HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ramnarain@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu (Satya Ramnarain)
Subject: Re: RFD for IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Organization: Dept of Chemistry  New York University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 22:58:04 GMT


> 
> I just thought I'd point out that there is a discussion about an possible
> image processing group over on news.groups.  I think it's a *great* idea,
> and about bloody time, too.  But I seem to be surrounded by computer
> vision / computer graphics people.  Could we get some scientific image
> processing people over there too?  If we don't act now, we're likely to end
> up with comp.graphics.image.processing, which would be a gross restriction
> on an otherwise tremendously useful group.  Actually, I'd like to see a
> general imaging group, not restricted to conventional image processing
> techniques, but expanded to included techniques of indirect observation,
> calibration and processing, as well as general imaging theory.  Say
> sci.imaging.  Do we have enough support for such a group?
> 
> -- 
> | Daniel Briggs  (dbriggs@nrao.edu)                      |        USPA B-14993
> | New Mexico Tech / National Radio Astronomy Observatory |            DoD #387
> | P.O. Box O / Socorro, NM 87801   (505) 835-7391        |
> Support the League for Programming Freedom  (info from league@prep.ai.mit.edu)


 
I totally agree, put my name on the list if there is one
From: jem@hpcupt3.cup.hp.com (Jim McCauley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Re: Sonic boom remedy
Date: 16 Apr 92 18:59:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino

John Roberts writes:

> Well, if it's *old* references you want...
> 
>    "But why drives on that ship so fast,
>    Without or wave or wind?"
> 
>    "The air is cut away before,
>    And closes from behind."
> 
>       - Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner", ~1798.
> 
> Hardly a new idea, is it? :-)
> (Ever since I read that, I've been wondering when someone would invent it.)

In fact, ordinary sails "cut away the wind before" quite nicely.
Bernoulli effects are particularly pronounced when running across the
wind, and tacking upwind would be impossible if sails could not
develop a partial vacuum on their "lee" sides.

Gee, if Coleridge had stayed off dope, maybe he would have been an
aviation pioneer...

Jim McCauley, Learning Products Engineer    **   I do not speak for   **
(that means that I write documentation)     ** Hewlett-Packard in any **
jem@cup.hp.com                              **   official capacity.   **
Xref: sparky sci.space:7581 news.answers:1084
From: jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:17:47 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

	[suggestion of using a nuclear cannon to shoot down 'fruity pebbles']
	[ie, crazy rabid Brilliant Pebbles that are trying to destroy us]

>	In the fifties, it was seriously proposed that nuclear explosives
>could be used within tens of klicks of US cities with acceptable health
>costs to the nation as a whole. 

	In the fifties, VIPs got treated to special  viewings just a few miles
from above ground nuclear tests and engineers propsed using nukes to dig 
harbors.

>If the nuclear connon were placed in one the
>many sparsely populated wastelands in the US, like Nevada, North Dakota or
>New York, the fatalities from side effects might be small compared to other
>acceptable sources of premature death in the US, like those from car accidents
>or cigarette smoking.  
	
	Some of us like those 'wastelands.' I'm sure there are fairly safe 
places to do this (like DC or LA), but is it a good idea?

>>  For that matter, If you can blow cold 1m objects out of orbit
>>on such short notice with this thing, what do you need the BPs for?  You
>>could just aim it at the missiles.

>	I'm imagining a cannon which could blow a small number of objects 
>out of orbit when needed, not something which could zap 100,000 incoming RVs
>and decoys. Dealing with one or two malfunctioning or sabotaged BPs is an
>easier problem to deal with than 100K incoming objects.

	True, but a thousand BPs can't take out 100K RVs either.  I'm not all
that impressed with such a complex system that can only protect us from a 
20 missile slavo from China. 

			Josh Hopkins
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: L1 project
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:10:32 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr3.183000.12217@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>>>	I peripherally heard recently about an "L1" project to put
>>>some monitor at this point of the Earth-Moon system...
>>I suspect you've heard about proposals to put a monitoring satellite at
>>the Earth-*Sun* L1 point.  The utility companies like the idea of having
>>early warning of magnetic storms...
>
>There is the SOHO mission with a planned launch date of July 1995...

Actually, not so.  SOHO is a large, ambitious solar-science mission.
The mission I was speaking of was to be a small *commercial* satellite
dedicated entirely to solar-storm warning for electrical utilities, and
there were hopes of fast-tracking it to get it up *soon*.  The utilities
really miss ISEE-3.  I haven't heard much about it lately, though, and
don't know if it's gotten anywhere.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DCX
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:11:52 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <ewright.702584574@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>>I'm not certain, but I think Boeing doesn't get paid until a working and
>>tested plane is delivered. (Maybe some Boeing people could comment on this.)
>>That would take some of the pressure off of the customers.
>
>Boeing definitely takes, and expects, deposits on new aircraft.  I'm not
>sure whether they begin accepting money before the prototype has flown,
>but it wouldn't surprise me.

Boeing wants to see binding orders, with commitments of money from people
who can prove that they have it, before they get anywhere near building a
prototype.  They don't even start detailed *design* on a new airliner until
enough "launch customers" have signed on the dotted line.  Nobody builds a
new large airliner on speculation.

Mind you, this is not quite as one-sided as it sounds:  those contracts
are conditional on Boeing delivering a product that meets the specs, and
delivering it on schedule.
-- 
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: 13 Apr 92 21:27:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: ux1.1992Apr13.212728.29761
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes:

>>This assumes that you *can* send up a maintenance crew, and that the
>>system doesn't think that they are an enemy and try to shoot them
>>down.  That's the problem with this system - if it all goes haywire,
>>there's NO WAY to turn it off.  You either send up enough things to
>>exhaust its supply of interceptors, or you wait for the orbits to
>>decay.  Those are the only 100% certain ways to deactivate it.

>	How many BPs are we talking about? A fission-explosive driven
>cannon might be able to loft several hundred tonnes of glowing rock
>into orbit (Good idea to send the rubble out faster than escape velocity to
>avoid having it orbit through the Earth). Getting hit by a 70 km/s piece
>of rock might disable a BP; 
         ^^^^^
	Oh I dunno, doesn't sound that hard to take :)
Of course, at this point you're faced with a solution that might be worse than
the problem.  I roughly estimate that your exposive is in the multimegaton 
range.  For that matter, If you can blow cold 1m objects out of orbit
on such short notice with this thing, what do you need the BPs for?  You
could just aim it at the missiles.

>	Some wiseass sabotaging the ocassional BP to zap 747s could be a pain...

Yeah, let's give each BP a net adress so teenagers can screw around with the
controls :)  Can't be much worse than leaving them in the hands of generals. :)
I don't think a BP could hit a 747 though.  Don't they fly a tad too low?  
Zooming that deep into the atmosphere would certainly cause problems for a BP.

		Josh Hopkins
From: mrw@ecl.psu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:49:23 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University

In article <RHL.92Apr15081746@d62wdf.mitre.org>, rhl@d62wdf.mitre.org (Roger H. Lincoln) writes:
> 
> Has anyone seen the PBS series "The Machine That Changed The World"?
> Last night (episode 2 I think) told about the role that the Apollo
> moon project had in miniaturizing the computer.  The told (and showed)
> how the on-board computer was responsible for guiding the lander down
> to the surface of the moon.  The concluded by saying "it performed
> flawlessly". 
> 
> I seem to recall an episode of Nova in 1989 about the first moon
> landing where they told how the on-board computer was overloaded by
> all the incoming data and flatlined seconds before landing so that the
> pilot had to land manually.
> 
> Which story is correct?  Or is there a new definition of the word
> "flawlessly" that I wasn't previously aware of?
Well, I haven't seen the PBS series, but I have seen Dr. Richard Battin speak
on the subject (Dr. Battin worked on the Apollo command computer, and is the
author of "Introduction to the Mathimatics and Methods of Astrodynamics,"
among other things. His book is great, and don't pass up the chance to hear
him speak). Anyway, in his talk "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The 
Moon," he did mention that the Apollo command computer got swamped by data 
in the final seconds before landing, and the pilot did land manually. Depending
on how you define a computer failure, this may or may not be "flawless"
operation. Since the computer did not blow up, short circuit, or try to murder
the crew (unlike some other, more advanced models...) I think things went 
pretty well.

               -Mike Williams
               -mrw@psuecl.psu.edu
From: carls@triton.unm.edu (Mr.HolierThanThou)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: DCz
Date: 7 Apr 92 00:18:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: lynx.7hpjav+
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque


       After all this talk about the DC program, why don't we
work out a little problem to see just how feasible and expensive
an SSTO is? 
       Let's saywe use RP1 (not the best fuel maybe but a good one)
and the vehicle will be unmanned for simplicity. Let's call the
payload 10,000 kg. For engines let's use two types, a small 
ramjet to get to 31 km and a rocket engine that propels the craft
to mach 1, shuts off, and starts again at 31 km to propel the craft
into orbit (note the engine should be optimised for vacuum
proformance).
       You can use any technology and hardware that is available
now (no mythical ram-rocket hybrid, it's still classified so it
doesn't exist). Try to make reasonable estimates on costs and the
dry weight/size of the craft.
       For a back of the envelope start, you can say that the
rocket engine has a Isp vac. of 330sec and a mass of 1 kg per
1 kNewton of thrust (about), and the fuel will be .5$ per kg
(this includes your LOX and you got ripped off at that).
       Now how expensive/difficult will this ssto be?
From: esti@quads.uchicago.edu (Paul A. Estin)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Info requested on late March space shuttle launch date
Date: 16 Apr 92 16:37:01 GMT
Reply-To: esti@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Insanity Etc.

Hi there.  I don't normally read this group any more, so please e-mail
me any replies...

A space shuttle mission took place in late March with, if I'm not
mistaken, the first Belgian astronaut ever in space.  I'd like to know
(1) the date of that launch, (2) the date of touchdown, and (3) the
name of the Belgian astronaut.

The reason for this is really silly.  A female friend of mine likes to
wear a sweatshirt with the Roy Lichtenstein pop-art print of a woman
thinking, "If they can send one man to the moon, why not all of them?"
Since said friend is Belgian (and very proud of it), I'd like to, as a
joke, make up a t-shirt which reads, "If they can send one Belgian
into space, why not all of them?" with the mission dates and
astronaut's name included, and perhaps some sort of graphic as well.

Thanks in advance for any help with this!

-----
"Yeah, but it gets real lonely as a moderate activist, standing alone with a
sign that reads 'Reasonable informed discussion of the issues, as soon as is
feasible!'." --James Nicoll

Paul Andrew Estin, net.Snark, R.A.C.W.P., UCSFC F.C./K.S., F.C.S.
paul.estin@um.cc.umich.edu  or  esti@midway.uchicago.edu
214 Beakes St. (home)  330 Packard Rd. (work)  Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:28:29 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <92099.093818DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>What level of reliability do you suppose an automated, space based interceptor
>will achieve?  Three nines? (a fantasy number, but let's go with it)  Do you
>suppose there is any political reality that will allow civilians to be exposed
>to that level of risk?...  Even 10**-6 failure would be intolerable.  BP will
>ensure that space will be a military-only enterprise...

Why do you assume that BP would be turned loose as a robot, completely
beyond control from the ground?  Regardless of occasional overenthusiasm
from some technical people who should know better, nobody is going to
authorize that.  The possibilities for accidents and international incidents
are just too great.  At the very least, I would expect to see interceptors
requiring an "arm" signal from the ground, supplied by a human.
-- 
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: cchung@sneezy.phy.duke.edu (Charles Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SSF and New Industries
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:52:28 GMT

In article <1992Apr3.201339.28319@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com  
(Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <2223@news.duke.edu>, cchung@sneezy.phy.duke.edu (Charles  
Chung) writes...

>>Let us finally accept that whether or not we love Freedom that it's  
>>going up and that we might as well look towards that day.

> Anybody want to bet on this?  I would wager 5:1 against
> astronauts flying on Fred in this century, and the odds
> don't go up after that.

Really?  It seems that NASA, ESA, and the Japanese all have definite  
plans on putting up Freedom.  At this point, it's the focus of NASA,  
and NASA does have a lot of resources.

[Lots of stuff deleted]

> SSF makes no difference to commercial space industry,
> except for a  negative impact on a possible new field of
> commercial endevour.

Nick, you honestly think that Freedom's not going to do a single  
solitary thing for space?  Perhaps it won't do as much with what  
we've got, but it'll surely do something.  If nothing else, it'll  
serve as a dock for space specialized vehicles like OTV's, which  
should bring down the cost of GEO launches.  Granted it's way  
overpriced as a dock, but it'll still serve a function once it's up.

I don't want to start a new thread on the merits of Freedom.  Lord  
knows we've had plenty of that.  

I'm more interested in what sort of opportunities Freedom will open  
up.  I'm not so sure if I want to work for the space industry because  
of the economics and administration.  (Lack of legal structure,  
outrageously expensive costs, extremely centralized management).  But  
with Freedom going up in the next 10 years or so, things might  
change.  I wanted to see what sorts of things people see happening  
after Freedom's up.

-Chuck
From: craigh@pro-woolf.cts.com (Craig Hillebrant)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Mir
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:22:21 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: ProLine [pro-woolf] The Woolf's Den BBS & Vintage Hobbies

For those who are interested, this is reply I recieved to a comment about
the CIS space program, Sergey Krikalev and the MIR space station.

From: ralbrech@eso.org 
 
     We just had the European International Space Year Conference
here in Munich last week.  There were (among *many* other
activities) presentations on the Austrian program, including
preliminary science results, and on the German program, status
report only- they had essentially just landed.               

     There also was a presentation on future flight 
opportunities on the MIR station.  During the discussion the
issue of "MIR falling apart" came up. One of the CIS  cosmonauts 
(Artsebanski, I believe) said that ideed, after six years of
service, the station core module should be replaced. He also 
said that a new core module is available, sitting in a hangar;
except that it takes money to launch it, which is what they don't
have at this point. He confirmed that the other MIR modules
(Kvant, Kvant II, Cristal, Spektr) were designed to be compatible
with the new core module.  He estimated that the new core module
would reduce the station keeping and maintenance tasks of the
crew by about 50%, freeing up time for the science program.       

    I also picked up the following rumor: the Republic of 
Kasakhstan originally planned an all-Kasakhi mission; however,
when they mapped their ambitions into the available cash,  they 
found out they could not do this. So they decided to fly Tokhtar
Aubarirov, the Kasachi flight engineer, on the Austrian mission, 
and this was the reason why Krikalyev was "stranded".             

    I also picked up another rumor: Tokhtar Aubakirov might be 
the next defense minister of the Republic of Kasakhstan..         

     Regards,

     Rudi Albrecht
     ralbrech@eso.org

PS: You may post this to the net if you feel like it. My connec-  
----craigh
ProLine:  craigh@pro-woolf
Internet: craigh@pro-woolf.cts.com
UUCP:     crash!pro-woolf!craigh

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: alan@pluto.jpl.nasa.gov (Alan Quan)
Subject: SpaceOps 92 Demonstrations
Reply-To: alan@pluto.JPL.NASA.GOV
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:29:34 GMT


*************************************************************

    Call for Participation - SpaceOps 1992 Demonstrations

    		    November 17-20, 1992
    	         Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    	    	    Pasadena, CA, U.S.A.

*************************************************************



As space missions have become increasingly diverse, complex, and
expensive, mission operations and ground systems have emerged as
critical factors in the success of those missions.  Future success in
space will depend upon the people and systems that control spacecraft
from the ground.

SpaceOps 92, the Second International Symposium on Ground Data Systems
for Space Mission Operations, will provide a unique opportunity for the
people who perform space mission activities to exchange information,
discoveries, and plans for the future.  SpaceOps 92 will focus on a
number of key activities:

	o  Mission control and data management
	o  Space mission navigation
	o  Space vehicle health and trend analysis
	o  Data acquisition systems
	o  Science planning and data analysis
	o  Operations system architectures and concepts
	o  Automation and emerging technologies
	o  Mission and science activity planning, programming, and sequencing


DEMONSTRATIONS
--------------
In addition to formal papers, SpaceOps 92 will feature demonstrations.
Demonstrations show how an organization has approached a particular
problem related to the symposium theme.  Demonstrations may take the
form of "show and tell" at workstations or consoles, videotapes,
multimedia presentations, or live demonstrations.  Demonstrations
should showcase recently developed applications, not commercial tools.

If you would like to perform a demonstration of your space mission
operations related software or hardware, please submit a 250-word
description of the proposed demonstration via EMAIL or FAX,
by April 17, 1992 to:

    Ursula Schwuttke
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    phone:  (818) 354-0914

    email:  ursula@nereid.jpl.nasa.gov
    FAX:  (818) 393-4089

Please do not reply on USENET.  Please include your phone number, FAX
number (if available), and email address.
From: dsturm@ducvax.auburn.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Isaac Asimov, Science fact and fiction writer
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:33:47 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.172847.27466@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, wa2ise@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (robert.f.casey) writes:
> I suppose an asteroid could be named after him, in his honor.

Better yet, the 10th planet.  His impact was that much (on my generation, at
least...)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: HST Monthly Status Report - March 1992
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  HST
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:23:57 GMT

                     HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
                      MONTHLY STATUS REPORT
                           MARCH 1992

     The Hubble Space Telescope continues to perform normal
operations, engineering activities, and science programs.
Scientific efficiency is currently at 30% and increasing toward
the mission goal of 35%.  Operational experience has led to
refinements in procedures and changes in both the ground and
flight software that contribute to the more efficient operations.

     The Goddard High Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) side 2 was
returned to routine scheduling of observations after a curtailed
operations period of about 8 months, during which the Project and
instrument Teams investigated an intermittent open circuit in the
electronics.

     Extensive testing and analysis showed that the intermittent
failure was temperature sensitive and that maintaining the
temperature of the electronics at values above +5 degrees
Centigrade has the effect of closing the circuit.  A modification
to operational procedures has allowed the thermal environment
within the instrument to be controlled sufficiently to support
reliable operation of side 2.

     Using this procedure, operations with side 2 have been run on an
experimental basis since November 1991 without experiencing a
communications failure.  Only routine operations with side 2 will
be scheduled while the Project investigates additional steps that
may be able to restore full operation to side 1.

     The Wide Field Planetary Camera (WFPC) is experiencing some
residual contamination effects on the detectors.  When operated
at low temperatures, the instrument detectors experience a
contamination build-up.

     The corrective procedure is to occasionally warm the detectors to
temperatures at which the substance evaporates.  In February,
after a routine clean-up procedure, it was found that the major
contaminant film had been removed but there remained a mottled
residual.

     It is currently believed that the residual contamination most
likely resulted from an exceptionally heavy build-up of
contaminant material over a protracted period of time between
decontamination procedures (6 months).  Observations with the
WFPC are proceeding at their normal frequency while an indepth
assessment is made of the situation.  The residual contaminant is
expected to have only minor effects on the data.

                              ####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | People will believe
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | anything if you whisper it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |