HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: DC vs Shuttle capabilities
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:53:04 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 <b-p254n@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:

>	Umm, so?  Tell me, did you see 3 aircraft landing at the same
>time, or flying in formation?  Did you see baggage transferred between
>them while in flight?  I'm not talking about on the ground, I'm talking
>about in space.  If you recall, my original comment was about in-flight
>satellite repair.

You're being led astray by words.

Both airplanes and orbiting spacecraft are said to be 
"in flight."  That doesn't mean they have anything in 
common, except that neither one is in contact with the
Earth.  We also say that ships and islands are "at sea."
That doesn't mean that ships and islands have very much
in common. 

An orbiting spacecraft is not flying like an airplane.  
There is no air rushing past the wings.  It isn't using
aerodynamics to stay up and isn't using its engines to 
maintain velocity.  If it runs out of fuel, it does not
come crashing back to Earth like an airplane.

When two spacecraft touch each other, they are not "in 
flight" relative to one another.  They are said to be
"docked," like ships at sea.  So, if you want to base
your analogies on words like this, you should argue that
the US Navy is the only organization that can navigate
two ships to the same dock, then transfer fuel from one
to another.


>	Ayup.  And the US Air Force is the ONLY one that regularly does
>inflight air-refueling.  I haven't seen Delta or Virgin Atlantic do it.
>Remember, again, we are talking about in-orbit, not on the ground.

We aren't talking air-to-air refueling either.  In-space refueling
does not require split-second timing, only hooking up the hoses
properly.

So, what's so special about the ground?


>>>	Hint, they are flying.  You are talking about a paper=airplane
>>>and saying it will do all this and more.  I'm saying, build it, fly it,
>>>and see what happens.

>>I thought that was what we were doing.

>	No, some people are telling me, DC-1 will do this, do that, and
>hey, we can add this, we can add that... it's all going to be easy.
>I'ms aying, "sounds good, but prove it."

Again, I thought that was what we are doing.

What are *you* doing, except standing on the sidelines carping?






Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Media and space
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:45:52 GMT

In article <C0ABxu.539@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.045416.15301@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>Concerning public opinion about the space program, IHMO those opinions can
>>and are greatly influenced by the media's depiction of space exploration.
>>Next time watch news coverage of a shuttle flight.  Invariably some reference
>>is made to the cost of that particular mission, plus any important technical
>>information is either watered down or omitted.
>
>>I've had people tell me that the media doesn't cover the space program very
>>much because people aren't interested.
>
>>But here's somethin to think about: did people lose interest and the media
>>reduced it's coverage in response, or did the media cut back coverage and then
>>convince people that they weren't interested in it?
>
>How much interest SHOULD there be in any particular shuttle launch?  If we
>had an adequate space program, there should be not much more interest than
>in a trip of an ocean liner.  As the saying goes, "When man bites dog,
>that's news."
>
>Nor should anyone expect every observation made by a space probe to be
>spectacular.  Any research program will have experiments or observations
>made which are valueless; if we knew what we would find, it would not be
>necessary to look for it, unless we can directly exploit it.
>
>The first landing on the moon was quite properly a big media event, but
>it is not at all surprising that the later ones

Well, I don't mind that every flight nowadays isn't a media event, but I think
the media could at least periodically provide coverage on the overall progress
of a project.

Simon

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Acceleration
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: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 13:35:09 GMT


-From: gene@wucs1.wustl.edu (_Floor_)
-Subject: Re: Acceleration
-Date: 28 Dec 92 18:10:24 GMT

-In article <1hkr76INNji2@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
-] A probe has high momentum hitting atmosphere.  it gets  a high acceleration,
-] on a small mass.  not a lot of force,  exerted through several miles of
-] atmosphere,  for a few minutes.

-Small force? I think they said the probe would feel an acceleration of 350 g's.
                                                        ------------
-It's receiving a force 350 times that of Earth's gravity at the surface of
-the Earth. That's quite a bit of force if you ask most people.
                                  -----
 
- Gene Van Buren, Kzoo Crew(Floor), Washington U. in St. Lou - #1 in Volleyball

Acceleration and force are not the same thing. In this case, acceleration
is force *per unit mass*. If you can keep the mass down on any given 
component, then the force isn't too great, even under high acceleration.
Just design the system so that each component can support at least 350 times
its own (Earth) weight[1]. Of course you need a safety factor and allowance
for buffeting, so you might want to design the probe to withstand 500 G or
more. This is still far below the requirements of the electronics in artillery 
shells.

[1] - Bearing in mind the expected direction of the force, and the influence
that the components have on one another.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Lunar ice
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 24 Dec 92  09:14:10

The Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act does not specify which frequncies in the 
spectra should be obtained by the government from private vendors; an
interagency group will determine what we need to determine if there is water
ice at the poles of the Moon.
 
However, video of the Moon is relatively expensive, and should be avoided if
we are to afford a mission any time soon.
 
There are instruments that are much more effective in locating water ice than 
video, than at a much lower cost.
 
However, I believe that it is possible for a vendor to mount a mission to the 
Moon, return the specified data to the government and carry a video camera to 
return detailed lunar data for re-sale to virtual reality companies in the
late 1990's - there be a market down the road for that stuff.

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:14:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.223543.23648@news.arc.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>     Yesterday, December 29, after approximately 20 hours of
>warming in sunlight, the antenna-deploy motors were turned on to
>"wind up" the system and then pulsed to "hammer" it in an effort
>to free the stuck ribs of Galileo's high-gain antenna.  The
>procedures began at 6:55 a.m. PST and continued until 2:48 a.m.
>PST this morning, December 30.  A total of 2160 pulses were
>executed by the motors during this period.  The stuck ribs were
>apparently not freed.  This morning the spacecraft was returned
>from the warming attitude to the normal cruise mode.

   Well, what now?  What else is being planned to free the antenna?  And is
it expected to work?

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ASTM, Saturn and MOL (Was Re: MOL)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 15:12:10 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <phfrom.413@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> <1h2egpINNmk9@mirror.digex.com>
  <1992Dec23.192920.7268@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> <23DEC199220530775@judy.uh.edu>
  <Bzu23x.4wq@zoo.toronto.edu>

>In article <23DEC199220530775@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa
.
>Gov writes:
>>>...The third stage (S-V) was to have been powered by 2 RL-10
>>>engines. The S-V was NOT Centaur...
>>
>>I can buy the four engines and 6 engine bit, but according to document I
>>have found here and the Book "Rocket Scientist" and Medaris's " Cound down
>>to Decision" These were desginated the Centaur, although I will go back and
>>look and make sure of this just in case.
>
>Stages To Saturn, NASA SP-4206, says specifically that the original S-V
>stage was to be a Centaur.  It was slated to be the third stage of the
>Saturn C-1 and the fourth stage of Saturn C-2 (which used the S-IV as
>its third stage and was to have a new second stage).  (The Saturn C-3
>moved things up one more stage, with the S-IV as fourth stage, the
>C-2's second stage as third stage, and another new second stage.)
>
>Incidentally, it's important to understand that (a) there were a lot
>of Saturn designs proposed -- the same study that nailed down the C-1-2-3
>scheme also recomended against proceeding with the Saturn A-1, A-2, and
>B-1, and those were only the most promising survivors from a longer list --
>and (b) the same name sometimes got re-used (there were at least three
>different vehicles named "Saturn C-3" at various times).
>
>>>The 'C' designation was dropped somewhere along the way, with the Saturn C-1
>>>becoming simply Saturn 1...
>>
>>According to Dr. Sthulinger and Konrad Dannenburg the C-1 designation was
>>dropped when the CSM was put on the stack...
>
>The C designation was dropped in Feb 1963 when terminology was tidied up.
>Before then, it was a C-1 whether or not it had Apollo hardware on top.
>--
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
>
   Thanks for all that info, my copy of 'Stages to Saturn' is in a box
   stored away somewhere. But wasn't this discussion REALLY about
   whether Centaur actually flew on a Saturn? Not was it intended to,
   but did it ever go up on one? It didn't, to the best of my knowledge.
   
   -Brian
   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Galileo's high-gain antenna still stuck
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 19:13:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.182812.13825@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes...
>In article <1993Jan2.234235.16100@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) writes:
>> In article <2JAN199323293310@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>> >The hammering sessions will continue all the way through the entire month
>> >of January, if necessary.  Even though the first hammering attempt didn't
>> >open up the antenna all the way, it did have a postive effect.  
>> 
>> !!  It did?  I sure don't remember seeing reference to that in the last
>> report but I'm glad to hear it.  
>>  
>> What was the "positive effect"?  How was it determined or measured?
> 
>The GLL nav team chief told me the other day that although nothing
>had unfurled, the degree of bowing had increased.  This was determined
>from sun sensor data.  On the premise that any movement is better than 
>none, this is a positive effect.  They're quite prepared to break the 
>HGA if necessary, assuming they can.

The sun sensor data has indicated that the hammering has affected the
antenna in some way.  Either the tension on the antenna has been increased
or a rib has sprung loose, it cannot be determined which way at this point.
Some clarification on "breaking the HGA".  The two motors may apply enough
force to be able to break the stuck ribs, but having an open High Gain
antenna with a couple of broken ribs is a much better situation than having  
to use the Low Gain antenna by itself.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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 your life. 

Xref: sparky sci.space:18621 sci.astro:13600
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Moon Dust For Sale
Date: 4 Jan 1993 01:25:07 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <3JAN199305333876@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>>I heard on Paul Harvey radio two days ago that former Gemini and Apollo 15
>>astronaut David Scott had been charged with fraud.  No further information
>>was presented.  Does this auction of the piece of tape have something to
>>do with the story report on P.H./ABC News?
>INo. it has something to do with a business partnership that was formed in 
>1980, and is unrelated to the Moon dust.



Todays washington post reported in the business section,  that
David Scott, Former Astronaut from Apollo 15, LEM driver, etc  
had been charged with fraud in connection with a business
partnership he had created.  He had apparently collected about
400,000 dollars from various individuals witht he intention
of creating a Venture Capital fund, instead, he poured the money
into companies and activities owned by Dave Scott.  The investors
lost their Butts,  and are now suing, and pressing criminal charges.
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Pegasus
Date: 28 Dec 92 05:52:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BzyGCD.EDu.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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
-Subject: Re: Latest Pegasus news?
-Date: 27 Dec 92 16:42:47 GMT
-Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

-And to think, it was only last year that Pegasus was the net's darling
-that was going to bring the cost of space travel down to nil. These
-bandwagons are not only crowded, they also seem to be short lived. It's
-funny that the flaws only show up when something actually flies.

You misremember - the attractive features of Pegasus were low cost for a
dedicated mission, and, as a small launcher, being representative of what
startup organizations might use to build up a launcher business.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements
Date: 28 Dec 92 11:46:45
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Distribution: sci
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: aws@iti.org's message of Mon, 28 Dec 1992 18:07:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.180732.2643@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

   I am happy to compare DC (or existing expendables) to Shuttle. No matter
   what rules you pick, Shuttle looses.

Pah. Assume the first and third manned DC flights crash and burn,
the first in a hard landing after abort-to-orbit due to two engines
failing. Guidance fails to correct the asymmetric thrust and it swipes
some structures, the fuel tanks and bay collapses completely after 
unexpectedly high vibration weakens the crumple-zones and the crew
dies, two firefighters on the ground die when some trapped LH2 vapour
explodes. The second flight is successful but the third goes
drastically off course during ascent and nosedives into an apartment
building 600 miles from the launch site - investigation reveals a
subcontractor delivered sub-spec parts causing a foobar hardware
failure and software errors caused the thrust compensation to be
in the exact opposite direction, the pilots were knocked unconscious 
when a piece of metal failed under the vibrations and hit them
on the head. McD goes bankrupt and the SSTO program is hit by
lawsuits from relatives of victims, Rifkin and Nader which are not
resolved (in McD's favour, less $800M compensation to victims) until
2017.
	Them's the rules... who wins?


|  Steinn Sigurdsson	|I saw two shooting stars last night		|
|  Lick Observatory	|I wished on them but they were only satellites	|
| steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware?		|
| "standard disclaimer"	|I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983	|
From: ida@atomic (David Goldschmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: russian solar sail?
Summary: possible russian ss experiment on Dec 10
Date: 26 Dec 92 17:16:32 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science

I saw something a few months ago about a Russian plan to test a small solar
sail from the Mir space station on Dec 10. of this year.  I haven't heard
anything about it since - does anybody know if it happened?

You can email me at dsp@ccr-p.ida.org, or post to the net.

Thanks in advance,
		   Dave Patterson, guest on this account.
Xref: sparky sci.space:18233 talk.politics.space:1609
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 26 Dec 1992 00:56:43 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: usa, world
NNTP-Posting-Host: skorpio.usask.ca

In article <BztyEy.Crz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> The US economy might be growing in dollar terms, but not in real terms
|> per capita.  And one does not benefit if others catch up at one's
|> expense.

If others catch up, then they can work together with us instead of playing
catch up. If others never made a single step to catch up, I suppose we would
benefit?

|> Academic salaries are lower in real terms now than 20 years ago, and 
|> the research which drives the future is being curtailed.  The emphasis
|> on short-term practical results is a vain attempt to keep a reasonable
|> position, and will soon backfire.

I think people should be trained to make research results practical. Also,
research reports should facilitate such efforts. Then those who are inclined
to do research can get a chance to do research without having to worry so
much about making their results practical.
 
|> The US now has more government jobs than manufacturing.  The universities
|> are catering to the ignoramuses coming out of the high schools, and standards
|> are just about dead.

I reflect on my public school. I think the teachers need to do much better.
They are too afraid students won't work on their own. However, they offered
little motivation to students to work. Students just followed rules to get
marks. They didn't have their hearts in work.

>Consider China.  The private sector there will grow more than 20% this
>year, and exceed the size of the public sector; aggregate GNP growth
>will be in double digits.  At current growth rates, China's GNP could
>exceed the entire OECD's by the year 2010.  The per capita GNP could
>reach current US levels within a generation, at current rates of
>growth.

|> Does the world have enough resources for this?

We must wait and see. Be more efficient. That's an order.

|> As I have often said
|> that I consider the US substantially overpopulated for the available
|> resources available to us, what will happen when China attempts to 
|> get 4 times as much of them?

-- 

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca

"The Log Song", from Ren & Stimpy
 
   "What rolls down stairs alone or in pairs
    Rolls over your neighbor's dog?
    What's great for a snack and fits on your back?
    It's Log, Log, Log!
 
    It's Log, Log, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood.
    It's Log, Log, it's better than bad, it's good!
    Everyone wants a log! You're gonna love it, Log!
    Come on and get your log! Everyone needs a Log!"
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO vs. 2 Stage
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 20:08:27 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 <18822@mindlink.bc.ca> Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>     Agreed.  Failure of second and third stage engines of conventional
>launchers to ignite after staging has historically been a common cause of
>launch failures.  However, I presume that the DC-1 will have the capability
>of surviving at least 1 engine failure when at near maximum fuel load
>(otherwise failure of any one out of multiple engines would cause a crash in
>the period immediately following an SSTO takeoff).  

However, you've overloaded the DC-1 to get that 5x payload capacity
you talk about.  It's going to be over max takeoff weight.

>        I grant that no amount of engine out capability will help a DC-1 if
>it separates from the booster and none of the engines fire because of a fuel
>problem.

Or if you have negative separation, or separation followed by a
collision, or several other scenarios you need to worry about.

The problems of staging are not nearly as trivial as you make
them out.
From: bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Date: 30 Dec 92 05:41:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California - Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <1992Dec29.164256.18889@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
rbw3q@rayleigh.mech.Virginia.EDU (Brad Whitehurst) writes:

>In article <ewright.725152007@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward 
>V. Wright) writes:

>>You think a typical engineer earns $100,000 a year?
>>
>>I want to work for your company!

>	By the time you also pay for FICA, pension, benefits, and
>overhead, a $50,000 engineer can easily cost a company double his base
>pay!  BTW, Ed, I ALSO help do the budgeting for my lab, so before you
>ask, yes, I have some experience in this!

Wow, your lab pays for FICA?  I'm impressed.  It takes up about a third
of *my* salary, when combined with income taxes.  Right out of my pay.
I was under the impression it came out of everyone's pay, that that was
the idea behind "Social Security".

-- 
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |       bafta@cats.ucsc.edu
   --------> shari brooks <--------      |    brooks@windee.arc.nasa.gov
                      The above opinions are solely my own.
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: LEI financing
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 22 Dec 92  09:53:36

If funding for lunar sciences is a problem, why not convince your American
colleagues to support the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act? This new
legislation would provide a funding base for a series of lunar polar orbiters.
 

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space