HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Hubble
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:46:33 GMT

Henry Spencer writes:
#But I don't think there's much doubt that the science community would have
#been happier with half a dozen 1m mirrors launched in the 1970s than with
#a single very impressive telescope not launched until 1990 and then found
#to have spherical aberration!

Depends on what you are trying to do. Launching a small telescope to
work at V band doesn't make much sense. UV-IR-Xray, all are fine, but
there needs to be *BALANCE*. I'd argue that there should be a half a
dozen 1 meter telescopes, and one large one! *grin* But then I'm and
astronomer. 


--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:29:49 GMT

In article <69532@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:

>It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
>returns on investment in the space community!

Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
That means they offer a return on investment.

How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------159 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:11:16 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 <1992Nov19.150400.24961@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

>We need to do other things as well. There was an article on this in
>a recent issue of Design News and the British newspaper The Guardian
>is also working on an article.

That's good, but the critical articles are the ones that appear
just after the first launch.  There were lots of articles written
about the Space Shuttle in the years before it flew, many of them
by good writers who actually knew what they were talking about it.
But none of them succeeded in mobilizing very much support for the
Space Shuttle.  That didn't happen until the public saw the launch
on television and read the (often inaccurate) front-page articles
from the usual AP wire service hack "science" writers.

Timing is critical.  I know that McDAC isn't spending a lot of money
on advertising and PR, but I hope they're ready with a good press
kit to hand out at the first launch.  Space groups supporting SSTO
should have their own press kits ready also.
From: hollis@titan.ksc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re : Re: Launch sequence of events?
Date: 18 Nov 92 13:01:41 EST
Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center

Greetings and Salutations:                                       

From: <AUJAM@ASUACAD.BITNET>   
>didn't they design the engins to burn at throttle up 110% to push past a      
>certant point in the launch trajectory

Before Challenger there was a push to get the engines rated above 104% (up to  
109% or 113%? I forget)  which would have allowed for a higher throttle up.    
Maybe that is what you are talking about.

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

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Titan IV 
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:20:18 GMT

I've seen quite a bit of Titan IV bashing lately...  Can someone knowledgeable
post a critical summary of the program for us?
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: GAS Bridge Flights
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:41:01 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov19.211542.44959@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> whitten@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Along the same lines, what really the chances of getting on something
>besides a bridge flight?  I assume they prefer to get twelve customers
>taken care of with one launch, so do they even consider putting
>on just one or two cans?

If you've got a *flight* *ready* payload, chances of getting on are probably
pretty good.  They have been flying small numbers of them, but so few of the
GAS reservations actually correspond to ready-to-fly payloads that some of
those GAS cans have contained only ballast.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker)
Subject: Re: SSTO Viability (was: Shuttle replacement)
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:38:48 GMT

This may be old news around here, but I've been off the net for a LOONG
time.

Simulator testing for the DC-X/Y/1 pilots is underway.  As you know, DC-X
will be flown remotely, DC-Y will be crew-capable.  Among the pilots trainingh
is Pete Conrad.  If that name sounds familiar....it should!

++rich




-------------------------------------------------------------------
   rich kolker       rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com
                          It's been a long, long time
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: whitten@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: GAS Bridge Flights
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:15:42 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


According to the latest manifest which was posted here the other
day, there are no flights scheduled to carry the GAS bridge.

I know this is can't be correct.  I've heard rumor that there is
a bridge flight in Nov. 93 and June 94.  Can anyone confirm this,
or give me a list of bridge flights?

Along the same lines, what really the chances of getting on something
besides a bridge flight?  I assume they prefer to get twelve customers
taken care of with one launch, so do they even consider putting
on just one or two cans?

Thanks,
Chris

==============================================================================
 WHITTEN@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU                  Chris Whittenburg, N0TWA
 WHITTEN@UKANVAX.bitnet              Univ. of Kansas - Electrical Engineering
==============================================================================
From: jsbz+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jill R Shapiro)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: parking tolerance in OPF
Date: 17 Nov 92 09:14:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Yf2IGNC00Uh7E4sUZP
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Can anyone tell me what the parking tolerance inside the Orbiter
Processing Facility at KSC is? Any help is much appreciated.

(jsbz@andrew.cmu.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:01:50 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov17.194901.16883@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>... is it concievable that an SSTO vehicle could be built with the same
>payload weight capability as the shuttle with the same base technologies?

Yes, it's entirely plausible, although it might end up being somewhat
larger than the shuttle for the same payload.  NASA studied SSTO concepts
early in the shuttle development, although the conclusion was "too
much risk of performance shortfall".

Gary Hudson claims that you could put six SSMEs on a shuttle external
tank, without SRBs, and get it into orbit carrying a payload about 50%
greater than the shuttle's.  It wouldn't be reusable, though.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Transcripts
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: transcripts
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:11:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.010633.13733@rvgs.vak12ed.edu> cfifer@rvgs.vak12ed.edu (Craig Fifer) writes:
>Does anyone have or know where I can get transcripts of shuttle
>missions?   [...]

Nobody transcribes the entire mission's uplinked/downlinked audio
(which is what I assume you want).  Audio recordings of the whole
mission are kept.  You can get them via Freedom of Information Request
from Johnson Space Center's Public Affairs Office.  They'll cost you a
bundle.  Then you can transcribe the tapes yourself or pay a
commercial transcription service (costing another bundle).

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

     "Good ideas are common -- what's uncommon are people who'll
      work hard enough to bring them about." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:27:02 GMT

In article <v0y1c8d@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:

>I would hope this country could do more with its space program than just keep
>its contractors profitable.  But NASA isn't a contractor -- it's a government
>agency.  Government agencies don't earn profits, nor should they.  

1. The original poster said that Shuttle had the 'highest return on
investment' of any launcher. I am simply pointing out that isn't correct
and I am glad that you seem to agree.

2. No, government shouldn't be making a profit but nither should they
provide subsidies to lock out private competition. Shuttle has not only
been a sink into which we dump billions but it also was very nearly
responsible for killing the private US launch industry. If Chalenger
had happened just a few years later then Ariane would now have 100%
of the world launch market.

>They should
>be doing things in the public interest that can't earn a profit.  

Since providing launch services is a profitable buisness then I am glad
to see we agree.

    Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: mjohnson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com (Mark E. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Bashing
Followup-To: sci.space.shuttle
Organization: Lockheed, USC, and UT-Austin
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 16:28:12 GMT

>    The main point I want to make is that you NEED the shuttle to build
> the space station.

My coworkers and I were discussing this yesterday (we're designing the
Space Station solar arrays). Isn't the shuttle the primary reason Space
Station Freedom is being built and deployed in a relatively low orbit?
That's what I always understood. And let me tell you, that is a *big*
problem, in terms of an environment that has too much debris and is hostile
(corrosive) to organic materials--such as composites and most lubricants.
Granted, we didn't know all of this until LDEF was retrieved.

What would it have taken (too late now) to build Freedom in a higher orbit?
More shuttle flights, at less cargo per flight? Or another launch vehicle
altogether, like Shuttle/C or NLS?

What ever happened to Shuttle/C? When I worked for Rockwell five years ago,
that sounded like a viable alternative.

_____________________________________________________________________________
-Mark Johnson                              
mjohnson@jedi.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: jim@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed)
Subject: Re: Story Musgrave is Buckaroo Banzai
Reply-To: jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 13:45:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.181601.29450@news.duc.auburn.edu>, forrepr@eng.auburn.edu (Philip R. Forrest) writes:
|> In article 4033@phred.UUCP, petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) writes:
|> >You are correct. They currently have a mockup of Hubble in the neutral
|> >buoyancy water tank at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Al.
|> >Story  Musgrave and Tom Akers are currently in the tank working on repair
|> >procedures.
|> >
|> >Peter Jarvis..........
|> > 
|> 
|> I am of the opinion that Story Musgrave is as close to a
|> real life Buckaroo Banzai as anybody's gonna get.
|> ...

And it's just "perfect" that he's working with someone named "Tom".

I can hear it now, just before they get in the airlock, Tom turns
to Buckaroo (oops, I mean Story) and says "Don't embaress us."

"There are monkey boys in the payload bay."

Oh, well, I guess you had to be in the right frame of mind when
you saw the movie.

-- 
James B. Reed                | If at first you don't succeed,
Intergraph Corporation       | Find out why,
jimreed@b23b.b23b.ingr.com   | **THEN** try again.
(205) 730-8874               |
Organisation: European Space Operation Centre (E.S.O.C)
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 16:07:13 CET
From: <SMARTIN@ESOC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Hubble
 <1992Nov12.232654.4613@news.duc.auburn.edu>

In article <1992Nov12.232654.4613@news.duc.auburn.edu>, forrepr@eng.auburn.edu
(Philip R. Forrest) says:
>
  <Bits about repairing Hubble deleted>
>
>If I were the Dictator of NASA (yeah, right) I would send EVA god
>Jerry Ross to do the actual switchout.

According to my information, it will be Jeff Hoffman (who flew on the
TSS/EURECA mission) who will do the deed.

>--
>Phil Forrest - Ascent FDO wanna be
>Auburn University Mechanical Engineering
>Auburn, AL
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Martin (Logica at ESOC)     smartin@esoc.bitnet

Any opinions expressed in the above posting are in no way intended to
represent the official opinions of either Logica or ESOC.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: devenzia@euler.jsc.nasa.gov (John DeVenezia)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: LESC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 19:33:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.142949.15445@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> 
> In article <69532@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes:
> 
> >It seems to me that in 1992, Space Shuttle is offering one of the best
> >returns on investment in the space community!
> 
> Atlas and Delta are providing profits for the companies which build them.
> That means they offer a return on investment.
> 
> How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
> on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.
> 

Well, considering that the Shuttle project also provides/provided profits for the
companies which launch/re-furbish/built it can you tell us what the difference
is?  Consider that the Atlas and Delta carry many goverment payloads.

>   Allen
> 
> -- 
> +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
> |  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
> +----------------------159 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

John DeVenezia 
devenzia@euler.jsc.nasa.gov

--> insert favorite disclaimer here <--

Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 13:34:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.193337.9963@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> devenzia@euler.jsc.nasa.gov (John DeVenezia) writes:

>> How can the Shuttle possibly be said to offer ANY (much less the best) return
>> on investment? Shuttle has LOST billions.

>Well, considering that the Shuttle project also provides/provided profits for the
>companies which launch/re-furbish/built it can you tell us what the difference
>is?  

Your saying that since the subcontractors are turning a profit it therefore
follows that NASA is making a profit. If you think about that for a moment
you will see that it makes no sense. It's like saying that Boeing is making
a profit and therefore American Airlines must be profitable as well.

Profit is when you collect more in fees/sales than you spend. If you add
up all the money collected in fees and subtract out the amount spent you
will see that Shuttle has lost billions.

>Consider that the Atlas and Delta carry many goverment payloads.

Sure. But they charge the government more than their costs. They make
a profit and therefore have a return on investment. Shuttle simply
doesn't have either.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------157 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:01:31 GMT

In article <BxsG4q.Hq8@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> myempire@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Matt J. Martin) writes:

>  What about the SSTO DC-Y?  [as shuttle replacement]

A set of Delta Clipper vehicles can do most  of what a Shuttle does. It
can launch and retrieve payloads weighing less than 20K pounds but that is
only half the Shuttle payload. A Clipper stationed at SSF could work as an
OTV.

>And a lot cheapter to boot.

At $1 to $10 million per flight it will be a lot cheaper. Just the
expendable for a HL20 will be over ten times this amount.

This BTW is a source of trouble for SSTO. The people working on HL-20
have twice worked on efforts to kill the SSTO program. So far we have
been able to fight back these efforts. If you want to help with the
effort to convince Congress to fund development of a SSTO prototype,
let me know.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------158 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: rforster@galaxy.gov.bc.ca (Russ Forster)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Passes for shuttle launch?
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:32:20 -0800
Reply-To: RFORSTER@GALAXY.GOV.BC.CA
Distribution: world
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

In article <1edk74INNs3v@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, e.l.ellis@larc.nasa.gov () writes:
>  smw@sage.cgd.ucar.edu (Steve Welch) writes:
> Could you tell me a little more about how to obtain passes?  I gather that there
> three types: Press pass, VIP pass, and Causeway vehicle pass.  The later two
> made available by congressional represetitives.  And you recommend the press
> pass first, causeway second, and VIP third. -- Have I got all that right?
> 
	on a similar note, how can someone from Canada (or other contries
	in general) get these passes??

> Thanks!
> 
> 
-- 
Regards,

Russ Forster (postmaster), Sr. Technical Analyst, MultiVendor Group
BC Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., V8X 4S8
Internet: RForster@Galaxy.Gov.BC.CA       Phone: (604) 389-3186
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:48:41 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov18.134348.16504@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>The US shouldn't be putting it's money into the design of ANY expendable
>launcher. We have done that for too long and it's hasn't reduced launch
>costs by a dime.

Actually, this isn't a very sound argument.  The US has been putting big
bucks into small improvements to the performance and reliability of 50s-
vintage expendable launchers.  It *hasn't* made any serious effort to
build a cheaper one (which cannot be done without changing the way the
launchers are built and operated -- it's not the fuels and metals that
cost all that money, but the way they're used).  All that money has been
going into squeezing one more ounce out of existing designs, and any sane
engineer will predict a lousy cost/benefit ratio for that approach.

No conclusion can be drawn about the possibility of cheaper expendables;
it has not been tried.  Even the projects that have officially included
"lower costs" in their objectives have always had higher-priority objectives
(typically, maximum payload and maximum reliability) that pushed them
toward higher, not lower, costs.

Certainly, even after you get past complications like different accounting
systems, there is no possible doubt that launchers like Soyuz and Long
March really are substantially cheaper to run than Atlas or Delta.  It
*can* be done.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: rmc@wang.com (rmc)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Hubble
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:46:48 GMT
	<Bxvs37.3y9@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.

kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) and henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry
Spencer) respectively write:

> >...An optimist would say NASA has gotten out of the
> >megaproject mentality.  A pessimist....Henry?
>
> I'd say they're being slowly forced out of it because cost bloat has
> gotten so bad that Congress will no longer tolerate it.  They still
> see small projects as supplements to the megaprojects rather than
> replacements for them, though; it's only just starting to dawn on
> them that there won't be any more megaprojects.

I thought it was that the Congress-critters had so bloated themselves
with giga-projects that they no longer had time to think about
mega-projects, but that small projects were so far down in the noise
that once proposed no one would take the time required to oppose
them...

R Mark Chilenskas
Chilenskas@Office.wang.com
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: fedor@dinah.lerc.nasa.gov (Gregory Fedor)
Subject: DCX, etc information request
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland
Distribution: sci
Date: 18 Nov 92 17:55:47

With all the talk lately about DCX, DC-Y, DC-1, Delta Clipper, etc. I have to
admit that I know little if anything about these projects.  Where can I look
to get more detailed info about these concepts/projects?

Thanks in advance.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory A. Fedor                      Email: gfedor@lerc.nasa.gov
Sverdrup Technology                   NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland OH
Space Experiments Department          Thermal Energy Storage Experiment 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space