HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: LDO shuttle and pilot readiness
Keywords: long duration shuttle Freedom pilot
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:59:46 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep1.170157.13005@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mll@aio.jesnet.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>Besides the obvious problems associated with microgravity, the pilot
>has had 2 months in which he (or she, as there's a woman pilot now)
>has done no training.  Now, if you ask a fighter pilot how their reactions
>are after a 2 month break from training, they'll tell you that after
>as short a time as 2 week skills begin to degrade.  I'd hate to see
>what a shuttle pilot is like after 2 months of no sim time.

This isn't necessarily so. Though they don't have the pretty movies
out the windows, or the sound effects of chirping tires, they have
the real orbiter to practice in for the entire two months. The on
board computers can simulate any instrument condition the Shuttle
may encounter. In fact, Shuttle pilots rehearse landings while in
orbit *now* on their shorter flights. Though they undoubtedly use
the Mark I eyeball out the window during landing, Shuttle pilots
are supposed to be landing IFR *today*. Thus the ground simulator's
movies aren't strictly necessary.

Microgravity weakness is a different issue and is being approached
cautiously. More exercise, vaccum bags, etc, may help somewhat with
this problem. There may also be drugs that limit calcium loss and
muscle weakness. These things are being considered as the long duration
orbiters are being prepared. It may be that Shuttle pilots *can't* 
function sufficiently well to land the Shuttle manually after two
months on orbit. In that case, Autoland is being developed to handle
the problem.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com (Robert G. Munck)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Launch Loops - quick summary (was Re: BuckyStalks)
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:31:05 GMT
Reply-To: munck@stars.reston.unisys.com
Organization: DARPA STARS/NATO PCIS

In article <9208241705.AA00945@news.cis.ohio-state.edu>, Marc.Ringuette@daisy.learning.cs.cmu.edu writes:
> ... imagine balancing a pie plate
> on top of the arc of water, so that it is supported by deflecting the water
> downwards slightly.  The plate is suspended there, higher than you might
> have thought possible, by the force from the continuing deflection of the
> stream of water.

My understanding is that most or all of the support comes from the fact
that the (eastbound part of the) loop is moving faster than orbital
velocity.  Therefore it wants to move higher, but is held down by the
weight of the stations and payloads.  The westbound part doesn't have this
problem because it is moving .9 km/s slower than the eastbound due to the
Earth's rotation.  Or maybe it has the problem, but less, and is held down
by anchors into the earth.



>   - the ribbon undergoes no stress whatsoever; it is just a passive holder
>     of kinetic energy.

I don't think that's true.  You're mixing up the Space Fountain with the
Loftstrom Loop.  The Space Fountain would be a loop going straight up and
down, turning around entirely in the station at either end.  The top
station would just turn it around, absorbing energy, and the bottom
station would turn it around and accelerate it.  I suppose you could have
"guy wires" running at an angle from the top station to ground anchors to
stabilize everything.  Also, the loop would be unconnected objects, so you
could have multiple downward streams balancing each other.


> 6. My preferred version: the hula hoop
> ======================================
>  the loop go all the way around the earth, in low orbit. ...
> 60 stations spaced around the equator, each of them fastened by cables to
> the ground.  The ribbon moves in a shape somewhere between a 60-sided
> polygon and a circle.

Actually, the hoop doesn't have to be as high as what we call low orbit. 
Just getting it above most of the atmosphere, say 80 km, would do the job.
Also, I've come to favor EIGHTEEN hoops at a given altitude, connected in
groups of three by triangular braces at intervals and three such groups
going each way.  This eliminates a great deal of instability and provides
redundancy.

Finally, I'd suggest hoops at several altitudes, say every 80 km up to 240
km. That way the spokes don't have to be as strong.
 
-- 
Bob Munck
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: Re: Lunar Society
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:38:00 GMT

I would love to join that group but I catagorically refuse till Jerry Pournelle
finishes the Janassaries series!!!!!

Please Jerry pretty please FINISH THE %$#!@*&&%  BOOK.

There, I feel much better.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Interplanetary launch capability of the Delta II?
Date: 28 Aug 1992 17:32:56 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

What would be a good formula be to compute payload to Earth escape+Vinf
using a Delta II launch vehicle?  I believe the vehicle can put 11 Klb
in a 100 nm reference orbit.  (The Delta I can put up 5.5 Klb)

What would a typical solid fuel upper stage weigh?  Given the delta-V
a solid upper stage could give me, how could I then compute the payload
capacity left after burnout?  My objective is to design a Venus orbiter,
launching with no bigger than a Delta II.  Has anything interplanetary ever
been launched with a Delta II before?

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: Failed post from a long while ago:
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:01:18 GMT


This is a follow-up that never made it...
It just about sums up my feelings about manned space shots
as entertainment...

Date: Sun, 2 Aug 92 21:54:11 -0500
From: pgf (Phil G. Fraering)

stgprao@xing.unocal.com (Richard Ottolini) writes:


>I don't know if anyone else feels the same way,
>but I find the space shuttle missions this summer to be more
>interesting than the Olymnpics and presidential conventions.
>I still get a thrill when I see a manned spacecraft and takeoff
>even though I've been watching them for 30 years.

You might as well feel thrilled. It cost enough money.
If you don't at least feel thrilled, you're left with
the scientific justification for the mission, which
according to some groups is dubious...
From: barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Is NASA really planning to Terraform Mars?
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:40:08 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: MicroMuse

A colleague of mine, who claims to be knowledgeable in such matters
tells me:

        A fairly large team <at NASA>, is planning the terraforming
        of Mars, which involves destroying the planet as we know it.
        Mars will be rasied 20 degrees C.  And with minimal study of
        that planet it becomes clear what chain of events will occur.
        After this chain Mars will be 'polluted' with earth-based
        micro-organisms and rugged plant life.

Can anyone confirm, deny, or refute the above, or otherwise
elaborate on NASA's plans with respect to Mars?

Barry Kort
Visiting Scientist
Educational Technology Research
BBN Labs
Cambridge, MA
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Opinions on NLS
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:52:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Aug26.165214.8318
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Aug25.165425.24094@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.114514.29920@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>NASA's primary mission is air and space flight R&D. 
>
>Since NLS is not R&D but rather operations this is another excellent
>reason for dropping NLS.

NLS is not in operation. Or have I missed something, when did they start
service? Last I heard they were still doing *research* on the design that
they intend to *develop*.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Opinions on NLS
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:54:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.114514.29920@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>NASA's primary mission is air and space flight R&D. 

Since NLS is not R&D but rather operations this is another excellent
reason for dropping NLS.

>primary mission means that development costs are not an expense, they are 
>an opportunity to perform the primary mission. 

For operational vehicles, like NLS, development costs ARE an expense. Since
NLS is intended to be a simple operational vehicle it does not support
NASA's mission.

>Failure to understand mission accounting rather than life cycle accounting
>leads to dependence on old technology when the primary mission is to push
>new technology.

Failure to understand the difference between research and operations leads
to money going to operations when it would be better spent on research.

The goal of NLS is not to conduct research; it is to replace existing
launch vehicles with more expensive alternatives. People ask why there
is no Bill Gates for space. The answer is right here: so long as we 
make a virtue out of wasting money and paying more then we need to
we aren't going anywhere.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------241 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Soviet rovers on Mars
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:19:27 GMT

JDAVIS@GRIFFIN.UGA.EDU (Jerry Davis) writes:
>>From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey <higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov>

>>(I'm not familiar with their instrument load). Phobos 2 and one of the
>>Soviet Mars landers carried tiny rovers, too.  Or do we only count
>>spacecraft that succeeded?  ^^^^
>                               ?
>Tiny?  I'm not sure about Phobos 2, but 2 weeks ago I saw a Soviet Mars
>rover at the Air Force Museum, Wright Patterson AFB and it was pretty
>big.

The rover you saw was almost certainly a design for the upcoming Mars '94 
mission.  It is, indeed, large, and in fact there has been discussion of 
putting one or two tiny American rovers on to piggy back around Mars and get
off and check things out when it's too dangerous for the larger rover to go.

Bill, did Phobos 2 have a surface lander or are you refering to the little
hopping thing that was supposed to land on Phobos?

-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Private space ventures
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:52:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Sep3.155228.21251
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <1992Aug25.214547.3097@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes:


>[Andrew-type hurricanes unpredicted could have killed thousands]
>That's the way things used to be -- before weather satellites.

Why, then, have you been lobbying almost exclusively for very expensive,
relatively useless projects like SSF? Why have you not been lobbying 
for inexpensive but useful projects, such as improving weather satellites,
or better launchers for satellites?  We have here a blatant double
standard, a Trojan Horse -- using examples of the usefulness of space 
that have nothing to do with what you are actually promoting.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: grasso@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GRASSO CHRISTOPHER A)
Subject: LDO shuttle and pilot readiness
Keywords: long duration shuttle Freedom pilot
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 16:29:20 GMT

After being on orbit for 2 months, how realistic is it for a shuttle pilot
	to be capable of performing a reentry and landing? Seating in the
        shuttle is upright, airliner-style, while seating in a capsule is
        reclined to horizontal.

	If the extended stay in microgravity damages the shuttle pilots'
	ability to bring the spacecraft back for a landing, doesn't this
	mandate a separate ACRV if shuttle is to be used for resupply and
	crew rotation?

		-Chris


-- 
 Chris Grasso
 CSC
 Univ. of Colorado, Boulder
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Venus orbiters
Date: 25 Aug 1992 21:40:41 GMT
Organization: sio
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu

Is the Pioneer Venus orbiter still functioning?  Besides Magellan,
what other spacecraft (Russian?) may be still functional?

Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Voyager 1 Update - 09/01/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Voyager 1, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:03:42 GMT

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

                      Voyager Status Report
                        September 1, 1992

               The Voyager 1 spacecraft used its onboard fault
protection program to maintain communications with the ground
this morning, after it experienced a failure in the piece of
equipment that allows the spacecraft to send telemetry signals to
Earth.

               Ground controllers lost the downlink signal from
Voyager 1 at 2:08 PDT this morning at the Tidbinbilla Deep Space
Network tracking station in Australia.  Telemetry data indicated
a failure of the Ultra Stable Oscillator as the cause of the loss
of downlink signal.

               Voyager 1 responded autonomously to the problem
and switched to the auxiliary oscillator.  The spacecraft
reconfigured itself in less than 10 minutes and continued sending
telemetry to the ground.   Spacecraft controllers at JPL have no
plans to change this current configuration.

               Both the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 spacecraft
continue in good health and are conducting fields and particles
experiments and ultraviolet observations.  Voyager 1 was launched
15 years ago this week, on Sept. 5, 1977.  Voyager 2 was launched
on Aug. 20, 1977.

               Voyager 1 is currently 4.6 billion miles (7.4
billion kilometers) from Earth.

               Voyager 2 is currently 3.5 billion miles (5.6
billion kilometers) from Earth.

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Anything is impossible if
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you don't attempt it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew)
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Organization: University Computer Club --- Perth, Western Australia
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:29:17 GMT

gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Nick, the astronaut basher, seems to think so. He's the one to which I 
>was replying.  The sensor platforms sent to the outer solar system have
>been impressive achievements. I don't denigrate their importance even
>while calling them box brownies. Getting them there, getting them to
>snap pictures in the right direction, and getting the pictures back is 
>a monumental achievement mainly because *competent AI doesn't exist* and 
>everything had to be done open loop over long delay command links.

>Jupiter probes didn't notice the Red Spot and say, "hmmmm that's interesting"
>and zoom in for a closeup. Ground calculations had to be done to open
>loop aim the probe's camera to capture a known feature of Jupiter. I'd
>even accept a system that could be told, "find a big red spot and get
>me a picture of it", to be somewhat robotic, but Jupiter probes haven't
>been able to do this. Io's active volcano was an after the fact discovery 
>from a picture taken that included it by chance. A competent AI system might 
>have zoomed in and gotten pictures of that interesting feature in real time, 
>assuming a zoom lens of course. But no such image recognition capability has 
>been included on any sensor platform in deep space to date.

>Gary

"This is a very interesting phenomenon. I think we should stay to study
it ... unless there is jeopardy." - HAL 2010 to Dr Chandra ( :-) )

I fully accept that there is no competent AI now, but then again,
graphic user interfaces were unheard of a decade ago... :-)

Taking a longer view, is it the fate of humanity to be able to 
explore all of space within a virtual reality dream brought to us by
artificial intelligence? If not, when *do* we start putting humans in
space?   

This question is important to me, since I've always wanted to be in
a part of the space program since a I was a kid. But I didn't intend
to be part of a video game.
(No references to "The Last Starfigher" please, and I don't wish to
start a political debate)

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia

I'm an undergraduate Science/ Engineer now, and have always wanted to be
a part of the space program. I d
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from?
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:56:29 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0d56@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Aug30.130555.7676@spuddy.uucp>
spark@spuddy.uucp (Steve) writes:

> Where is the speed of light measured relative to? 
>

That is EXACTLY the punchline:

The speed of light is CONSTANT in ALL inertial reference frames. This
is REGARDLESS of direction. (In a vacuum, that is.)

Sounds crazy, doesn't it? Well, that's how the Universe works. The
speed of light does not add and subtract to other velocities, like
relative velocities of anything else. ALL observers will measure it to
be the SAME.

This was first found by Michelson and Morley, who couldn't believe it,
either. They redid their famous experiment over and over, with fancier
and costlier embellishments, and the result was still the same. Some
time later, a young man named Einstein provided an explanation, which
is rather surprising, in itself.

This discussion really belongs in sci.physics, and it is somewhat
elementary: this astonishing result will be discussed at length in any
book on special relativity. Two are Spacetime Physics, by Taylor
and Wheeler, and Inside Relativity, by Mook and Vargish.

Fred Ringwald
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Dartmouth College
Hanover, NH 03755-3528 U.S.A.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:58:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Aug26.165212.21512@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.151058.2650@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:
>
>>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for 
>>>HLVs this decade.
>
>>It is NOT commercial. 
>
>Not now, no. However, there is absolutely no reason it cannot become
>commercial. Until it does, we aren't going anywhere.

>>It is not a market. 
>
>A market is nothing more than a demand for goods and services which can
>be met. If we have a space station, then there will be a demand to
>transport people and supplies.

>It is therefore a market.

Fine. Come up with PRIVATE money, not public funds to build and launch the
station. According to you and Mr. Szabo, it's a goldmine of opportunites out
there. Please, demonstrate your financial wizardry and marketing skills here. 

If it's so hot, you can lease space to the Federal Goverment. And since it IS a
market (implying multiple buyers of goods and services), if the Feds don't show
up, you can find enough other customers to cover your bills. 

>>It is a monopoly subject to the whims of the Federal Government. 
>
>It need not be. If you lack the imagination to see that, say so
>and I'll just drop it.

No, I think you lack the common sense to realize that if it was a commercial
venture, it would be built with private monies, and have multiple customers,
rather than have a (fatal) sole-source dependency on the (United States)
goverment.

They don't operate McMurdo Base in Antarticia <sp> as a "market." How much do
you want to stretch reality? 

                 Support U.N. military force against Serbia

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sims@drake.mitre.org (Jim Sims)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:50:36 GMT

>I have read in several sf stories about using the shuttle main tanks as 
>modules for space habitats...just having the shuttle carry the tank with it
>into orbit.  Some authors stated that it would not take any extra fuel(??)
>to do so.

>Any of you experts out there have an answer as to why NASA doesn't use the
>tanks as at least a temporary habitation?

 Maybe this should go into the FAQ so new readers will quit asking it
 repeatedly? 

 There are many reasons why we dont use the ETs. *I* believe most of them
 are smokescreens to preserve fred, your mileage may vary...

 (1) It would "cost" several hundred (up to coupla thousand depending on
 the orbit) pounds of payload to boost the ETs to the same orbit as the
 shuttle. No free lunch, kids....

 (2) Not all shuttle flights are to the same orbit, not all these orbits
 are places you'd wanna put an ET "hotel". For example, the HST orbit was
 as high as the shuttle could reasonably go with that weight of payload and
 have fuel for two re-dockings with the payload in case of snafus during
 post-deployment (and still come home ;-)

 (3) Since the foam isn't that well attached (least it wasn't when I was
 working at Michoud - there were big-time delamination problems on a few),
 you'd like increase the debris up htere *a lot*. Making sure it stays
 sub-orbital avoids this problem (and acknowleding and fixing it as well :-(

 (4) Once you get the ET up there, you need to do a coupla things:
  (a) remove remaining Hydrogen and Oxygen - sounds like a win, since the
  shuttle *never* empties the ET on the way up- typically 5% ?? of the fuel
  goes into the ocean or atmosphere on the way back down... But, how ya
  gonna get it out?

  (b) you need a docking port and/or at least a entry hatch - cutting a
  hole in 1" aluminum has likely never been tried in space. welding (burn a
  hole) in space is non-trivial as well....

  other problems left to the imaginative reader....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 sims@starbase.mitre.org                               The MITRE Corporation
 DECUS AI SIG Symposium Representative            7525 Colshire Drive   MS Z421
 the opinions are mine, who'd wanna claim 'em?          McLean, Va.   22102