HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from?
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:22:31 GMT
 <1992Aug31.133621.6617@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>   
 <1992Aug31.173411.13396@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a2@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Aug31.173411.13396@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes:

> Makes you wonder how the "particle" of light "knows" how fast or slow to
> speed up by to be travelling at the -speed o' light- at or near the
> local frame of reference.  

A particle of light (a photon) always travels the SAME speed, in a
vacuum, relative to all observers. It doesn't have to know anything.
It's the structure of space and time that changes: it's described at
length in any special relativity text, such as Spacetime Physics by
Taylor & Wheeler.

> Does it "feel" the local gravity, or something?

YES - the gravitational deflection of starlight was one of the major
tests of general relativity, the one that made Einstein a household
name. A good introductory text on general relativity is Gravitation &
Spacetime, by Hans O'Hanian, although GR is not a field for the faint
of heart or mathematically disinclined. Pity, too, since if you happen
to already be a differential geometer, the physical theory is
stunningly simple and beautiful: a typical course will spend about half
the term developing math, two or three days discussing the theory, and
the rest of the term talking about applications (neutron stars, black
holes, post-Newtonian celestial mechanics as in the orbit of Mercury,
etc.).
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Another Shuttle Tank Reuse Idea, From NASA
Keywords: NASA Tech Briefs
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:11:08 EDT
Organization: Kendall Square Research Corp.

This month's NASA Tech Briefs has an article on an idea to create a
12-person lunar habitat from a used Shuttle external tank.  Once the
tank is placed in orbit (instead of being thrown away, as usual), the
hydrogen tank inside would be removed, leaving the oxygen tank and
intertank structures, to which would be added living quarters,
instrumentation, an airlock, and small thrusters and fuel tanks.  It
would then be towed to the moon by some unspecified vehicle, and would
land on its own.  Once it was down, a crew would come down and finish
construction, including adding a layer of regolith getween the tank
and the micrometeor shield for protection.

Those interested in seeing the idle doodlings of some engineers with
too much free time on their hands :-) can apparently order copies of
NASA TM-4212 [N91-14251], "Single Launch Lunar Habitat Derived From
NSTS External Tank", from the National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161, (703) 487-4650; prepayment of some
unspecified fee is required...

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll)
Subject: Re: Teleoperation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:04:28 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <9209031254.AA19829@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
> ...I believe one of the cost-cutting measures for SSF was
>to have the external robots operated largely from the ground rather than
>exclusively by the astronauts on the station.
>

Well, you're correct that ground control of the ``external robots''
has now become an issue. And yes, the changes that were made to the
SSF design and its operations plan that made this an issue were made to
cut overall SSF costs. However, there is a problem...

The Mobile Servicing System (MSS) is Canada's contribution to SSF.
It includes the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS), and the
Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM), the main external
robots on SSF. The program cost to develop these is CDN$1.4 Billion,
according to the ``pre-scrub'' baseline. That baseline >does not< include
the capability to control these robots from the ground. Indeed, at
$1.4B the program is somewhat under-funded, and so even the hooks and scars
for ground control have been deleted. If ground control is to be added in,
new money is going to have to be found. Question: is this going to have
to be Canadian money? Or American money? In other words, in redesigning
the space station to reduce NASA's costs, NASA made the existing MSS
design inadequate for its role in the new operations plan; in order to
upgrade MSS to meet its new role, Canada may have to shell out a significant
amount of extra money---by decreasing the NASA program costs, NASA has
increased Canada's program costs. Sounds great for NASA...IF the Canadian
federal cabinet decides to approve the extra money. It seems that
NASA didn't consult our cabinet during the redesign.
 
The Canadian Space Agency is at this moment evaluating the costs,
benefits and technical options for adding ground control to MSS. they
are quite interested in expanding the system's capabilities, partly because
it would increase the profile of their program, but mainly because they
want SSF to work as planned, and ground control looks like one of the
best ways to address some technical issues that have been coming up 
lately (e.g. the availability fo crew for maintenance during SSF
assembly is somewhat less than the amount required). Let's hope that
the Canadian government decides to come up with the extra money to
make this happen...
-- 

     Kieran A. Carroll @ U of Toronto Aerospace Institute
     uunet!attcan!utzoo!kcarroll kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:24:38 GMT

In article <rabjab.39.0@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) writes:
>Is the Pioneer Venus orbiter still functioning?


Yes, but not for long.

In September, the orbit will have decayed enough so that PV will start clipping
the atmosphere. Depending on if the remaining fuel can be used effectively,
and if there is enough left, there is a chance that the mission can last into
December.  The chances of success are gauged at 50%.  In any case, the
PV orbiter will be dead and gone by the end of the year.

Actually, the entry will allow for some snazzy experiments to be done in situ.
The mass spec and other instruments that haven't been able to be used in 
the higher orbits will now be used.

Overall, the mission was an amazing success especially if you consider that
the nominal mission was exceeded by some twelve years.  People should
remember these kinds of successes when they are getting down on NASA for 
making mistakes (I don't think I need to name any ;-)


-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
From: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DCX??
Date: 31 Aug 92 09:59:23 GMT
Reply-To: wolfone@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Patrick Chester)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: wolfone@bashful.cc.utexas.edu

>	| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
>|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
>+----------------------238 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^???
Pardon me for seeming clueless, but what is the dcx?


Thank you.

Patrick Chester
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Rats in space
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:11:20 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
-Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
-Date: 21 Aug 92 15:19:12 GMT
-Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility

-You might want to bounce this idea off a lab biologist: Experimental 
-animals require _alot_ more than picking them up, putting them in
-the experiment and then putting them back in a cage. For example, they
-will sometimes actively resist being taken out of their cage (or put
-back in it), get away from who (or what)ever is carrying them back and forth,
-escape from their cages (requiring a very different sort of work to 
-find again, etc...

That reminds me of my favorite space life sciences disaster scenario:

1) Shuttle astronauts on a biology mission, perhaps in the process of
making educational videos, decide that it would be great to show a rat
in midair, so one is released from its cage.

2) Rat amusingly runs in place in midair for a while.

3) Rat eventually is nudged or drifts until it contacts a wall, at which
point it takes off like a shot.

4) Before astronauts can react, rat has bounded onto flight deck, where it
naturally leaps through small access hole under dashboard and out of reach
of the astronauts, then it immediately begins to chew on all wires within
reach.

(The rat's name is Murphy, by the way. :-)

One would *hope* there are pretty stringent measures to prevent the rats
from getting loose.

Note that one method of rat/mouse transfer (picking it up by the tail to
prevent biting) wouldn't work in microgravity. I suppose you could improvise
by swinging the animal around in a circle, but it would look pretty silly.
Maybe a pair of crab tongs would work.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Oil workers
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:22:35 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
-Subject: Re: SPS feasibility
-Date: 20 Aug 92 09:40:44 GMT

-In article <Bsy0K5.MEF.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:
->Imagine how cheap shuttle launches would
->be if the workers were paid comparably to Arabian oil workers. 

-Imagine how expensive Saudi oil would be if the oilfield workers cost 
-the same as astronauts, $10 million per hour.  :-(

Interesting that this was chosen as an example. I don't know about native
workers, but US engineers are sometimes hired to work in Saudi Arabia for
a few months to a year or more, at sky-high wages. I knew one fellow who did
that. He liked it pretty well, but his wife eventually got tired of having to
wear heavy clothes, not being allowed to drive, etc.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Antarctica (was: SPS)
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:43:11 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Sep2.224907.1937@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>Antarctica isn't popular for two reasons (asside from it's lack of
>glamor): It has already been explored and all colonization/private
>property is _illegal_ under international treaty. (The phrasing of
>the treaty, by the way, was fairly similar to the space treaty the
>United States refused to ratify.)

Besides, there's gravity in Antarctica; I think some of the mystique
of space exploration and colonization is the fact that when you are
floating in the middle of your spacecraft of habitat, you know you aren't
in Kansas anymore.  With just freezing weather and snow and ice, you 
could be in Toronto for all you can tell the difference. :-)

-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their 
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter, 
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              _The Number of the Beast_
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dearnsha@wizard.worldbank.org
Subject: Re: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't
Organization: The World Bank
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:10:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.155944.272@dct.ac.uk> ccdarg@dct.ac.uk (Alan Greig)
writes:
>In article <munk.715246928@prles6b>, munk@prl.philips.nl (Harm Munk) writes:
>> 
>> Because it supposedly was a military airplane, the KNMI contacted the
military
>> airbase Aurora in Scotland, but the spokesperson at Aurora did not know
>> of any observation of a supersonic, military aircraft that evening.
>
>Can't say I've ever heard of a military airbase called Aurora in Scotland.
>Sounds a very unlikely name for an RAF base in any case.
>-- 
>
>Alan Greig                            Janet: Alan@UK.AC.DUNDEE-TECH
>Dundee Institute of Technology        Tel: (0382) 308810
>Scotland, UK
>

Aurora isn't an RAF base, it's the code name for a SR71 replacement. 
It would appear (according to sc.military) that the new plane operates
out of a test facility out west (a'la U2/SR71), and uses Machrihanish
base in the U.K. as it's European base. More information on this can
be found on the sc.military newsgroup - although the information is
(understandbly) sparse and subject to interperatation.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ME_F306@neptune.kingston.ac.uk (TYNTYN)
Subject: Flying wing
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:19:45 GMT

Dear sir,
	I'm currently studying for a degree in Aerospace Engineering at KingstonUniversity. For my second year project, I have been requested to write a report
on the evolution of the flying wing. Could you please send me some information
regarding projects such as HOTOL and next generation space transport Vehicles.
Your help will be much appreicated .

Thank you


Aymen Mussad
From: vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete)
Subject: Re: What is the speed of light measured from?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: dept. of theophysics and cosmogyny
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.153142.7358@unocal.com>, 
stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes...
>In article <2SEP199204264283@reg.triumf.ca> 
>vincent@reg.triumf.ca (pete) writes:
>>Neglecting the engineering problems of high speed travel through an
>>imperfect vacuum, you can travel light centuries in subjective
>>hours if you accelerate long enough. If you arrive at the Andromeda
>>galaxy 2 weeks after leaving earth, you could be justified in
>>thinking you travelled faster than c. It's just that the rest of 
>>the universe will have aged 2x10^8 years.
> 
>No. You would not feel you are going faaster, but the universe got smaller
>and slower.  These are stardard result of Special Relativity.

*sigh* ...I should just learn to keep my mouth shut.
OK consider: you've accelerated to .99999 c relative to your 
original frame. Tangential to your world line at that instant
is an inertial frame, in which your speed is instantaneously 0.
Now consider this new frame to be the rest frame, and your
velocity relative to it is small, but steadily increasing as
you continue your constant acceleration. Clearly, a newtonian
approximation of your situation considered from this frame
will conclude that you continue to experience the full force
of your acceleration, just as you did when you first started
from your initial rest frame. That is, just because you are
travelling at nearly c relative to your initial frame doesn't
mean that in your frame you sense your acceleration decreasing.
And you have absolutely no reason to model the universe outside
as getting smaller. That's just silly. As far as you're 
concerned, the simplest model is just that you're going
steadily faster. Now if you were able to detect the passing
of time in the universe at large, which is assumed to be at
rest relative to your initial frame, it would seem to you
that their time was going by faster and faster, til millenia
were going by with every breath.

===========================================================================
Jeez, I really _liked_ the image of                   Pete Vincent
time and space pivoting about the 
speed of light. Had a nice Minkowski
sort of feel to it.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Special Relativity
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:43:52 GMT

>>>Neglecting the engineering problems of high speed travel through an
>>>imperfect vacuum, you can travel light centuries in subjective
>>>hours if you accelerate long enough. If you arrive at the Andromeda
>>>galaxy 2 weeks after leaving earth, you could be justified in
>>>thinking you travelled faster than c. It's just that the rest of
>>>the universe will have aged 2x10^8 years.

>> No. You would not feel you are going faaster, but the universe got smaller
>> and slower.  These are stardard result of Special Relativity.

I bet you can't describe the difference between these interpretations
of the same event, save that they are made by different observers.
One of the standard results of SR is the non-objectiveness of any frame.
(The frame of our near-c trip to M31 becomes inertial when the engines
are turned off, BTW)

Wasn't one of the confirmations of SR that unstable particles moving at
near c would decay past their expected places?  From our point of view,
their time slowed down.  From their point of view, our frame got shorter.
Aren't both interpretations correct?  We can easily extrapolate to the
case of an observer at lightspeed, as the original poster (whose name
I've stupidly deleted, and forgotten) has done.

Isn't all math, from calculus on up, based on an understanding
of limits?  I think c = infinity, (in the photon's frame) is a pretty
good way to get an intuitive idea of what's going on.  After all, c
is a limit, not a speed (for anything with mass).

Has anyone done any actual math in this vein?

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Solar Sailers
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:59:41 GMT


I hope this is the right place to ask this, does anyone know anything about
solar sailer development by the technologically advanced nations and a 
possible race to Mars or the Moon between those nations?  I heard something
about it on the CBC radio show Quirks & Quarks a while back (>year) but
nothing since.  Thanks!
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com (Doug Davey)
Subject: Re: space news from July 20 AW&ST
Followup-To: sci.space
Reply-To: ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:25:20 GMT

In article <BtKnBo.2w0@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
[Much deleted]
> Big article on the Tethered Satellite project.  This actually isn't the
> first test of tethers in space -- that was done on Gemini -- but it's
> the first test of long ones.  [I'll skip most of the technical details
[Much deleted]
> There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Are you speaking of Ed White, Mike Collins, & friends floating around at
the end of their umbilical cords?  Or, was there an actual deployment of a
tethered satellite that I've forgotten?  If you are speaking of Ed White &
company, wouldn't Alexi Leonov get the credit for the first tethered satellite
experiment?

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Doug Davey        ddavey@iscp.bellcore.com         bcr!iscp!ddavey

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 13:40:56 GMT

cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes:
 >According to Aviation Week & Space Technology (aka AvLeak) in 
 >issues prior to Aug. 24, 

Uh, there was a considerable amount of NEW information in the August 24th
issue.  WHY would you want to limit your reply only to the old info?

 >this aircraft is an SR 71 replacement developed by Lockheed Skunkworks.
 >Speeds estimated at 3500+ mph.  *Not* a 2 stage to orbit plane. 

NO.  The 8/24 AW&ST *specifically* talked about a vehicle which 
potentialy DOES have a 2-stage to orbit mission capability.

 > described as `bat-like'' similar to the B2 airfoil. 

Now it sounds like you are talking about the *subsonic* TR-3A, 
which is something totally different from the Aurora(s).

 >Daytime photos of peculiar corkscrew contrails that have been attributed 

Now you're back to the older Aurora/pulser concept. I tend to think this
is a *different* (and smaller) vehicle from the large "Concorde-like"
aircraft reported in Europe, and also described in the recent AW&ST.

 >presumably because the DoD has now sunk so much money in to it and 
 >distributed its contractors into so many Congressional districts 

The Lockheed Burbank Skunk-Works is likely the main contractor.
With such an ultra-black project I doubt it was spread around that much.

 >Yet another multi-billion dollar aerospace program to
 >protect US airspace from the Bosnian airforce.

NO, it is to "protect" us from being ignorant about the world around us.
Intelligence gathering is something that will always have considerable
value, with or without any "evil empire" to be worried about.

-{ DA }-
From: ep1a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric Eimal Paulsen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Magnetic Sail
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:41:16 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.QebfaQK00awS0AiVIq
Organization: Freshman, Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Maybe you've already heard of this, but I just read an article in the
May or July '92 Asimov Sci-Fi magazine about a magnetic sail idea. It
started from a ram scoop and was turned into a superconduction loop held
from the center by lines. It works on the premise of skipping around in
LEO by working against the Earths magnetic field until it gets into the
solar wind and can deflect it, gaining something like .02 g, much better
than Ion Drive. Really good for interplanetary travel. Possible
application as brake in interstellar flight, eliminating half of fuel
load. The article (about ten pages long) has a lot of mathmatics to back
it up, way over my head.  Fascinating implications!

Eric Paulsen
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Subject: Re: Space Calendar
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:58:25 GMT

baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:

I'd like to thank  Ron for posting this stuff since nobody else ever seems to 
thank him.

> [September]    24 - SCD-1 Pegasus Launch

I believe that this has been postponed due to problems with separation of
Pegasus's fairing in tests.  (I suppose it's possible that I have the wrong
payload or that this is the date the launch was postponed to).

>     ?? - UFO Atlas Launch

Oh great, now we can tell the folks on sci.skeptic that NASA really _does_
have a UFO :-)
-- 
Josh Hopkins                    Friends don't let friends derive drunk
		     j-hopkins@uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space