HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker)
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ...))
Organization: Me, at The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:02:29 GMT

In article <BzMwJK.KKG@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1h2egpINNmk9@mirror.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) 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.  
>
>He's pulling your leg.  ASTP involved one Apollo, one Soyuz, and a docking
>module.  The docking module might perhaps have inherited a bit of technology
>from MOL, but no way was it a MOL.  For one thing, it was a fraction of the
>size.

The very first MOL flight (and only one, if I recall correctly) 
was basically a test of the Titan III, on its way to being man-rated.
(Does anyone remember if the strap-ons were solids?)  The MOL was a
mock-up, just a cylinder the right size and shape.  The Gemini capsule
was a donation to the Air Force from NASA, the former "Gemini 2"
capsule that had flown unmanned.

I think it all orbited for a few days before burning on reentry.  Yes,
it was certainly unmanned.

tombaker
#include <standard-disclaimer.h>


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:15:39 GMT

In article <725984212snz@chrism.demon.co.uk> chris@chrism.demon.co.uk writes:

>What's due to replace the shuttle in 2007 - the DC?  

NASA people have been responsible for two attempts to kill the DC
program. However, Goldin hasaid that if it works, they will use
it.

>I *sincerely* hope
>that the shuttle fleet won't be "run down" in anticipation of a 2007
>cut-off, regardless of whether or not a replacement is *actually* 
>available by then!  

That's the rub. Shuttle and NASA procurement process are both so expensive
that there simply isn't any money available for NASA to develope a
replacement.

>If NASA's historical record is anything to go by,
>a replacement due to enter service in 2007 is unlikely to be ready by
>then....

DC could be available long before then *IF* we can get DoD to fund the
proof of concept vehicle.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------112 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX?
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:40:30 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 <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
>did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
>the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal. 

Yeah.  That's the trouble with your approach, Gary.  All the
public ever gets for its money is databases, not "bent metal."
People like you always want to do research, but never want to
do development.  Listen to you, and 500 years from now, we'll 
have a lovely database on how to build a cheap, reliable, 
reuseable launch vehicle -- and we still won't have one flying!  
 
Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that the information is
in the public domain.  It is the property of the United States
Government.  Any taxpayer who wants to use this information has
to pay (again) for the privilege.

>NASA's prime mission is R&D. The customer wanted an operational vehicle, 
>and NASA contracted to have them built. 

Phui!  Stuff and nonsense!  NASA *was* and *is* the customer, as
well as the supplier.

>NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.

You're right.  So why do you support NASA being in a business
that it is illegal for them to be in?



Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 04:39:07 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <C0B81q.K56.1@cs.cmu.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering") writes:
>\... I know titanium will burn fiercely in nitrogen (in fact,
>/the ash from titanium burning in air is about 80% titanium nitride).
>
>Titanium nitride... is that Ti N
>                              x y
>or something along the lines of     Ti N O   ?
>                                      x y z 
>
>In short, is this something that will happen without oxygen whatsoever?

Yes.  Titanium will burn just about as vigorously in pure nitrogen as
in air.  I expect the nitride is Ti3N4, although I'm not sure of that.

A Ti-N-O compound would be a nitrate or nitrite, not a nitride.
-- 
"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: Dave.O@f104.n2613.z1.fidonet.org (Dave O)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: GOVERNMENT-RUN PROGRAMS
Date: 3 Jan 93 13:43:00 GMT

>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 convince people that they weren't interested in it?
>
 
I'd have to agree with you that media coverage can increase interest in
a particular topic - for instance, consider the plight of Somalia. I do
believe that NASA has not done a good job in promoting its own interest
in mass media lately. Our space endeavours could certainly spur the
imagination of voters today if the media was used as a tool of
inspiration, as it was in the '60's.
 
Dave O'Leyar
Energon Computing, Rochester, NY USA
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aluminum as Rocket Fuel?
Date: 3 Jan 1993 07:31:44 GMT
Organization: Retro Aerospace, 2240 Blake #101, Berkeley CA 94704
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Solid Al bad idea

In article <1i5nafINN96k@uwm.edu> anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>No one has mentioned using a cylinder of aluminum with perhaps a star
>shaped core and spraying LOX down it.  The aluminum is both the fuel
>and structure.  Running it until much before burn through is probably a
>bad idea, but it may be cheaper than importing steel shells from earth.

I'm posting this because Tony bothered me into catching up on sci.space
by talking about this post for a while 8-)

Solid aluminum burns just fine, but it has a really poor regression
rate (it burns very very slowly).  The best way to do this would be to
bunlde aluminum wire in a combustion chamber to increase the surface
area so that you get decent thrust.

The primary problem of a steel combustion chamber is that combustion
will be hot enough that LOX will definitely be burning with steel
as well as aluminum.  I don't know what I'd do, perhaps a ceramics
lining.

And, as much as you people hate to have reality dropped on a conversation,
aluminum is the wrong fuel to use if it's an earth based application.
A General Dynamics report on Hybrid replacements for the Space Shuttle SRBs
indicates that Zinc  is a better solid to burn; it's a whole lot more
dense, a lot cheaper, and it's Isp is nearly the same (density Isp is
a whole lot better). (NASA Contract NAS8-37777)

-george william herbert
Retro Aerospace
2240 Blake #101
Berkeley CA 94704
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
Date: 30 Dec 92 05:16:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0240n.Ly6.1
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: jtk@s1.gov (Jordin Kare)
-Subject: Re: Aluminum as rocket fuel?
-Date: 29 Dec 92 22:18:33 GMT
-Organization: LLNL

-It is my understanding that there are serious technical difficulties in
-making a workable aluminum/oxygen rocket.  While I'm by no means an
-expert, I believe the problems include:

-Injection:  How do you transport Al?  How do you get it to mix with the O2?

Maybe they'll have to get some technical assistance from the John Deere
company (maker of agricultural combines). :-) [Combines use a mechanical
feed to transport the harvested grain.]

For final injection, it occurs to me that using gaseous oxygen to "blow"
the powdered aluminum in might be an option.

The final mix probably needs to be oxygen-rich if you want to maximize
specific impulse.

-Cooling:  The combustion temperature of Al and O2 is very high (or they 
-wouldn't give even ~300 s Isp).  Conventional engines are regeneratively cooled
-by the fuel.  Regenerative cooling with O2 is difficult -- O2 tends to 
-oxidize engine parts :-(.  

I suspect they'll eventually have to go for something like ceramic linings.

-Exhaust flow properties:  AlO2 is both refractory and abrasive.  
-I don't know (and I wouldn't be surprised if no one knew) just what the
-condensation properties of AlO2 would be in a rocket exhaust, but it 
-seems likely that the exhaust will chew up most throat and nozzle materials
-and may not provide very efficient thrust.

According to Henry, there may also be problems with Al2O3 building up deposits
on the inside of the engine. Aluminum-oxygen engines will probably be 
single-use for the forseeable future.

-None of this makes an Al-O rocket impossible, just difficult -- enough so
-that there are probably easier ways of getting mass off the moon.

A linear launcher (or laser launcher - plug, plug :-) might be better in the
long run. Aluminum engines might have an advantage in the short-to-medium
run by virtue of lower startup costs. The first lunar launch systems will
probably use fuel imported from off-moon. Combinations of the above might
be useful. Other factors - possible eventual availability of volatiles
from the asteroids, and dual-use laser systems for both launching and
landing payloads on the moon.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore)
Subject: Re: ground vs. flight
Organization: The Voice of Fate
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:10:56 GMT

In article <Bzopwn.MGC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <zms23rp@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>>	I can recall only 1 (possibly 2) examples of astronauts
>>transferring between craft via EVA.  And in that case I believe
>>the craft were linked...
>>	I don't doubt that someday we'll see EVA between
>>non-docked craft...
>
>"Someday" was 1966, on Gemini 10.  And the target craft for the EVA wasn't
>even stabilized -- it was an old Agena, batteries long since dead.  Apart
>from the problems of EVA itself, which NASA was only just starting to
>discover, it wasn't a problem according to Michael Collins (who did it).
>
	I wasn't aware of this.  What did Michael Collins do while on
the Agena?
	BTW, it's partly the EVA itself I'm talking about.  We STILL
need more experience, lots.

>You might also want to look up the Solar Max retrieval (as originally
>planned), the Palapa/Westar retrieval, and the Leasat repair, all of
>which involved astronauts interacting with undocked craft.  The Leasat
>repair, in particular, was done by the Intelsat method:  slide the
>shuttle up close to the satellite and have an astronaut grab it (and
>Leasat was spinning, too).
>
	Good point.

>By the way, why do you assume the craft wouldn't be linked before crew
>or cargo transfer?  It would make sense to at least have an arm linking
>them first.
>
	You're right.

>On-orbit operations are a little bit harder than on-ground operations,
>for two reasons:  lack of friction, and the extra dimension of motion.
>On the ground, before you refuel (say) an aircraft, you make sure it's
>parked with its brakes locked.  The equivalent in orbit is to grab hold
>of it with an arm.  Still lots easier than for aircraft in flight.

	Agreed.  And the aircraft analogy was flawed.  BTW, what is
the maximum mass that the RMS can handle?
	BTW, what has the success rate been with the RMS on grabbing
stuff with a handle?  Anyone have any clue? 80% 90%?  Let's
not even consider the stuff it's had to attempt to grab that didn
have handles. I'd assume that DC-1 and any satellites it launches
has handles.  (They are cheap enough.)

>-- 
>"God willing... we shall return."       | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>       -Gene Cernan, the Moon, Dec 1972 |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Date: 27 Dec 92 16:39:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: ke4zv.1992Dec27.163935.20473
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems

In article <BzqBvs.J8H@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.111923.22269@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>... A ten year life zero defects
>>GEO comsat like K2 is much cheaper than a 1 year life package
>>that costs 20 times less. That's because most of the investment is
>>not in the satellite, it's in the Earth based terminals that use it.
>
>I don't grasp this argument.  It's the same Earth-based terminals either way.
>If you're providing a service, you plan to do so over more than one satellite
>lifetime, either way.  Twenty years of service is cheaper with mass-produced
>short-life satellites, even with your (fairly unfavorable) assumptions.
>
>>... Since the satellite represents a single point failure node...
>
>This is your assumption, not a self-evident fact.  Communications networks
>normally have redundancy to cover predictable single-point failures.
>Even today's gold-plated satellite networks do, despite the expense.

It's the network reconfiguration costs that get you. When NBC had to
reconfigure from K2 to SBS 3 due to a control failure on K2, it cost
NBC $150,000 a *minute* for 4.5 hours until the major ground systems 
were re-aimed. Smaller markets didn't get back on line for over 8.5
hours. That was only 223 ground stations that had to be repositioned.
For many large corporate data networks, the number of terminals to be
re-aimed climbs into the thousands. Most ground stations are manually
pointed and require service personnel to visit the site and re-align
the dish.

Now *scheduled* transfers can be handled in off peak times, but still
require those personnel to visit all those sites. Doing that 10 times
instead of 1 get's expensive fast. Doing it *unscheduled* because of
a failure of the cheapsat, can be really expensive if it only happens
once.

>>... and since for most orbits
>>the satellites aren't retrievable or repairable, and DC won't change
>>that...
>
>Again, your assumption, not a self-evident fact.  Cheap launches change
>almost everything, including the feasibility of retrieval and repair.

I wasn't aware that DC was planned to have a GEO capability, or a large
enough cargo bay to retrieve a major comsat.

Gary
-- 
Gary Coffman KE4ZV          |    You make it,     | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary
Destructive Testing Systems |    we break it.     | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary
534 Shannon Way             |    Guaranteed!      | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary      
Lawrenceville, GA 30244     |                     | emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Aerospike Engines... what are they?
Date: Fri,  1 Jan 93 17:02:56 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>Later, the S-IVB's J-2 engine would have been replaced by an aerospike,
>which would double as a heat shield.  The vehicle would then be capable
>of reentering and landing "rightside up" and a Gemini capsule would be
>added on top for manned missions.

   Much has been said recently about aerospike engines, specifically
   in regard to potential use on the DC-1. I've never heard of them
   before, can someone give me (and anyone else in the dark) a brief
   description of what an Aerospike Engine is?
   
   -Brian


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: Sat,  2 Jan 93 18:15:42 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp>
  <1i2lnqINN50b@mirror.digex.com>


>        Shuttle could have lower costs then  NASA currently has,
>        but it still needs a tremendous infrastructure.  The OPF,
>        the VAB, Tilting bay,  the crawler/transporter.  Launch towers.
>
>        The DC  will not need much more infrastructure, then a
>        airline hangar.  Henry, alan and I all believe that eliminating
>        all this structure and cost  will make up for any lower
>        vehicle lift capacity.
>pat

         Pat, the SLC-6 facility at Vandenberg did not have a VAB,
         "tilting bay" (that's ths same as the VAB, though) or a Crawler.
         SLC-6 reversed the action at the Cape's Complex 39. At 39,
         the Shuttle moves from facility to facility to pad. At SLC-6
         the Shuttle was to move from OPF straight to pad, eliminating
         the VAB. Orbiter, ET, and SRBs were to be stacked on the pad.
                  
         Apparently, somebody said that NASA could save money on the
         Shuttle if they used the Saturn 5 facilities. Another blunder.
         
         -Brian


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: MOL (and Almaz)
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:31:44 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Dec22.004247.16634@walter.bellcore.com> ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com writes:
>What were the results of the "heatshield with a hatch in it" tests?
>Did it work?  That sure would be one door that you wouldn't want to
>open at the wrong time. :-)

To the considerable surprise of some observers, there wasn't the slightest
problem with the hatch-equipped heatshield.
-- 
"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: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Aurora chase planes (was Re: Aurora)
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1h8beqINN9hv@news.cerf.net> <1992Dec23.194205.17821@mksol.dseg.ti.com>
	<SHAFER.92Dec23221311@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> <BztznG.4K0@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 06:41:53 GMT

On Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:02:03 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said:

HS> In article <SHAFER.92Dec23221311@ra.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>... Remember that flight test, including the chasing, is
>only done by test organizations; operational squadrons (the people who
>routinely fly with weapons) are only rarely involved.  Dryden, for
>example, has absolutely no weapons...

HS> A side issue here is that many people don't understand that weapons are
HS> *dangerous*.  Contrary to what you might think from half-baked war movies,
HS> properly-trained troops treat even hand grenades with great respect and
HS> considerable caution.  Live missiles are dangerous to handle, dangerous
HS> to carry, dangerous to have around.  Even *storing* them safely takes
HS> care and effort.  Aircraft don't fly armed without good reason.

Excellent point, Henry.  You can't even walk in front of an armed
airplane once the streamers have been pulled at the Hot Gun Line.

All the ordnance (missiles and rounds for the cannon) are stored in
bunkers, quite a ways from everything else here at Edwards AFB.  I
understand that there is quite a series of checks before live weapons
ever even get to the aircraft and I know that there are elaborate
precautions taken when they're on the aircraft.  For example, you
don't just pin the missile and taxi the aircraft back to your ramp for
the night--you unload it, store it overnight, and them put it back on
the airplane the next day.  (I should mention that the precautions may
be different at operational bases; AFFTC, being a test organization,
may be more cautious than, say, a TAC base, but I suspect that the
differences are minor.)


--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:16:41 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1h2egpINNmk9@mirror.digex.com> <BzMwJK.KKG@zoo.toronto.edu>
  <1h8p38INNk40@mirror.digex.com>


>No,  this guy was quite serious.  he  said that something called "Apollo
>Telescope Mount"  was the SOn of MOL.  It was my mistaken assumption that
>that meant it had been recycled into the ASTP.  Dennis newkirk and i
>have exchanged e-mail on this.  I am wondering if he was referring
>to the astronomical section of SKYLAB?   he was dead serious about
>this part,  i dont think he was having a go with me.
>
>Henry,  do you think this was the case?  he implied that it had been
>transmorged,  but that it still had a lot of MOL-like systems and fixtures.
>
>pat
>

 The SkyLab Apollo Telescope Mount looked nothing like an MOL, in size
 shape or function. In fact, early SkyLab drawings showed a converted
 Lunar Module serving as the ATM. I think the flight article was a
 one-of-a-kind NASA design unrelated to MOL. Some instruments aboard
 may have had their origin in MOL, but ATM was a solar telescope, so
 what did MOL donate to it?
 
 -Brian
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: MOL (was Re: Terminal Velocity of DCX? (was Re: Shuttle ..
X-Sender: newtout 0.02 Nov 17 1992
Date: 22 Dec 92  23:32:02

The Apollo Telescope Mount on Skylab was a recycled Lunar module. There was,
however, a Gemini hatch on the airlock....

--- Maximus 2.01wb
Newsgroups: sci.space