HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Delta Clipper
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:08:08 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.153047.26686@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>In article <cfHN0fO00WCqA8a2NW@andrew.cmu.edu> dm3e+@andrew.cmu.edu (David Allen Markley) writes:
>
>>Does anyone have the design goals for the Delta Clipper program?
>>Specifically I'd like to know what performance they hope to acheive and
>>by when.
>
>the DC-Y goals are 20,000 pounds to LEO (10K to polar) with an operational
>cost of $1 to %10 million per flight and one week turnaround of the
>vehicle (three days in an emergency). In addition, there is a crossrange
>requirement for a single orbit mission and some delta-V on orbit.

I think we need to be a bit more specific about *which* LEO we are
talking about. As Wales points out from time to time, capacity to
LEO is considerably different between 100 nm and 150 nm for the 
same vehicle. Has MacDD said what they *mean* by LEO?

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: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
Subject: Re: DC-1 and the $23M NASA Toilet
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date:  7 Jan 93 20:29:34 GMT

schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:


>>Unnecessarily, if so, since the solutions developed for Skylab actually
>>worked pretty well.  (Notably, the Skylab toilet worked.)  For rather
>>longer than a week, too.

>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?

Perhaps because not much was left of it after reentry over Australia? <:-)


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re; Shuttle Toilet
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:33:23 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <321010b68@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:
>>>Uhhh... why didn't NASA just reuse the Skylab toilet on Shuttle?
>>Good question.  I haven't seen a detailed explanation...
>  
>    Actually, I think the primary reason was because the Skylab
>toilet used the old empty Saturn tank to dump the wastes into (like
>the Skylab trash disposal did)...

Nope, the Skylab toilet captured and bagged the solid wastes, because
some of the biomedical experimenters wanted them.

I don't remember exactly what was done with the urine; I know there was
a long squabble about the best approach during Skylab's development.

>Skylab toilet was rather large and heavy, and on shuttle they tried
>to reduce it down into a "closet" size...

There wasn't any particular reason why the Skylab toilet needed to be
big or heavy; are you sure?  Unlike the original shuttle toilet, it
wasn't a mechanical contraption with moving parts.
-- 
"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: myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:58:12 GMT

In article <ewright.726797449@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <C0Js9I.87@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>
>>Careful here...  I don't know exactly what legal maneuvers took place
>>when the US formally joined the UN, but if the UN Charter has the status
>>of a Senate-ratified treaty, that means it has the force of law in the
>>US... and one of the clauses in there is a renunciation of war as an
>>instrument of national policy.
>
>Well, not really.  The "supreme law of the land" is the US Constitution,
>not international treaties -- no matter what the State Department might
>tell you.  It pretty specifically spells out warmaking powers in terms
>that can't be ammended by a simple act of Congress.
>

  I beg to differ.  Article 6 of the U.S. consitution states "...all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in eery State shall be bound
thereby..."

  The above includes anything George Bush signs.

>All of which is irrelevent because, as I said, George Bush de facto
>surrendered US sovereignty in 1992.
>

  Sovereignty is an illusion to begin with.  It doesn't exist.


---
  ##########################################################################   
  ##   /   ##               Progress Before Peace!               ##   /   ## 
  ##  //   ## Matt J. Martin, Technosociology and Space Politics ##  //   ## 
  ## ///// ######################################################## ///// ##
  ##   //  ##        Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN       ##   //  ##
  ##   /   ##           myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu            ##   /   ##
  ##########################################################################
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: 4 Jan 1993 23:54:56 GMT
Organization: UDSI
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <72802@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
>
>>        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.
>>
>
>         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,
>                  

Of COurse,  given that SLC-6 cost about 5 billion dollars, and was unable
to fly shuttles,  i would call that tremendoous infrastructure.

SLC-6 should have had some people shot for that one.





.
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Fabrication
Date: 5 Jan 93 12:48:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.C0Dsxz.9yB.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: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: Fabrication (was fast track failures)
-Date: 5 Jan 93 00:39:01 GMT
-Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

-Moreover, there is a deeper issue here.  Yes, having the engineers out
-of tune with metal-bending is a bad thing when the objective is to
-manufacture something.  It's worse, though, when they're trying to
-*develop* something.

-Gary's comments (the >>> above) are squarely in the NASA mold:  if you
-do it right on paper, it will work the first time (although of course
-you test it just in case).  Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work
-that way, as witness any number of NASA projects that *didn't* work
-the first time.  Real-world development involves *finding out* what
-works and what doesn't... and you cannot do that on paper.  You have
-to test things *during* the engineering, not just afterward.

Relevant to the discussion, I thought at least the major components of
the Shuttle were tested to some extent before STS-1. Perhaps not as much
as they could have been, but I remember all the SRB ground tests, all the
burned/exploded SSMEs, the glide tests of Enterprise, etc. 

It probably wasn't practical to test some of the components (i.e. the ET)
except in actual flight. I suppose the thermal tiles could have been tested
on an unmanned capsule before the first flight of the Shuttle.

There is perhaps still some debate on whether STS-1 should have been unmanned.
I'd say that from an economic viewpoint, if the presence of humans could
significantly improve it's chances of safe return, then it was worthwhile to
have it manned. The Soviets didn't have that option with Buran - for
political reasons, it had to launch sometime around the first post-Challenger
Shuttle launch, and it didn't have life support (or onboard power other than
batteries).

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Stupid Shut Cost arguements (was Re: Terminal Velocity
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:29:05 GMT

In <JMC.92Dec29222737@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>The reason Shuttle costs are so much more than projected is that the
>Shuttle requires this army to maintain it between flights.  Hydrogen
>isn't much more expensive than expected, and I doubt the solid fuel
>is either.  When the Shuttle was first proposed, the idea of operating
>it like an airline was part of the plan from the beginning.  It
>turned out that the Shuttle operated too close to the limits of the
>materials and structures of which it was made.  That's why it needs
>so much maintenance.

Well, actually, it's even worse than that.  The original design
concept for the Shuttle system was totally different.  It was
projected to initially cost more and have much lower maintenance
costs.  Due to Congressional budget cutting and all the various
political wars, the design eventually decided on was one which was
cheaper to get the vehicles but which was known to have significantly
higher maintenance requirements and operating costs.  Let's put the
blame for this one where it belongs.  One CAN blame NASA management of
the day, but to my mind it makes more sense to blame a micromanaging
congress that forced the choice between building a vehicle that was
initially cheap or not building anything.  

Now, if you were running a space program and had a choice between
using some optimistic numbers and opting for a design you CAN have,
knowing that it will be expensive to run, and using pessimistic
numbers and not getting diddly (and hence essentially killing what was
going to be left of the space program), which would YOU do?

Oh, sure, there is more than enough blame to go around to NASA
management of those days over other decisions, but let's understand
how they are forced to operate by the process.  You want NASA space to
work better?  Change the process (like multi-year appropriations for
entier programs, so that Congress doesn't come back later and
'stretch' them out, nickel and dime them to death, etc.).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: fast-track failures
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:03:34 GMT

In article <ewright.725665391@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>
>But then, I'm not working for Gary Coffman, Inc.

And not the remotest chance in Hell that you ever will either.
Actually there is no Gary Coffman, Inc, though I should start
a holding company. There's Southern Microsystems, Southern
Software, Mattingly Farms Inc, and Destructive Testing Systems,
plus the odd consulting job. I've been running small companies
for 30 years, I know which end of the pencil is pointed.

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
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Should NASA operate shuttles (was Re: Shuttle a researc
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 93 10:09:08 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan8.134508.15155@iti.org>
  <1993Jan8.165353.17917@cerberus.ulaval.ca> <1993Jan8.181701.28752@iti.org>

>This would be more than enough to get several companies working on SSTO
>and numerous other alternatives. Soon, Shuttle could no longer survive
>the new cheap competition and it would be replaced.
>
>But this can't happen now since NASA will use Shuttle no matter what.

   Although its not the way NASA wanted it, they launched SAMPEX on
   a Scout-D, EUVE on a Delta II, GEOTAIL on an Atlas II, and
   TOPEX/Poseidon on an Ariane. SeaStar is scheduled for a Pegasus.
   This doesn't sound like "Shuttle no matter what" to me.

   -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: RTG's on the Lunar Module
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:56:11 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1993Jan7.144516.20330@cam-orl.co.uk> dg@cam-orl.co.uk (Dave Garnett) writes:
>What are the radiation hazards (to the crew) associated
>with such a thing, as I understand that they comprise an
>unshielded lump of plutonium ?

The radiation hazard from plutonium 238 is insignificant; it's pretty much
a pure alpha emitter, and human skin stops alpha particles completely.  (A
sheet of paper will do likewise.)  You don't want to eat the stuff, but so
long as it stays put, no sweat.
-- 
"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: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: satellite costs etc.
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:05:56 GMT

In article <ewright.726175018@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan1.165738.24729@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
>
>>Redundancy is always desirable if it's affordable, but there is a practical
>>difficulty with having *cold* spares in orbit. Will they work when we need
>>them? 
>
>A cold spare is unlikely to be completely cold.  More likely it will
>operated in a low-power mode so that you can still run diagnostics
>and self-tests on the hardware.
>
>>They have to be cold spares if they share the same orbital slot and
>>frequencies. 
>
>Not true.  You can put two birds in the same slot but only use
>half the transponders on each one.  If the transponder frequency
>X transponder fails on bird one, you switch to the frequency X
>transponder on bird two.  If bird one fails entirely, bird two
>can take over the entire service til a new backup is launched. 

That might work, but you'd have to swap transponder *pairs* over
from one bird to another due to frequency reuse on opposite
polarizations. Trying to keep two independent satellites perfectly
crosspolarized would be quite a strain on stationkeeping. The
transponders also have their local oscillators phaselocked together 
and that would be tougher with two separate birds.

I think the worst problem though isn't really technical. That's
the waste of 50% of each satellite's capacity while it's still
fresh. The longer the birds remain in orbit, the more radiation
damage their solid state electronics accumulate, the more degradation
in output of the solar cell arrays, the more aging on the batteries,
and the more stationkeeping fuel expended. Keeping the spare in another
slot allows all of each satellite's capacity to be used from the 
beginning, with secondary services subject to being "bumped" should
a primary service fail.

That's the way NBC is using K2 now. The primary feeds (east and west
coast) are on K2-1 and K2-9 respectively. Less critical news feeds
are on K2-7 and K2-13. They can reconfigure the prime network to the
alternates without repositioning the Earth stations by a single software
command transmitted to the Earth stations. If the bird fails in a way
that loses all transponders, they have bumping rights on SBS 3 and 
Westar IV. That requires repositioning of all the Earth station antennas
though. About half the network has secondary antennas at the Earth
stations that are normally kept pointing at one of the backup birds,
though they can be individually pulled off to other targets as need
arises.

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
From: george.gassaway@the-matrix.com (George Gassaway) 
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DCX INFORMATION?
Date: 5 Jan 93 23:13:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: george.gassaway@the-matrix.com (George Gassaway) 

I'm new to this conference, and have read it with interest.
All this info about DC versus shuttle in terms of costs, could someone
please give some information about the DCX itself, the proto to be
launched this summer?
Approx size? (height, diameter)
Liftoff mass, liftoff thrust?
Test fliht profile, suborbital (how high) or orbital?
re-entry technology, ablative, shuttle type panels, regen. cooling?
landing method - parachute or power-on descent?
Thanks.
                                                    
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: How many flights are Orbiters designed for? 
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Destructive Testing Systems
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 08:40:47 GMT

In article <ewright.726252999@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <1993Jan4.181413.21254@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>
>>There will be no private financing of a SSTO proof of concept. The current
>>and projected market is simply too small and not profitable enough to
>>warrent private capital.
>
>With friends like you, who needs Gary Coffman? :-)

Well I like him. He's one of the few sane people posting here. :-)

>The one way to make certain there is no private financing is 
>to place all your eggs in the DoD basket and not look for any.
>This is very dangerous unless you believe DoD funding is a 
>sure thing.  (In which case it's still dangerous, because
>you'd be wrong.)

Allen's right about this, and you are right that DOD funding
is iffy. Makes a space enthusiast want to cry. Fortunately,
the Russians are still plugging away and the Japanese are
enthusiastic. When the next equivalent of Sputnik comes along,
the US will mount a crash program to catch up, develop an
overly expensive one shot system, then fall back asleep after
the next election.

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
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: Tue,  5 Jan 93 17:49:53 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp>  
  <1993Jan2.043524.15196@iti.org> <72827@cup.portal.com>
  <ewright.726167820@convex.convex.com>

>Well, after the first Pegasus flight, they had to build another one.
>Not because it failed, but because it worked.  Unless something
>catastrophic happens on the first test flight, you won't have to
>build another DC-X before the second one.

  Are you saying that they had not even started production of
  Pegasus No.2 in April, 1990? Maybe this is true, but it seems
  a very strange way for OSC to be operating.
   
  By the way, please do not take my pointing out Pegasus
  difficulties as being an indication that I am anti-Pegasus.
  I like this system, alot. I am merely using it as the most
  recent example of a space booster which has not maintained
  its schedule, something it is my contention will happen
  to DC as well.
  
  -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Who can launch antisats? (was Re: DoD launcher use)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 00:10:49 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 <C0Js9I.87@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Define "adequate".  Microsat levels of resolution should be adequate
>for many military requirements.  Tactical commanders don't care about
>the license-plate numbers on the tanks...

If you're planning air strikes with smart weapons, 10-meter resolution
isn't going to cut it.  You need *which* one of those buildings is the
command bunker.

Microsats can supplement our current recon satellites, but can't
replace them.


>Careful here...  I don't know exactly what legal maneuvers took place
>when the US formally joined the UN, but if the UN Charter has the status
>of a Senate-ratified treaty, that means it has the force of law in the
>US... and one of the clauses in there is a renunciation of war as an
>instrument of national policy.

Well, not really.  The "supreme law of the land" is the US Constitution,
not international treaties -- no matter what the State Department might
tell you.  It pretty specifically spells out warmaking powers in terms
that can't be ammended by a simple act of Congress.

All of which is irrelevent because, as I said, George Bush de facto
surrendered US sovereignty in 1992.

Newsgroups: sci.space
Organization: Johannes Kepler University Linz - Computing Center
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:44:23 CET
From: <K3032E0@ALIJKU11.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Price of moon-dust (was Re:Cheap Mars Rocks (Re: Moon Dust For Sale))
Distribution: world
 <9JAN199308174234@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>

So, what is the price for the "moon-dust"?
Say something like the price for a small piece of the Nakhla-Meteorite, and
I *defenitely* buy some stuff...|

What amount of "moon-dust" is thought to be released? A few gramms? Some kilo-
gramms? Is it real "dust" or small (millimeter-sized) fragments?

Greetings
  Herbert