HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wb9omc@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: U-2/TR-1 air restarts
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:24:43 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) writes:

>Also, the mission profile of these birds is to get high and stay high.
               
	Sorry Mike - I couldn't resist.....I knew some birds at Purdue
who would have rather liked this concept....  :-)  :-)

Duane
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: supersonic B-52's??
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 11:30:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.214858.25447@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <1992Sep9.114038.13429@walter.bellcore.com> jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:
>
>>The BUF (Big Ugly Fellow) is definitely subsonic. 
>
>When did we start calling it BUF instead of BUFF?
>

We started calling it BUF instead of BUFF when we are in polite
society!
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: USAF THUNDERBIRDS S. AMERICAN TOUR SKED
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:08:37 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                   September 1992            <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886                      1   2   3   4   5       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               6   7   8   9  10  11  12       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS      13  14  15  16  17  18  19       <<>>
  <<>>                                  20  21  22  23  24  25  26       <<>>
  <<>>  THURSDAY, SEPT. 10, 1992        27  28  29  30                   <<>>
  <<>>                                                                   <<>>
  <<>>                                                                   <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>


                                                  No. 395-92
                                                  (703) 695-2113 (info)
                                                  (703) 697-3189 (copies)
IMMEDIATE RELEASE        September 10, 1992       (703) 697-5737
                                                  (public/industry)

            THUNDERBIRDS 1992 SOUTH AMERICAN DEMONSTRATION SCHEDULE

	The Department of Defense today released the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds
1992 South American schedule, which begins     October 22, 1992.  The
Department of Defense Aerial Demonstration teams occasionally deploy overseas
to promote international goodwill, and demonstrate the professional skills and
capabilities of the U.S. Armed Forces.  This tour is designed to support these
objectives and show continued support for democratic governments.  The
Thunderbirds last performed in South America in 1985. 

	The schedule is as follows:

Panama City, Panama		October 24
Santiago, Chile			October 27
Montevideo, Uruguay		October 29
Buenos Aires, Argentina	October 31
Asuncion, Paraguay		November 2
Brasilia, Brazil			November 6
Maracay, Venezuela		November 8


                                       -END-

         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep8.134328.5065@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
	<CKD.92Sep8162204@loiosh.eff.org>
	<BOWERS.92Sep9122323@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:08:33 GMT

Al> == Al Bowers <bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> 

 ckd> Well, lest we forget the lessons of Vietnam, when the F-4 had only
 ckd> missiles because "dogfighting is dead", IMHO the more agile
 ckd> aircraft, in this case the F-22, is better suited to the air
 ckd> superiority role.  If you can't turn, you can't shoot *him*.

 Al> I'd like to point out that high alpha capability and thrust
 Al> vectoring agility (whatever the hell _that_ is!  No two people can
 Al> agree on exactly what is a good agility-metric) do not negate all
 Al> previous techniques for ACM.

Very, very, very true.

 Al> Speed is still life.  High alpha and thrust vectoring only help in
 Al> the final stages (low and slow) of a one v one oe few v few
 Al> engagement.  in a furball (many v many) you will get you tail shot
 Al> off if you get slow enough to use high alpha!

Also true, within reason.  Stuff like supercruise may or may not be
useful; does anyone dogfight at Mach?  (*Can* anyone dogfight at Mach?)
Your observations (deleted) on thrust-to-weight ratio are also good
ones.  (T/W is something I've always liked myself, even if my "flying
experience" is limited to stuff like Hellcats Over the Pacific ;-)

Anyone know the T/W of the F-22 and F-23, and of a "normally loaded"
F-15, F-16, F/A-18 for comparison?  This could be interesting...
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Re: supersonic B-52's??
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:47:52 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Sep4.155948.11081@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
tostan@bert.lerc.nasa.gov (Stan Mohler) writes:

> Someone who doesn't know much about aviation recently told me that
> B-52's used to fly supersonic over Columbus, OH in the 1960's.  
> I know that the B-52 is a subsonic bomber.  But is it possible
> that it could go supersonic in a dive, and is it possible that
> this was done over Columbus in the '60's?  Thanks.

Perhaps this someone was mistaking B-52's for B-58's, see the sentence
below taken from another posting.

> When I lived in Cleveland in the early and mid 1960's there was a 
> program of regular supersonic overflights by B-58s.

People who know little about aviation and airplanes often mistake one
aircraft for another.  To them, a jet bomber is a jet bomber.  If one
can go supersonic, why not another.  But a B-52 going supersonic?  It
seems as if that ascertion goes beyond the laws of physics.  What about
the statements that 707's and 747's also have gone supersonic, how
could that happen, at the end of an uncontrolled dive?

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: F-23 Dead?
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
	<1992Sep8.134328.5065@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:22:08 GMT

tom> == tom noyes 283-4177 <noyes@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov> 

 tom> The reason that the F-22 was chosen over the F-23, in my opinion,
 tom> was that the USAF let pilots have too much input into which plane
 tom> they wanted. Pilots by nature are concerned about ariel combat,
 tom> the F-22 is better suited for this purpose, with its thrust
 tom> vectoring nozzels contributing the principal advantage over the
 tom> F-23. The F-23 better meets the USAF's RFP with the strategy of
 tom> stealth, range, and supercruise over maneuverability (if you can't
 tom> see me, you can't shoot me).`

Well, lest we forget the lessons of Vietnam, when the F-4 had only
missiles because "dogfighting is dead", IMHO the more agile aircraft, in
this case the F-22, is better suited to the air superiority role.  If
you can't turn, you can't shoot *him*.

For strike/bomber operations like the "F"-117 or B-2, stealth and/or
speed is more important, of course.  The F-23 probably would make a
pretty good striker...
--
Christopher Davis   | ]CALL -151       
<ckd@eff.org>       | *300: 20 DD FB 60
System Administrator| *3D0G            
EFF +1 617 864 0665 | ]CALL 768
From: spaceman@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.aeronautics
Subject: Live Fried Chicken (Was: Re: Birds getting sucked.)
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:07:45 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Sep2.163101.20297@puma.ATL.GE.COM>, esmythe@atl.ge.com writes:
> The chicken gun is also used for aircraft engines.  The engine is
> mounted in a test stand and various sized birds are fired into the
> engine to verify bird-strike performance.
> 
> I have been told by a friend at an unnamed aircraft engine
> manufacturer (and you should not draw any conclusions from my .sig)
> that, while _most_ uses of the chicken gun involve dead, thawed
> chickens, each engine must be certified at least once using live,
> sedated chickens. ...edited...
> 
> Erich Smythe 

My question is, why does it have to be a live chicken?  BTW, "certified" by
who, the engine manufacturer?!? (Not in an animal righteous tone, just out of
curiosity...)

Perhaps someone can shed light on this? 

Paul

Spaceman@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
and 
Guip@oread.cc.ukans.edu
From: pcl@oxford.ac.uk (Paul Leyland)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Email contact addresses of interest groups
Date: 14 Sep 92 09:01:27 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Computing Service, 13 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2
	6NN
In-reply-to: pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI's message of 11 Sep 92 13:22:53 GMT

In article <pvtmakela.96@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI> pvtmakela@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI (M{kel{ Veikko) writes:


			   EMAIL CONTACT ADDRESSES
			      OF INTEREST GROUPS
			     IN AMATEUR ASTRONOMY

       I am collecting email contact addresses of  different kind of
       observing and interest groups in amateur astronomy field, eg.
       sections  of  astronomical associations.  NOTE!  I don't need
       addresses of individual  amateurs  or  their  interests,  but
       email addresses of group  and section leaders,  those contact
       persons or persons,  who are organizing some  kind  of  group
       work or.  There  is only few  exceptions.   I  have  included
       some  persons,  who are  distributing  important  information
       for  interest group or organizing somehow the world wide work
       in their field.



Drop a line to Guy Hurst, gmh@ast.star.rl.ac.uk for information about
_The Astronomer_ group.  TA as it is usually known, is an
international grouping of keen observers and a clearing house for the
rapid processing of observations among many other important roles.

Paul

--
Paul Leyland <pcl@oxford.ac.uk>          | Hanging on in quiet desperation is
Oxford University Computing Service      |     the English way.
13 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6NN, UK     | The time is come, the song is over.
Tel: +44-865-273200  Fax: +44-865-273275 | Thought I'd something more to say.
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: Richard B. Langley <lang@unb.ca>
Subject: Re: Climate cycles from Earth's orbital geometry
Organization: University of New Brunswick
Distribution: global
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:26:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.214846.17598@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu
(Joe Cain) writes:
>	We were just going over some sedimentary cycles in a class
>today which related to an article in EOS.* I would
>like to find some material which discusses the Milankovitch-type
>forcing functions which lead to climate cycles. i.e. 
> 
>precesssion of the equinoxes  19, 23 K years
>obliquity of Earth's axis     41, 54 K years
>eccentricity of orbit         95, 123, 413, and 2035 K years
>
>I am looking for something about the level of Scientific American with
>some pretty pictures that discusses the geologic findings in this
>area.  This is for a beginning planetary geology class for
>non-scientists. Has anyone seen anything recently?

Not SciAm level, but perhaps useful:
Pisias, N. G., and A. C. Mix (1988).  "Aliasing of the geologic record and the
search for long-period Milankovitch cycles."  Paleoceanography, Vol. 3, No. 5,
pp. 613-619.  

==============================================================================
 Richard B. Langley                        Internet: LANG@UNB.CA or SE@UNB.CA
 Geodetic Research Laboratory              BITnet:   LANG@UNB or SE@UNB
 Dept. of Surveying Engineering            Phone:    (506) 453-5142
 University of New Brunswick               FAX:      (506) 453-4943
 Fredericton, N.B., Canada  E3B 5A3        Telex:    014-46202
==============================================================================


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re:  PUTTING VENUS IN AN ORBIT SIMILAR TO THE ORBIT OF THE EARTH
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:30:57 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <abian.716517308@pv343f.vincent.iastate.edu>, abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian) writes:
>      In our Solar System, the planet VENUS is the only planet which sizewise,
> masswise and substancewise closely resembles our planet Earth.
>      The main difference between Venus and Earth lies in their orbits around
> the Sun.  For one thing, Venus stays around 67 million miles away from the
> Sun, whereas Earth stays around 93 million miles away from the Sun.  As a
> consequence of the corresponding greenhouse effects, Venus' average surface
> temperature is around 900 degrees F, whereas Earth's is around 60 degrees F.  
> Venus, being an extraordinarily hot planet is unsuitable for sustaining life
> (as we know it).
>      However, if we alter Venus' orbit and make it similar to the Earth's
> orbit, then the gradual process of generating life sustaining ecology on 
> Venus will evolve automatically.  

[rest deleted]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the current atmospheric 
studies on Venus indicate very little, if any water content in the 
atmosphere, having been either evaporated or destroyed by UV 
radiation.  Since it was probably the water in the Earth's atmosphere 
which was allowed to rain down onto the Earth because of cooler 
temperatures here than at Venus, cleansing the atmosphere of carbon 
dioxide, as well as forming oceans in which the carbon dioxide could 
dissolve, later locking some of it in the rocky material at the bottom 
of these early sees, how is it proposed to do the same thing on Venus, 
"automatically"?

Scott Miller, Program Coordinator
Rauch Memorial Planetarium
University of Louisville
jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Subject: Re: More Noise from the Novice
Organization:  University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Date:  6 SEP 92 19:43:13    

In article <1992Sep6.000622.14274@athena.cs.uga.edu>, mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes...

>We've just had a flame war about this very thing.  The old saw "3-inch
>refractor equals 6-inch reflector" goes back to the days when mirrors
>were coated with silver (not very reflective compared to aluminum) and
>were only figured to 1/4 wave accuracy.  I'd say a 3-inch refractor equals
>maybe a 4-inch reflector.

Yes, I did read that discussion and the arguments against the 2:1 advantage
seemed solid.  However when two publications both stated that "serious" 
sky viewing could be performed on 3" refractors but not on a mirror of less
than 6" then I became concerned, arguments aside.  (both publications were
post-1984)  Thanks for tolerating my confusion.

Dana
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
From: ckp@netcom.com (Charles Pooley)
Subject: Re: Energy Density of Neutronium
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 11:12:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Followup-To: sci.astro
Summary: Neutronium--prob. what would happen...


In the earlier message, 22101, it was asked how a mass of neutrons would be
bound.  I would think that, for small masses they would be gravitationally
bound (>10^15 g/cc), except that neutrons decay with about a 13 min half
life, the energy from which would scatter it.

Might be fun to try to estimate mass required to avoid disintregration,
but it's late & I'm tired... 
-- 
Charles Pooley                  ckp@netcom.com    GEnie  c.pooley
EE consultant, Los Angeles, CA
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: "9296::BEGLEY"@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Mike Begley)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Organization: Lockheed Engineering (Houston, TX)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:20:13 GMT

In article <c-ync4d.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <pgf.716434261@srl02.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G.
Fraering) writes:
>>Yes, but thanks to Al Gore's Porkization of the Space Program,
>>military research is the last refuge in the US government
>>of advanced propulsion research. After Gore manages to
>>cut that tree down, like Isle Derniere, the whole tree
>>is going to wash away.
>
>Good point.  Does anyone know if Clinton/Gore has taken any position on
>DCX -> DCY -> DC-1?  Currently, DCX being funded by SDIO, and is bound
>to be one of the first things to be trashed by a (God forbid!)
>Clinton/Gore administration.
>-- 

I don't care how a previous poster feels about talk.politics.space.
This issue does NOT belong on SCI.astro or SCI.space.
SCI and politics make very poor bedfellows as this whole
thread clearly demonstrates.


Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Reticle question??????
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:07:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.160703.1669@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu> ja@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu writes:
>Hello Netters,
> 
>I'm trying to build a finder scope from half a pair of binocs and
>I need some advice.  I want to put cross hairs in and don't know
>where to put them.  I tried just attaching them across the bottom
>of the ocular mounting but they were not visible.  I know that with
>microscopes the reticle scales are focuable. Is this just a matter
>of trial and error getting this thing placed for my specific binocs?

Since it appears you have already disassembled the monocular you can probably
make the situation no worse, so try the following experiment:
take a flat, translucent object (a dollar bill or a sheet of paper with
printing on it should do); hold it up to the light and examine it using the
ocular as you would a magnifier, with your eye right up close. The position at
which the paper is in focus is the plane in which your hairs should be placed.
A monocular forms an intermediate image between the objective and the ocular,
just as a telescope does. Sometimes this image plane is within the cell in
which the ocular lenses are mounted, which will make the test I describe above
more difficult.

Your finder will be unsuitable for use by people with varying degrees of myopia
unless you have the side (usually the right side) with the eyepiece corrector,
by the way. The correct procedure for using the monocular would be to focus the
eyepiece corrector on the crosshairs, and then focus the objective on the
crosshairs, bringing both them and the intermediate image into the same plane.
With the objective focussed on the object of interest, viewers with differing
degrees of myopia would then refocus using *only* the eyepiece corrector.

Leigh
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: mcd@ithaca.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Mark Dakins)
Subject: Re: Cleaning a mirror
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:21:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.184827.7297@pacdata.uucp> dave@pacdata.uucp (David Ambrose) writes:
>
>	Be aware that the Astroscan's mirror is parabolized by the
>coating!  You want to take very good care of it.  You cannot just send
>them to Panchro or Clausen for recoating.
>
>
>-- 
>David Ambrose - Pacific Data Products           UUCP: uunet!pacdata!dave
>619/597-3426 				    Internet: dave@pacdata.com

Uhhh, I don't think so.  This is an f4 mirror.  Although it is probably
technically possible to lay down a precise, variable thickness coating
to do this, the cost would be very, very high I think.  What makes you
think this?
					Mark Dakins
From: ncuo@phy.ncu.edu.tw (NCU Observatory)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Request: experience about Meade LXD-700
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:17:25 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics,NCU

Does anyone has any experience about Meade LXD-700 ?

lin@tycho.phy.ncu.edu.tw
Xref: sparky sci.astro:9508 sci.physics:14207
From: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Energy Density of Neutronium
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:56:12 GMT
Reply-To: mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock)
Organization: MIT Center for Space Research
Originator: mock@benz


In article <rwallace.715785439@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
> In <1992Sep5.194104.1028@athena.mit.edu> mock@space.mit.edu (Patrick C. Mock) writes:
> 
> 
> >In article <rwallace.715643300@unix1.tcd.ie>, rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace) writes:
> >forms at a density of 10^14 gm/cc.  Removing 1 cc of this material to a low
> >pressure environment would result in a violent release of energy.
> >The 1 cc would evaporate into a cloud of free neutrons on a time scale
> >of tens of picoseconds.  The neutrons would then decay into protons, electrons
> >and antineutrinos.
> 
> Right ... of course, there would be an initial energy release, then
> continuous emission of radiation over the next couple of hours or so as
> all the neutrons decayed. How much energy, though, would the initial
> evaporation of the 1 cc release? (The energy release from the later
> decay of the neutrons would, correct me if I'm wrong here, be on the
> order of 1/1000 to 1/2000 of the mass of the neutrons - quite a lot
> considering the mass of 1 cc is ~10^14 grams.)
> 
10^32 - 10^33 ergs  (see Shapiro & Teukolsky).

Pat
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: rbunge@access.digex.com (Robert Bunge)
Subject: Re: Optical Quality (was Re: Telescope question)
Keywords: refractors, vs, reflectors
Organization: Express Access Online Communications Service, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:58:58 GMT

In article <Bu0nnC.7x5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> nash@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (David Nash) writes:
>Oh yes.  This thread again.  I was wondering when it was going to return.
>
>I recall in a recent (Mar.? 1992) S&T article that the editors tested scopes of
>known aberation levels (1, 1/2, 1/4, and 1/10 wave *wavefront*) and found a 
>noticeable but small difference in performance between 1/4 and 1/10 wave 
>wavefront scopes (these were 6" f/8 Newtonians, btw).  Certainly not enough to
>make the 1/4 wave mirror useless, or even particularly undesirable.
>
>Judging from the above observations, I would suspect that the difference 
>between 1/10 wave and 1/20 wave (wavefront) would probably be
>virtually unnoticeable, if it is noticeable at all, even by experienced
>observers (which the reviewers in that article were). 

Two points: first, personally, I believe you can notice the difference
between 1/10 (most likely very close to being diffraction limited) and
1/20 (most likely diff. limited) -- IF the observer knows what to look
for and cares to look for it.  Note that the S&T test didn't include
such a test.

As to the S&T test, at risk of flaming, it seemed to me that at least
one of the testers showed a serious lack of knowledge of the classic
star test.  The comments from Stellafane in the box seemed more in
line with my experience -- in which a person is quoted as saying that
they couldn't believe that people _couldn't_ see the difference between
the 1/4 wave and 1/10 wave.

 No, I take it back,
>there IS a big difference, measured not by contrast or angular resolution,
>but by dollars.

Without doubt a big difference!  And a good reason to...  it's damn hard
to make great optics.
>
>David Nash                  | Gradual Student, Chemistry

Bob Bunge
rbunge@access.digex.com



Newsgroups: sci.astro