbirds down...

Partly because, according to Belenko, the SR-71s never did come in close
to give the air defences a chance to function at full effectiveness.
There's a big difference between taunting them with occasional approaches
and routinely flying overhead saying "go ahead, do your worst".
-- 
"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.news
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 12/11/92
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Ulysses, JPL, ESA
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:56:37 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011

                     ULYSSES MISSION STATUS
                        December 11, 1992

     All spacecraft and science operations are performing well. 
Routine Earth-pointing maneuvers continue to be conducted about
every five days.  The last maneuver was performed on Dec. 9 and
the next is scheduled for Dec. 14.

     Ulysses' on-board tape recorders will be switched tomorrow,
Dec. 12.  Tape recorder 2 will become the primary recorder and
tape recorder 1 will be used as a backup unit.

     A reduction in the number of ranging passes continued during
this reporting period to improve the spacecraft signal at its
great distance from Earth.  Today Ulysses is about 760 million
kilometers (470 million miles) from Earth, traveling at a
heliocentric velocity of about 32,500 kilometers per hour (20,600
miles per hour).  The spacecraft is 14.3 degrees south of the
ecliptic plane in which the planets orbit, slowly looping its way
back toward the sun.

     The Keppler Gas Experiment that measures neutral helium gas
from interstellar space was turned on again on Dec. 9. 
Measurement of the arrival speed and direction of the
interstellar gas allows scientists to determine how our solar
system is moving through interstellar space.  Now that Ulysses
has climbed more than 14 degrees out of the ecliptic plane, it is
possible to determine speed and direction more accurately by
including measurements made in the third dimension.

                            #####   
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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.news
From: vsa@msd.orbi.kostroma.su (Voevodin S.A.)
Subject: VSA031: The 11th Mir Resident Mission Chronicle
Apparently-To: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Followup-To: sci.space
Originator: yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: AO ORBI (MS-DOS)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:46:55 GMT
X-Mailer: BML [MS/DOS Beauty Mail v.1.27]


   ***********************************************************
   *  VSA031       09.12.1992       (c) Sergey  A. Voevodin  *
   ***********************************************************


    MISSION CHRONICLE  No 6
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                 Mir: the 11th Resident Mission



   Soyuz TM-14     L    17.03.92      10:54:30   GMT
                   D    19.03.92      12:32:50   GMT
                   UD   09.08.92      21:46:47   GMT
                   B    09.08.92      ??:??:??   GMT
                   LD   10.08.92      01:05:02   GMT



                   Duration:  Viktorenko/Kalery   145d 14h 10m 32s
                              Tognini              13d 18h 56m 14s



   Progress M-12   L    19.04.92      22:29:??   GMT
                   D    22.04.92      00:22:??   GMT
                   UD   27.06.92      22:35:??   GMT
                   B    28.06.92      ??:??:??   GMT



   Progress M-13   L    30.06.92      16:43:??   GMT
                   D    02.07.92     (17:25)     GMT   unsuccessful
                   D    04.07.92      16:55:??   GMT
                   UD   24.07.92      03:14:??   GMT
                   B    24.07.92      ??:??:??   GMT


   Soyuz TM-15     L    27.07.92      06:08:48   GMT
                   D    29.07.92      07:46:??   GMT


                   Viktorenko/Kalery EVA:

                   08.07.92   hatch open   - 11:37:41  GMT
                   21.02.92         close  - 13:41:??  GMT

                              EVA duration -  2h 03m

                              install an valve for vacuumation
                              of gyrodynes





   Abbreviation: L - launch; D - docking; UD - undocking; RD - redocking;
                 B - TDU-burn; LCE - landing capsule ejection; LD - landing;
                 DS - destruction
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 12/16/92
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Galileo, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:33:07 GMT

Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager

                            GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                              December 16, 1992

     The Galileo Spacecraft is operating normally in the dual-spin mode and
is transmitting coded telemetry at 7.68 Kbps (7680 bits/second).

     Yesterday, the GOPEX experiment continued.  A SITURN of about 14 degrees
was performed, as planned.  Real-time commands were sent to configure the
spacecraft telecommunciations subsystems for planned future operations.
Continuous tracking was scheduled over DSS-14 (Goldstone 70 meter antenna),
DSS-43 (Canberra 70 meter antenna) and DSS-63 (Madrid 70 meter antenna).

     Today, December 16, 1992, the Earth/Moon Conjuction movie is scheduled.
The GOPEX experiment completed today.  Continuous tracking is scheduled over
DSS-14, DSS-43 and DSS-63.

     Tomorrow, the Earth/Moon Conjunction movie playback is scheduled to begin.
Real-time commands are scheduled to disable the system fault protection
thruster firing all-clear response and to enable the Plasma detector science
alarm monitor.  Near continuous tracking is scheduled over DSS-14, DSS-43 and
DSS-63.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Choose a job you love, and
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you'll never have to work
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | a day in you life. 

Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 12/14/92
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Magellan, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:41:43 GMT

Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager

                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                           December 14, 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 spacecraft performs a star calibration and reaction wheel
desaturation on each orbit.  Since Friday at this time, it has
performed 21 sets of these operations.  Two of the starcals were
partially successful, which means that the star tracker failed to
identify one of the two stars being scanned.  All other starcals and
desats were successful.

3.  Spacecraft temperatures remain in the expected range.  Bay 7,
which contains the CDS (Command Data Subsystem), is at 51.5 degrees C
with a cycle depth of 6 degrees.  Transmitter B peaks at
50.6 degrees C.

4.  The spacecraft has completed 6315 orbits of Venus; 670 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.news