HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Air Force One
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:53:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bz4InK.Bvp.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: absolutely, positively overnight
-Date: 11 Dec 92 17:24:37 GMT
-Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

->I'm sure that if certification were suitable and appropriate facilities
->were widespread, there'd be a few executive DC-1s bought.  The Saudi
->royal family would surely buy one.  And then there's Air Force One...

-Take a look at Air Force One, or Two. A 747 and a 707. 

I was under the impression that there are two 747s. There was a television
special on the history of Air Force One several months ago, but I don't
think I saved the tape.

(One amusing anecdote from the show - when Kissinger was Secretary of State, 
he had quite a reputation as a "ladies' man". He would be seen at a party on
Friday night with one of various women, then disappear, and show up again 
on Monday, looking exhausted. In fact, he would drop off the woman after
leaving the party, go to Andrews, and take Air Force One to Europe for 
secret talks with the North Vietnamese. I suppose he became an expert on
the subject of jet lag. :-)

-The Air Force
-is very conservative in the choice of aircraft on which to fly the
-President. The Saudi royals are even more conservative. Maybe a
-playboy nephew might be allowed on a high performance aircraft,
-but none of those directly in line for the throne. 

In contrast, King Hussein of Jordan has been known to fly *himself*
to DC for a conference with the President.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Relay to Follow Galileo?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:25:18 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <20100@ksr.com>

>It's probably already too late.  I haven't heard any work has been done on a
>relay, I haven't heard anyone seriously lobbying for one, and launch windows
>are becoming impractical.
>
>>                              The media. The public. And what about
>>commercial sponsorship? Have any or all channels been exhausted? What if a
>>few high profile persons spoke up at once? To think the galilean vistas were
>>within reach of humanity - and now this!
>>                                   ****
>
>Now WHAT?  A more complicated, perhaps somewhat degraded but certainly still
>scientifically interesting mission versus the opportunity for a more
>scientifically interesting mission if we spend who knows how many millions of
>dollars?  It sounds like a tough selling job to me, and I'm not surprised NASA
>went with a different plan.
>
>--
>Chris Jones    clj@ksr.com
>
  
  About a year ago, I posted a message asking why NASA did not begin a
  quick-and-dirty conversion to one of the TDRS satellites. TDRS-F was
  in a good place for this. My suggestion included stripping the TDRS
  of everything except the frequencies used by Galileo, and replacing
  the solar arrays (no good for Jupiter distances) with one of the
  Cassini RTGs (which if I understand correctly, have already been
  built, per AvLeak, I think). Add a PAM stage to the stripped-down
  TDRS for Jupiter orbit insertion. Launch Galileo/TDRS on a Shuttle
  with IUS right about now, chasing Galileo all the way out.
  
  TDRS-F was already paid for, and TRW's TDRS production line is still
  open. TDRS conversion would cost a lot less than a newly designed
  relay probe. It already has the relay systems and software, the
  steerable high gain antennas, and quite a bit of the radiation
  hardening (thanks to the military's insistence on this).
  
  I'm no engineer, but this seemed plausible to me.
   
  -Brian
  
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Soaring like and Eagle (was Re: Range Safety and DC-X)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:44:05 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 <1992Dec9.133140.6366@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>>Oh, I don't know, Gary.  The thrust-to-weight ratio on DC-X probably
>>compares favorably with an F-15 Eagle...

>Yeah, but an Eagle has "wangs" (such as they are). :-)

And if the engines cut out during a trans-Atlantic flight, those
wings are going to do him a lot of good, aren't they?

Of course, wings can also fail.  You haven't actually proved
the chances of several engines failing simultaneously on a VTOL
are any greater than the chances of a HTOL's wings falling off
(or, more likely, control surfaces jamming or hitting a bird
during that long, gliding landing).  You've asserted it, but
you haven't proven it.

 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Titan IV Costs
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:53:14 GMT

In article <n116at@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:

>...
>    Titan IV                      $ 360 M (w/ Centaur upper stage)
>    Titan IV                      $ 315 M (no upper stage)

Interesting number. We have two government developed launchers (Shuttle and
Titan IV) and both cost about $8,000 to $10,000 to put a pound into LEO.

Yet commercial providers only cost half to a third of that even though they
only launch smaller payloads and don't get advantages of economy of scale. Even
the now defunct Titan III (same basic design and even made on the same
production line as Titan IV) costs less than half the Titan IV.

Supporters of NLS and Spacelift I take note.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------131 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:05:18 GMT

DRAT, MY FELLOW NASA/AEROSPACE BOLSHEVIKS, WE HAVE BEEN FOILED
IN OUR PLANS BY THAT DR. BETER FELLOW AGAIN!  HE HAS DISCOVERED
OUR NEFARIOUS DECEPTIONS!!!  WE MUST ALL FLEE AND REGROUP IN
OUR ULTRA-SECRET UNDERGROUND WORLD DOMINATION BASE AND
HEALTH SPA UNDER THE ANTARCTIC ICE PACK UNTIL WE PERFECT OUR
ULTRA-DEEP FRY KILL-O-ZAP WEAPONRY FOR THE NEW "COSMOSPHERES"...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(... I do hope that Jon Volkoff posted the piece as entertainment and
that "Dr. Beter" is one or more fairly creative folks passing the
note pad around at a party after watching "Capricorn One" five times
while wearing 3-d glasses... :-) ;-) :-)  )
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo 10 LM (was Re: pre-fire Apollo schedule)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:59:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Bz9w8J.6Lv@world.std.com> tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes:
>>... the Apollo 10 LM *probably* could have
>>flown a lunar landing if some fuel had been offloaded to lighten it, but
>>the margins would have been slim and hard to predict...
>
>Scary.  As I have often recalled, there was a subtle bug in the LM
>software that flew in the Apollo 10 mission.  When in ascent mode, the
>LM was supposed to automatically stay in contact with the CSM by
>directional antenna.  If it wasn't, then the LM automatically would
>do a "random tumble" to locate it.  During Apollo 10's simulation of
>ascent, that started happening just at the beginning of the simulated
>ascent.  Stafford yelled "Son of a bitch!", which we all heard on Earth
>a while before we found out the problem.

Indeed, before the weight problem was fully clear, there was considerable
debate about whether it was worth flying the dress-rehearsal mission --
why go all that way only to back out at the last moment?  Some of the
more thoughtful people pointed out that there were still substantial
unknowns in navigation and communications with two vehicles in lunar
orbit, and it would be better to sort these out with a final test.
They were right.
-- 
"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.shuttle,sci.space
From: jeff@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov (Jeff Szmyd)
Subject: Re: Apollo Astronauts
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:46:16 GMT

In article <29557@castle.ed.ac.uk> eoph12@castle.ed.ac.uk (I F Gow) writes:
>
>Anyone have addresses of the whereabouts of the surviving Apollo
>Astronauts?
>
John Young still works here at JSC.  I've talked to him a few times.  He's
a real nice guy.

-- 
*********************jeff@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov*******************
 Jeff Szmyd  -  Lockheed Robotics Department                  **
 Houston, Texas 77058                    (713) 333-7745       **
****************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/Johnson Space Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:41:40 GMT

Ok, I'm sorry. I just don't think I can keep it quiet any more. Dr. Peter Beter
is actually an agent from an alien civilization in the Andromeda galaxy called
the Tartacians. Sorry Peter, or shall I say Xaqartin. He is distracting the
public from the real scandals that NASA is involved in.

  They were in lunar orbit as Apollo 8 was approaching. NASA made contact with
them, and knowing that thier funding was beginning to wain they struck a deal 
with the Tartacians. With the eyes of the world watching them there wasn't a
lot NASA could do at the time. So during the flight of Apollo 10 while the
Lunar Lander was making it's excursions, and with the public's attention
focused on them the Tartacians were invited for discussions in the Command
Service Module.

  The Tartacians needed water to fuel their fusion engines to return to
Andromeda, and NASA wanted to become involved with real inter-galactic space 
flight so a deal was struck. The Tartacians informed NASA how to miniaturize
equipment and people so during the Apollo Moon landings 90% of NASA's staff
had been transferred to the Moon. The rest of us are here to "maintain the 
status quo" while our Moon base along with the Tartacians are planning the
takeover of Earth. NASA's fleet of satellites that they have been placing in
orbit for decades are actually empty shells with their cargo of miniaturized
weaponry, supplies, and scientists safetly transferred to the Moon.

  Once plans for the takeover are in place, and the massive spaceships are
ready they will transfer the remaining NASA staff. Then the destruction of our
planet will begin. The Tartacians will take about 60% of Earth's water, then
they and NASA will be on our way to Andromeda.

  My only hope is that the people of the Earth will not take this news or the 
takeover personally, but it really is the only way. And to Xaqartin, I just
thought they should know.
From: John@Johns.FrontierTech.COM (John F. Moehrke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Shuttle viewing
Date: 17 Dec 1992 00:29:40 GMT
Organization: Frontier Technologies Corp
NNTP-Posting-Host: johns.frontiertech.com

What is the best way to view a shuttle launch?
How does one register for these good locations?
Can I send EMAIL or call an 800 number to get access?

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Shuttle cooling systems
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: radiator panels
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 23:17:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.162931.1@vf.jsc.nasa.gov> oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (Pat
Oliver) writes:
>Jim provided a good overview of the orbiter cooling.  My comments expand on
>what he said.

Ken:
And my comments expand on what Pat said.  (We could go on like this for
months.)

Jim:
>In article <1992Dec10.233907.4549@titan.ksc.nasa.gov>, 
>dumoulin@titan.ksc.nasa.gov (Jim Dumoulin) writes:
>>   When the payload bay doors are opened, radiator panels attached to
>>   the doors radiate heat.  If this is insufficent during orbiter
>>   operations, the flash evaporator subsystem is automatically activated.

Pat:
>The radiators consist of four panels mounted on each of the payload bay
>doors.  The forward two panels on each door can be deployed to provide
>four additional cooling surfaces.  Very few missions have flown hot
>enough attitudes to require the deployment of the radiators.

Ken:
We don't like to deploy the radiator panels.  In their deployed
position, they don't really give that much more radiative cooling
capability than leaving them stowed flush against the payload bay doors
(PLBD's), and if they stick open, the PLBD's won't close properly,
causing what's known in MCC as "a bad day."  After this happened often
enough in simulations (sims), we wrote some flight rules which
discourage the use of deployed radiator panels, as opposed to stowed
radiator panels.

Since this wasn't known early on in the Program, you'll still see
"artist's conceptions" of the Orbiter from the '70's and '80's with
the radiator panels deployed.  By now, even the artists have 
figured out that we don't actually deploy these things any more.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "...Development of the space station is as inevitable as 
      the rising of the sun." -- Wernher von Braun
From: jeremys@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: STS-1/Disaster
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:29:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Who is this Dr. Beter guy?

Also, I realize the whole "Columbia disaster" thing is ridiculous, but does 
Enterprise have engines or not?  I seem to remember it conducting its
glide tests with that cone on the end, over the SSMEs.

Just curious,
Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:24:42 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <matthews-171292112938@l14nb.jsc.nasa.gov| matthews@ial7.jsc.nasa.gov (Michael C. Matthews) writes:
|
|STS-1 (like most launches from Cape Canaveral) was launched due east,
|because
|that way it gets maximum benefit from Earth's rotation (assuming it really
|does rotate, of course).  This results in an orbital inclination of 28.5 
|degrees (which is Canaveral's latitude).  Higher-inclination orbits are 
|reached by launching more northerly (northeast from the Cape).

                     SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT HISTORY
 
Miss. STS  OV-/    Launch   Launch Time    Land  Flight Dur.   Alt   Inc  Land
Seq # No.  Flt    Date(UTC)    (UTC)       Site  dd:hh:mm:ss   nmi   deg   rev
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1    1   102/1    4/12/81  102:12:00:03   EAFB   2:06:20:53   145   40.3   37
                                                                     ^^^^

-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom) Bulletin 629-49 Item 6700 Extract 75,131
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: hugh@whio.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (Hugh Emberson)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:58:58 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:24:53 GMT, smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin) said:

Steven> I should redirect followups to alt.conspiracy, or maybe to
Steven> alt.anti-semitism or rec.humor.incomprehensible.  I'll
Steven> refrain, but my kill file is armed and ready...

How about alt.fan.mcelwaine!


--
Hugh Emberson -- CS Postgrad
hugh@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz
From: hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Discovery you are 3,000 feet low...
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:09:08 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

Greetings and Salutations:

Question for the JSC guys...

1) I heard that this was SUPPOSED to be an autoland test?

2) What was meant by the callouts (I may not have the terminology correct) at
the 90 degree hack "Discovery you are low on the 90 degree... Discovery you are
VERY low on the 90 degree 3,000 feet".  They then closed the rudder speed
brake, and returned to centerline.  This happened when the orbiter was only
10,000 feet off the ground, and I would think a 3,000 ft error would be a tad
bit excessive....

Comments?

-- 
-----------------------------------------------
Ken Hollis  INTERNET: HOLLIS@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV
            SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::HOLLIS

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: smb@research.att.com (Steven Bellovin)
Subject: Re: STS-1/Disaster
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:58:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <71880@cup.portal.com>, BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
> >
> >Who is this Dr. Beter guy?
> >
> >Also, I realize the whole "Columbia disaster" thing is ridiculous, but does
> >Enterprise have engines or not?  I seem to remember it conducting its
> >glide tests with that cone on the end, over the SSMEs.
> >
> >Just curious,
> >Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg
> >
> 
>   Nope, it had fake mockups which look little like SSMEs. Enterprise
>   has no tiles, either, and the flight deck was missing many of the
>   systems Columbia has. Finally, I was there and Columbia flew due-east
>   out of Cape Canaveral, not northeast. Geez, why am I bothering to
>   dispute such drivel?

You were?  Then you must be part of the conspiracy, too!  He's a witch; burn
him!

The part of that posting that amused me the most was how Dr. Beter had
all the information on what really happened when NASA hadn't figured it
out yet...
From: mritter@access.digex.com (Mark Ritter)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Gantry damage?
Date: 15 Dec 1992 04:20:09 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


	We were sitting around after dinner when the subject of possible
damage to the shuttle's gantry came up.  How much damage does it sustain
under the rather potent exhaust stream during liftoff?  What exactly is 
it made from? Is it a simple steel structure or is it made from a special
alloy?  How often are sensitive items such as hoses and cables replaced?

						Thanks,
						Mark and Laila


Xref: sparky sci.space.shuttle:2999 alt.conspiracy:13332 talk.politics.misc:64979
From: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Subject: Re: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Reply-To: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:12:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.205959.2845@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
>
>
>Digitized by Jon Volkoff, email address eidetics@cerf.net
>
>"AUDIO LETTER(R)" is a registered trademark of Audio Books,
>Inc., a Texas corporation, which originally produced this tape
>recording.  Reproduced under open license granted by Audio
>Books, Inc.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This is the Dr. Beter AUDIO LETTER(R), 1629 K Street N.W.,
>Washington, DC  20006
>
>   Hello, my friends, this is Dr. Beter.  Today is April 27,
                               ^^^^^^^^^
Who is this brainless dweeb?  Another highly paid consultant for
the National Enquirer?  Sheesh!


kbq
--
Kevin Quinn                         | kevinq@ingres.com
                                    | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com
My opinions are my own.  Should you think otherwise, think again.
From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-1/Disaster
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 20:11:48 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

>
>Who is this Dr. Beter guy?
>
>Also, I realize the whole "Columbia disaster" thing is ridiculous, but does
>Enterprise have engines or not?  I seem to remember it conducting its
>glide tests with that cone on the end, over the SSMEs.
>
>Just curious,
>Jeremy "EL HOMBRE" Scheinberg
>

  Nope, it had fake mockups which look little like SSMEs. Enterprise
  has no tiles, either, and the flight deck was missing many of the
  systems Columbia has. Finally, I was there and Columbia flew due-east
  out of Cape Canaveral, not northeast. Geez, why am I bothering to
  dispute such drivel?
  
  -Brian
From: bern@Uni-Trier.DE (Jochen Bern)
Subject: Re: STS-1 Disaster -- follow-up
Originator: bern@kleopatra
Organization: Theor. CS, FB IV / CS, Univ. of Trier, Germany (Internet TI.Uni-Trier.DE)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 04:19:12 GMT

In <1gpgvqINNhk9@news.cerf.net> eidetics@nic.cerf.net (Eidetics Int'l) writes:
>   In surveying the 80 cassette tapes of the AUDIO LETTER report series, a
>single gigantic picture emerges.   The most striking thing about this picture is
        ^^^^^^^^
>that countless seemingly unrelated, chaotic-appearing news events turn out not
      ^^^^^^^^^                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to be chaotic after all.

Too bad they don't turn out not to be humungous, too ... Looking at the
overwhelming :-) Interest in your Argumentation, I'ld STRONGLY advice
you to stay out of the List of Top 25 News Submitters by Size and to
put your compiled Wisdom on some anon FTP Server. If some FTP Admin
allows you to do so. Anyway, this will make it harder for the Bozos
to find you.

>   Dr. Beter terminated his AUDIO LETTER report series in November 1982 due to
>declining health.

See what I mean? Hey, made a chemical Analysis of your Keyboard today?
NOT? Hell, you gonna be poisoned!
								J. Bern
-- 
 /  \  I hate NN rejecting .sigs >4 lines. Even though *I* set up this one. /\
/ J. \ EMail: bern@[TI.]Uni-Trier.DE / ham: DD0KZ  / More Infos on me from /  \
\Bern/ X.400 Mail: S=BERN;P=Uni-Trier;A=dbp;C=de  /   X.400 Directory, see \  /
 \  /  Zurmaiener Str. 98-100, D-W-5500 Trier    /     X.29 # 45050230303.  \/
From: det@phlan.sw.stratus.com (David Toland)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: STS-1 DISASTER/COVERUP
Date: 18 Dec 1992 14:06:54 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering
NNTP-Posting-Host: phlan.sw.stratus.com


R McElwaine - crackpot and BS artist, and now advocate of paranoid delusions.
Is this guy serious, or is he just pulling our chains?

Time to increase the LiCO3 dosage?

I probably shouldn't feed his ego by even responding to this drivel, but
good grief, enough is enough already!

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
All opinions are MINE MINE MINE, and not necessarily anyone else's.
det@phlan.sw.stratus.com   |  "Laddie, you'll be needin' something to wash
                           |  that doon with."
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space