>Rocket paperwork comes from (more precisely, goes to) OCST.
Of course, given that only 23 people work at OCST, how much could they beat you
up? Do you know that they are up for re-authorization this year?
that every 5 year deal. Maybe you could present testimony to
congress on creating experimental Rocketry rules. just some
basic range safety, and destruct options, while larger
devices need only be tested in low population areas.
that or primary testing over water, with some
range safety stuff.
What do you think would make good range safety or experimental
design rules? Experimental aircraft have the pilot/creator
on board, so his butt is on the line. amybe the smae should be
required on experimental rockets? or should
it just have redundant guidance and control systems.
pat
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 23:35:43 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: Boeing TSTO (Was: Words from Chairman of Boeing)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1sfn11INNgcr@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>Naturally, there's no difference between an aircraft loaded with a fuel
>that is likely less flammable than gasoline with a trained pilot on board
>who can push the 'off' switch if something goes wrong and a rocket loaded
>with fuels of far higher energy and (in many cases) toxicity with no human
>on-board control that can easily land hundreds of miles away in populated
>areas.
Aircraft can easily land hundreds of miles away in populated areas too, if
the pilot is incapacitated (or even absent, after ejection!) and the plane
is either particularly stable or on autopilot. This does happen; people
die because of it; it's accepted as a routine risk of aviation.
The energy content of most rocket fuels is fairly similar to that of
aviation kerosene. Certainly the total energy content of a Pegasus is
less than that of a max-weight 747.
For either aircraft or rockets, you need reasonable assurance -- through
on-board pilots, or redundant systems, or detailed prior testing -- that
the thing is not going to run wild. For either one, stiffer standards
should be applied for high energy content or toxic materials. And for
either one, you will have to apply rather stiffer standards if the thing
is unmanned or if it's one-shot hardware that cannot be tested repeatedly.
But there is no particular reason why the standards need to differ from
one to the other. (Yes, there are one-shot unmanned aircraft -- they're
called cruise missiles.)
There are beginning to be a few signs of sense appearing, such as the
decision at White Sands that DC-X need not carry a destruct system.
>Yes, there is too much paperwork, but let's not oversimplify the situation;
>the two fields of endeavor are not the same and shouldn't be treated that way.
Please explain why they are different. Not why system X needs to be treated
differently from system Y, because that happens all the time within each
field, but why the two *fields* are *fundamentally* different and *must*
have different rules.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 23:03:30 GMT
From: "Simon E. Booth" <sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu>
Subject: Boom! Whoosh......
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1set33$5o8@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
>In article <1993May7.165618.3165@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|In the fall of 1990 there was a hot air balloon show here for a few days,
>|and although most of the balloons were conventional, we also saw one in the
>|shape of a giant Nike (?) sneaker and another one in the shape of a huge
>|flying Ray-O-Vac battery.
>
>
>THere are some amazing hot air balloon shapes.
>
>There was some Bad science Fiction movie, about the earth being
>scorched by high speed winds ( really neat airplanes were shown,
>navigating the winds) and an android on the run from what's
>left of the government. at the end, the winds lift and all these
>balloons take off. all amazing shapes and sizes. sorry i can't remember
>the movie title, but memory is always the second thing to go.
>
This is driftin a little off-topic, but the name of that movie is
'Slipstream', made in 1989 or '90 and starring none other than Mark
Hamil.
Now, with the talk here about this mile-long space balloon, one thing I'd
like to know is just how they would manage to pack something that huge into
the payload shroud of a rocket or into the payload bay of a shuttle?
And exactly what would it look like from the ground?
>pat
>
Simon
------------------------------
Date: 8 May 1993 15:56:02 -0400
From: Pat <prb@access.digex.net>
Subject: DC-X Status?
Newsgroups: sci.space
Apparent delays and slips at teh WSMC end
have moved first Dry firing to June 6th. that's what one
of the guys here at McDac told me.
pat
------------------------------
Date: 8 May 1993 17:00:36 GMT
From: Andy Carol <carol@edfua0.ctis.af.mil>
Subject: Face on Mars conspiracy! NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.space
> Goldin, the head of NASA said "yes" in response to a town-meeting
> question last December.
>
> The questioner was a bit contencious, falsely claimly NASA was encrypting
> its Mars data to censor evidence of intelligent life it had already found.
If NASA even had the _smallest_ clue about E.T. life on Mars we would be blitzed with it every night on TV. Can you imagine the impact on their budget? There would be calls to send people/probes to check it out. Rather than covering it up, almost everyone in Gov would use it as a rallying cry to raise their particular budget. DoD to 'protect' us against 'them', NASA to check 'them' out, OSHA to make sure 'they' have good working conditions, etc.
---- Andrew carol@edfua0.ctis.af.mil
------------------------------
Date: 7 May 93 19:48:55 GMT
From: Peter Jarvis <phred!petej>
Subject: HST Servicing Mission
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro
In article <1s2rpc$khq@techbook.techbook.com> dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes:
>
>Has anyone looked at the cost of taking the second mirror, building
>another Hubble around it (with modifications for things that weren't
>right on Hubble I such as the solar panel supports) and launching
>that? How would that compare with the cost of the repair mission? I
>wouldn't be surprised if it would cost less than bringing the current
>one down, fixing it, and relaunching it.
>
They aren't going to bring it down and fix it. They are going to fix it
on orbit. The telescope has many instruments on it that are working well.
We have gotten good pictures off it as is. We are just going to make it
better.
Peter Jarvis................
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 8 May 1993 23:08:45 GMT
From: Henry Spencer <henry@zoo.toronto.edu>
Subject: landing at Edwards vs. the Cape
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <C6o4H6.E4r.1@cs.cmu.edu> rcs@cs.arizona.edu (Richard Schroeppel) writes:
> ... I don't think it would cripple the program to land at the Cape
> only when Edwards is unavailable... and that would be a better policy.
>
>Are you including the ferry-back risk in your assessment?
>Moving the vehicle back to the Cape requires a couple of takeoffs and
>landings, and they've had to work around a lot of bad weather in Texas.
The en-route weather problems are indeed a headache, but with each orbiter
averaging 2-3 flights a year, I can't see a few days' delay being a major
roadblock.
As for the takeoff and landing... an extra takeoff and landing or two in
a well-proven powered aircraft with substantial operating margins has got
to beat landing an unpowered orbiter with bizarre flying characteristics
and marginal landing gear in a crosswind at a site (the Cape) with only
one runway, solid obstacles to either side, and rapidly-changing weather.
--
SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
