HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nareid@imf.unit.no (Helge Nareid)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:43:54 GMT
Organization: The Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim

In article <1992Apr8.141402.28697@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes:
>
>In the red, I could - and still can - see to about 850 nm if the light is 
>bright enough, such as a laser. This looks the same color as light
>at 650 nm, slightly less "orange" than a HeNe laser at 633 nm.
>
>Doug McDonald

I've used a few IR diode lasers, and my experience is the same, all these
lasers look deep red, provided the intensity is high enough. The eye's
sensitivity falls off quite rapidly in this spectral region, however,
so you need a fairly strong light source in the 830 nm region to see
anything at all. 

Another trivia item - the human eye is an excellent retro-reflector in
the IR region (just like cats' eyes in the visual region) - try aligning
a (b/w) TV camera with an IR source, and you'll see people's eyes
light up on the TV screen.

--
Helge Nareid                             E-mail :    nareid@phys.unit.no
SINTEF Applied Physics                   Phone  :    + 47 - 7 - 59 34 18
Trondheim, Norway                        Fax    :    + 47 - 7 - 59 34 20
From: higgins@fnalnj.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: The *Astounding* Bomb (was Re: Censure the sensor censors)
Summary: Cartmill, not Asimov, wrote "Deadline."
Keywords: classified security manhattan atomic bomb campbell astounding
Date: 8 Apr 92 03:00:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnalnj.1992Apr7.210024.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <9204041523.AA27585@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>, roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
> -From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner)
> -And at the moment, there is an effort to classify
> -"Impurity Band Conduction" detectors, even though their operating
> -principles and performance have already been reported in the open
> -literature.  A step forward and a step back....
> 
> There has been considerable speculation on how WWII might have turned out
> if the big breakthroughs in uranium research had come a few years earlier,
> and made it into the general scientific literature. As it was, they were
> able to recognize the military significance and suppress most of the new
> stuff. (Asimov (I think) wrote a wartime SF story about an atomic bomb -
> when the men in dark suits came around, editor John W. Campbell was able to
> persuade them that the total absence of atom-bomb stories was a sure tip-off
> that the US was working on them, so they let him publish. :-)

It wasn't Asimov, it was the more obscure Cleve Cartmill.  The story
was "Deadline," published in 1943 (or maybe 1944) in *Astounding
Science Fiction*, edited by Campbell.   A fairly awful
futuristic-warfare yarn, it described an (unworkable, but plausible)
uranium bomb in considerable detail.  This made the Army nervous.

The tale of Campbell and the Bomb has become an oft-repeated chestnut
in SF circles.  I'm sure Asimov (may his robots never harm a human
being) recounted it in his writings, which may be why John associates
the story with him.  Campbell also claimed that he knew exactly where
all the secret Manhattan Engineering District work was going on,
because large numbers of *Astounding*  subscribers changed their
addresses to post-office boxes in Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford, etc. 
He was always good at shaping an interesting story around a few facts.

In the middle eighties, *Astounding's* successor magazine *Analog*
published an article about the government's investigation of Cartmill
and Campbell, based on Freedom of Information Act files.  Sorry, can't
remember the author.  Hope you admire my staggering erudition anyway.
(-:

During the first and second stage         Bill Higgins   
flights of the vehicle, if a serious      Fermilab
irretrievable fault should occur and      HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
the deviation of the flight attitude of   HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
the vehicle exceeds a predetermined       SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS 
value, the attitude self-destruction
system will make the vehicle
self-destroyed.                   --Long March 3 User's Manual
             Ministry of Astronautics, People's Republic of China (1985)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald)
Subject: Re: Gov. R&D
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:24:34 GMT


In article <Added.QdqXOpy00UkTNCNk87@andrew.cmu.edu> 18084TM@MSU.EDU (Tom) writes:
>
>The economic 'factors' that limit coporate funding of R&D is excessive
>taxation of capital. 

>Simply put, if we can convince the gov. to spend cash, why can't you convince
>private sources?  If the answer is "Because private sources don't think
>R&D would be worth it", then either we shouldn't do it, or whoever is
>stupid enough to do it anyway (gov.) is the wrong party to be doing it,
>especially if they will do it with stolen funds from the same people
>that wouldn't do it willingly.
>

Excessive taxation of capital is **NOT** the cause of lack of
industrial R (it may well be for the D).

The cause is **EARLY** taxation of capital gains and, probably
more important, laws that require pension funds to invest in the highest
yield investments measured on a four times a year basis.


Doug McDonald
From: harry@eng.auth.gr (Haralambos Sahinoglou)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: (none)
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:16:10 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet

SUB Space harry@vergina.eng.auth.gr
Xref: sparky sci.space:7568 sci.astro:5052 news.answers:1071
From: millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Snide Pucker)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics.fusion,alt.politics,sci.research,sci.energy
Subject: Re: Alpha Centauri and the Mad Dash to Mars (WAS Re: Disincentives)
Date: 9 Apr 92 23:22:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: gn.1992Apr9.232213.6400
Organization: Purdue Univ. School of Nuclear Engineering

In article <q3wXiB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
#> 
#>It is a problem all inventors face and it is a major reason the
#>Japanese are eating our lunch.  We are good at innovation.  Our
#>business types are good at ripping off innovation from inventors
#>and making them committ suicide.  But the Japanese are better at
#>the game of inventor rip-off than our businessmen.  Hell, at least
#>the Japanese pay SOME royalties.
#> 
#>The technosocialists play on this fear in inventors to get them
#>to buy into "free" bureaucratic cash which is, in fact, the biggest
#>inventor rip-off of all.  Ever signed an inventions agreement?
#>At NASA or DoE you don't even get to sign -- it is automatic.

   Basically, we're back to the same problem of letting the people who
have the money/power (managers) reaping the benefits of the actual 
workers (labor/inventors).  Why is it that investors always make more
than inventors?  There truly is little incentive other than pursuit
for it's own sake to doing one's best.  It's bad enough that there is
little money in it (relatively speaking), but that technical reports 
get the manager's name on them is adding insult to injury.  What's even
worse is that it is worse.  Why is honesty and integrity only stressed
for engineers and not managers?  It blows my mind sometimes.


-- 
   Jerry W. Miller                   #   "Opinions?  Of course they
   millerj@gn.ecn.purdue.edu         #    are mine, do YOU want them?"
   Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering
From: dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: New "rockoon" concept
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:13:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: ssd.1992Apr16.201332.23222
Organization: :noitazinagrO

In article <7k8aJB1w164w@sys6626.bison.mb.ca> jesus@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (norman paterson) writes:
>This is to announce my project which has been in the works for the last 
>two years.  It inolves the construction of a dual airship platform from 
>which a sounding rocket will be launched.  Combining the technology of 
>old, re. Zepplin type technology, with modern materials, powerplants, and 
>computers,  I am building this to demonstrate the feasibility of 
>launching satellite launch vehicles from very large airship platforms.
>Norman Paterson   CANADA
>
>;--- (norman paterson) a user of sys6626, running waffle 1.64
>;E-mail: jesus@sys6626.bison.mb.ca
>;system 6626: 63 point west drive, winnipeg manitoba canada R3T 5G8

We have to assume you mean to fly your airship at, say, 20km altitude
and couple hundred kph velocity, otherwise there's little or no point.
The idea of air-launch is to get above most of the atmosphere and maybe
get some initial velocity.  If you're only going up a few km it hardly
seems worth it: its easier to launch from the ground.


-- 
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)    ||-------------------------------|
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY 14653-7300|-------------------------------|
|| If Unix is a computer system            ||-------------------------------|
|| then a pile of bricks is a house        ||-------------------------------|
From: pgf@SRL03.CACS.USL.EDU (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Second attempt to post...
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:45:44 GMT
Organization: The Internet


   Date: Mon, 16 Mar 92 08:36:30 -0600
   From: pgf (Phil G. Fraering)

   Unexpected response code from rouge.usl.edu news server: 400
   /u11/pgf/nn/bin/inews failed

   Your response has been saved in ~/dead.letter

   Your article/letter follows:
Path: nasa15.usl.edu!pgf
   Date: 16 Mar 92 14:34:35 GMT
   Message-ID: <pgf.700756475@nasa15.usl.edu>
   Newsgroups: sci.space
   Subject: Re: Space Heretics
   References: <Added.YdkC26W00UkT4OaU8W@andrew.cmu.edu> <1992Mar16.035356.16198@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>

   lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:

   >3.) Buzz-words are devices used by people on the outside looking in. I have
   >no need for them since I am on the inside. The statements I have made can be
   >verified as fact by any number of people in the engineering trenches at NASA
   >or its contractors.

   >Have a fruitful day,
   >Dr. Norman J. LaFave

   That's the problem though. I know people with similar levels of
   experience to you and often they seem to be describing a very
   different situation. It's closer to Tommy Mac's than to Jim
   Bowery's, admittedly....

   But there's a problem with argument from authority: there are lots
   of authorities out there saying different things. Which ones
   do you think we should believe?
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 13:33:41 GMT

I don't know about you guys but as far as I am concerned that show lost
all credability when they said that COBOL was (roughly): "the computer
language most programmers prefered to use". :-)

  Allen

-- 
+          They're just jealous because they don't have three               +
|          wise men and a virgin in the whole organization                  |
|     --Vincent Cianci on the ACLU suit to remove a nativity scene          |
+----------------------388 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: David_Woodsworth@mindlink.bc.ca (David Woodsworth)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Galileo Update - 04/09/92
Date: 10 Apr 92 07:39:46 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

> Ron Baalke writes:
> 
> UPLINK GENERATION/COMMAND REVIEW AND APPROVAL:
> 
> 1.  The High Gain Antenna (HGA) motor turn-on mini-sequence was approved for
> generation by the Project on April 9, 1992.  The HGA motor is scheduled to be
> turned on April 29 for a duration of two seconds.

Is this actually expected to succeed in opening the antenna, or have
controllers given up on the cooling-turns?  I thought they wouldn't even try
using the motor for another year or two.  Is there any risk (could starting the
moter cause it to jam again)?

David Woodsworth

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:04:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.015456.19418@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Entirely true.  But why do you say that such interceptors are not under
>our physical control?  For one thing, if they can hit missiles, they can
>most surely hit each other.

Surely *not*.  A missile is a large, bright target -- the engines,
burning tons of propellant, have exhaust radiating many megawatts of
heat.  The interceptors are *much* smaller, accelerate to top speed in
a short time, and thereafter only use even smaller rockets for course
correction.

Someone suggested that having the system under human control would
make it safe against accidental destruction of civilian launchers.
The familier of former Iranian airline passengers will be happy to
hear this.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thomas J. Nugent)
Subject: Re: Mars for $30M ???
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:00:16 GMT

speth@cats.ucsc.edu (James Gustave) writes:


>A poster (sorry, I don't remember who) recently talked about a proposal by
>Griffin to go to Mars for $30M.  I assumed this meant $30 million.
>Is this correct?  What did the proposal involve (ie. equipment, crew, etc.)?

>To me, this sounds unreasonably low.  Are there other Mars mission estimates
>in this order of magnitude?

I think you're talking about Griffin's proposal to send probes to the moon
for $30M each (not sure about that - might be $50M each) which is a very
good deal, relatively speaking.  These probes would provide detailed maps
of the Moon's surface, and perform analyses of the chemical makeup of the
Moon, including the poles.


-- 
Tom Nugent  		e-mail:	tjn32113@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"To be average scares the hell out of me." -- Anonymous

"YoYoDyne Propulsion Systems: Where The Future Begins Tomorrow!"
From: 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Reducing launch costs--vehicle production
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:11:43 GMT

In response to Mr. Spencer:

So should we concetrate more on creating a code of standardization
and mass-production to significantly bring launch costs down?

Would launching smaller vehicles make standardization and mass-
production easier to achieve?  Or do they have the same complexity
as the big rockets, only in smaller packages?

How important is vehicle recoverability?  It seems it didn't help the 
Shuttle much.  From an idealist standpoint, it seems it'd take too much
manpower to go get the used vehicle, truck it around, clean it off, 
check all the systems and replace those needing repair, and then prep it for 
launch again.  Why not go about it like GM, not recycle old products, and
concentrate on streamlining the mass-production system?

Or is the reason that there is no mass-production system because there
is such little demand for launch services?  Would it take a brand new
source of demand, like a space-power program or even space colonization,
to bring this industry out of the elitist doldrums?

Craig Meyer  01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:42:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: aio.1992Apr6.174236.23885
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston

In article <YdrC22m00WBKI6t78H@andrew.cmu.edu> Kevin William Ryan <kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>    Saw a PBS show the other day on cataract removal in India, where
>cataracts are apparently a major problem. Traveling field hospitals
>remove the cataracts at the rate of one every seven minutes per table,
>100-250 in a day, under _local_ {AAAHHH!!} anesthetic, with no lens
>replacement. 

Use of local anesthesia is standard procedure these days for cataract surgery.
However, the patient is usually given sedation ahead of time, so they are kind
of dopey and placid.  The eye is then anesthetized and the surgery done.  The
most common sedative is Versed, a Valium derivative that is very fast acting,
has a very short half-life and produces amnesia in 90%+ of patients given it.
My wife is an anesthesiologist and said Versed is one of the big breakthrus
in the last 10 years in anesthesia - it sedates the patient, but blocks short
term memory, so they forget things a few seconds after they happen.

-- 
| Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
| hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov    SpokesPersonp(Me,or(NASA,LESC)) = NIL
| "Space People read our mail.  The Space People think that TV news
| programs are comedies, and that soap operas are news."- D. Byrne
From: 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Alternative methods of propulsion
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:59:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr14.135927.6346

What research/investigation has been done on sending
energy to a rocket from ground-based lasers, boiling hydrogen or helium
running through a heat exchnager on the vehicle, and thereby driving it
foreward, much like the nuclear rockets, only the energy is transmitted
to the vehicle, not carried along?

Has anything like this been researched?

Wouldn't there be an advantage to the rocket not needing to carry
any fuel along?

Craig Meyer 01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 16:42:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <92099.214714DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>> Why do you assume that BP would be turned loose as a robot, completely
>> beyond control from the ground?  ... nobody is going to
>> authorize that...  At the very least, I would expect to see interceptors
>> requiring an "arm" signal from the ground, supplied by a human.
>
>The problem is that BP only has a few minutes to respond...

Systems in which humans are required to respond within a fraction of a
minute are routine in military hardware.  We're not talking about making
complex decisions or guiding interceptors, only about a simple "is this
an attack or not?" choice that leads to pushing one button.

The situation is arguably marginal if an ambitious system is being pushed
to its limits to stop a massive attack from the Evil Empire :-).  That is
not what we're talking about any more.  A few seconds' hesitation is not
going to make or break an interception of a few missiles, assuming that
the system is intelligently designed for the job.  (Please don't attempt
to "prove" the difficulty of the job by assuming stupid design.)

>... In any case, it is not obvious that putting a human in the
>loop will improve the risk to an acceptible level.

It seems to be adequate for existing systems that most people consider
acceptable.  If you insist that a missile-defense system *has* to be
still better, please explain why.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:53:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele) writes:

>Let's assume that one interceptor fails - its communications die.
>Communications being a fairly complex element, and lots of
>interceptors in the population, this is not unlikely.  We then have a
>"pebble" out there whose status we don't know.  From then on, we can't
>be sure that that thing isn't going to go after the first missile
>launch it sees as it passes by.  We can say that "we think it's
Someikely because it was not armed the last time we saw it", but that's
>about it.
	
	Fair enough.  There are also plenty of expended rocket stages in orbit.
Many of these still have fuel in them, and almost none of them can be directly
controlled.  I've never seen anyone worry that they might fall on a major 
city and cause massive damage, mainly because we do monitor such things, and
It may even be possible to design it so that the delta-v required or the
assumptions made for plotting an intercept just won't work with something 
traveling on a very non-ballistic missile trajectory.
	You could design BP's so that it is _very_ hard for the system to 
undergo a failure that would leave the controls destroyed, but still leave it
	The value of BP compared to a theatre defence is debatable, but it is
rather irrational to assume that there is no way to build the system so that it
is low enough risk to make it worth it.


		Josh Hopkins

BP gone haywire = Fruity Pebble? :)
From: dpeterso@mipos2.intel.com (David Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: HGA news from JPL (was Re: Gallileo Antenna)
Date: 1 Apr 92 22:07:57 GMT
Reply-To: dpeterso@mipos2.UUCP (David Peterson)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1992Mar31.190834.1@fnalo.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalo.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.201821.4403@sfu.ca>, palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>> In article <1992Mar31.170621.17258@bradford.ac.uk>
>> K.Haigh-Hutchinson@bradford.ac.uk (K.HAIGH-HUTCHINSON) writes:
>>>How do the warming and cooling turns unstick the antenna?
>
>partly unfolded "umbrella," so the other ribs, which have opened
>correctly, are pulling on the three stuck ribs through the mesh
                -------                         ----------------
>(corresponding to the fabric of the umbrella) which connects them all.
>
	Ouch!!!! This won't damage the shape of the HGA?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Peterson 
Intel Corp., M/S SC4-69, 2625 Walsh Ave.
Santa Clara, Ca. 95052-9940
dpeterso@mipos3.intel.com
Dave Peterson
SC4-69
765-5109
dpeterso@mipos3
From: Annamary.Kocan@nss.org (Annamary Kocan)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Shuttle Freqs for the Boston area
Date: 29 Mar 92 15:06:26 GMT
Organization: The NSS BBS, Pittsburgh PA (412) 366-5208

Hi all, I used to listen to the shuttle/mission control in Pittsburgh
Pa on a Freq of 145.080. I have moved here to Boston and I have tried
somany Freqs with no luck. I have talked to the  President and
Vice President of the Boston NSS chapter and they gave me a few freqs but
still a no go. I also talked to Jonathan McDowell and he helped get me
a few freqs also, but still a no go. I need to talk to someone here in the
Boston area, that knows of who broadcasts the mission controll/shuttle
freqs. If any one of you can help me, that would be great.
I would pick up the shuttle astronauts talking to MC from the time when they
entered the shuttle thru lift off, space talks/walks and landing all over
the world. Not just on the overhead passes. I have many cassette tapes that
I have made from listening to them and the are wonderful. I hope to
hear them again soon
Thank you,

                    ***AnnaMary
internet:: NASA11@aol.com

--- via Silver Xpress V2.26 [NR]
 * Origin: NSS BBS - Ad Astra! Pittsburgh PA (412)366-5208 *HST* (1:129/104)
--  
Annamary Kocan - via FidoNet node 1:129/104
UUCP: ...!pitt!nss!Annamary.Kocan
INTERNET: Annamary.Kocan@nss.org