HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Subject: Need Specific NASA Image
Reply-To: gerry@cmu.edu (Gerry Roston)
Organization: Field Robotics Center, CMU
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:41:18 GMT

Would some please 
 - Send me
 - Send me a pointer to
an online copy of this image: Lunar Orbiter 5, Frame M-191.  The image
format is not particularly important as I'll convert it to what we need.

Thank you.

--
Gerry Roston (gerry@cmu.edu)    | Because experience witnesseth that eccle-
Field Robotics Center,          | siastical establishments, instead of main-
Carnegie Mellon University      | taining the purity and efficacy of Religion,
Pittsburgh, PA, 15213           | have had a contrary operation.  During almost
(412) 268-3856                  | fifteen centuries has the legal establishment
                                | of Christianity been on trial.  What have been
The opinions expressed are mine | its fruits?  More or less in all places, pride
and do not reflect the official | and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
position of CMU, FRC, RedZone,  | servility in the laity, in both, superstition,
or any other organization.      | bigotry and persecution.  James Madison
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: soc1070                         
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Minnesota CIS
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:30:00 GMT


>First off, it was Apollo 12, and not Apollo 1, that caught fire.  The cause
>of the fire was indeed the overpressure of test of the O2.  As it turned
>out, what killed the astronauts was not the fire, but the velcro inside the
>spacecraft.
>   Although the velcro was fireproof for the low 3.5 psi, and up to 5psi, the
>overpressure tests of pure O2 made them quite flammable.  Hell, at 16psi of
>oxygen, damn near anything will burn.  In the words of Mike Gray, author of
>_Angle of Attack_, "Somehow, in the labyrinth of the organization charts, the 
>people who tested the spacecraft materials for flammability were never
>connected to the people who knew that-- for a brief period at the beginning of
>the moon trip-- the astronauts would be bathed in high-pressure oxygen."
>   The fire ignited the velcro under high-pressure, and the resultant toxic
>fumes killed the astronauts within seconds.
> 
>-- 
>John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
>mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
>Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h


I beg to differ. It was in fact Apollo 1, as many have pointed out. If you
check your Apollo history, you will see that 8 circled the moon, 9 did
LEO tests, 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit, 11 landed, 12 landed next to
the Surveyor, 13 blew an oxygen tank on the way to the moon, etc.

Secondly, the cause of the fire was never traced to any specific source.
According to Micheal Collens in _Carrying The Fire_, the inside of the
craft was so fried that a single cause could not be found; rather there
were several *probable* causes that resulted in an almost complete redesign
of the inside of the capsule. 

You were right that almost anything will burn at 16psi pure O2, even
stainless steel. Unfortunatly for Grissom, White, and Chaffee, they didn't
die of toxic fumes. It was the fire that did them.

------
Tim Harincar				Millions long for immortality			
Central Minnesota 			who don't know what to do with
Association of Rocketry			themselves on a rainy Sunday 
soc1070@vx.cis.umn.edu			afternoon. -Susan Ertz
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: oxygen atmospheres
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:35:10 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BxK9ut.I3n@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:
>>...they switched to using a mixed-gas atmosphere before and
>>-during launch, with switchover to low-pressure pure oxygen on the way up.
>
>Why didn't the SHuttle do this?  i would have thought following apollo's
>lead, of  reducing cabin pressure and going to pure O2, you could
>reduce the difficulty of  EVA  which is a primary shuttle mission.

Actually, no, most shuttle missions do not do EVAs at all.  There are three
reasons for wanting to use Earth-normal air when you can:

1. There is some lingering suspicion of long-term adverse effects of
	low-pressure pure oxygen.

2. Biological experimenters don't want to have to use pressure chambers
	for their control specimens on Earth, and don't want to have to
	compensate for possible effects due to a different atmosphere.

3. It's very useful to be able to use air-cooled electronic equipment,
	and that requires something approaching normal air density.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:30:58 GMT

In article <BxC0J7.DIz@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>In article <Bx5wzL.Auv.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:
>>...things that weren't publicized. The trip back to Earth inside of Apollo 13
>>was pure hell for one...
>
>Actually, some of the recent books on Apollo give a reasonably good picture
>of just how close to the edge that crew came...  It definitely didn't get
>a lot of play at the time, though.

I'll bite.  To what recent books do you refer?  
 
On a related topic (and it certainly wasn't an option on Apollo 13),
I vaguely recall that there were some abort options after TLI that didn't
take the CSM around the moon.  Some mighty hefty burns from the SPS were
enough to reverse course, so to speak.  Can anyone remember the details?

--
 
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca
From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:58:31 GMT
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Back in '78, when I worked for SCI at Goddard, the computer hardware was
11 years old. Seems the government bought the stuff and had to
depreciate it. Anyway, we used, primarily, IBM 360 hardware. The largest
piece was a 360-95, which thought it was a 360-91. (Or was it the other
way around?) The machine was specially built (only 2 of them were ever
made, as I recall), and had no decimal arithmetic hardware (unusual for
an IBM machine, but consistent with its scientific role). 

The 95 was fast, but unreliable. It crashed every day because of
hardware failures. Some of these took awhile, and that was no good,
since the machine was responsible for attitude control on satellites.
Rumor had it that SKYLAB fell because the 95 went down for several days.
During that time, SKYLAB's batteries ran dry, and didn't have enough
juice to get its paddles oriented when the 95 came back up. The
resulting coning supposedly contributed to orbital decay. - Don't know
if its true, but it makes as much sense than the official explanation of
sunspots. 

Rumors and news releases both sound like Science Fiction Theater to me,
but the bottom line is that government accounting has changed little in
the meantime. I expect the computer situation hasn't either.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: astronauts voting
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:16:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.202148.2629@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.015547.12219@u.washington.edu>
>
>Steve Maclean (probably misspelled) was actually in orbit when Canada held its
>recent "referendum" on constitutional matters. If the Canadian Space Agency was
>on its toes then he must have cast an absentee ballot. Not to have done so
>would have been politically incorrect. Canada had approximately three quarters
>of its registered voters turn out to vote in that election. How'd the US do in
>theirs?

I don't have national percentages of registered voters, but my home
county did 82%. The total vote count was a national record.

Gary
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: COSTAR
Date: 14 Nov 92 03:04:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bxor9M.Jq6.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
-Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror  or Really Costar.
-Date: 6 Nov 92 13:02:30 GMT
-Organization: UDSI

-Ball Aerospace is making costar, and it's  a prety interesting instrument.

Are they the same company that makes mason jars? (The logo appears to 
be the same.)

-it's essentially three little mirrors on a sliding arm on a giant optical
-bench (phone booth sized).  each of the little mirrors is calibrated
-to adjust each of the intruments.

There was a replica of COSTAR on display at the World Space Congress.
I couldn't make head or tail of it. (An explanatory video would have
been useful, but I didn't notice one.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:06:27 GMT


-From: claudio@nmsb.larc.nasa.gov (Claudio Egalon)
-Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror
-Date: 7 Nov 92 20:03:21 GMT
-Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA

-*However* as  I recall (and I may be wrong) the error in the RNC 
-came along because the WRONG surface in the instrument was 
-providing the reflection and not that because the instrument was 
-built improperly. Aparently there was an scratch in a surface that was 
-suposed to be black, for absorbing incoming radiation, and it was this 
-scratch that worked as the WRONG reflecting surface. 

NIST provided a calibration rod of a very precisely measured length, to be
used in the setting of the reflective null corrector. To further assure
the greatest possible accuracy, the spec called for the end of the rod to
be covered by a metal end cap (painted flat black) with a hole in the middle,
so the optical instrument used in the calibration could only look at the
center of the rod. Somehow a flake of paint was knocked off the end cap,
leaving a shiny spot. The Perkin-Elmer team managed to get the rod in
place off-center, and picked up the reflection off the shiny spot. They
assumed that this was the end of the calibration rod, so the adjustment
was off by the thickness of the end cap.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Low-pressure O2 atmosphere
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:28:36 GMT


-From: flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554")
-Subject: Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere
-Date: 10 Nov 92 13:11:49 GMT

-If our lunar atmosphere is pure O2, then every dust cloud 
-kicked up by a lunar buggy creates an explosion hazard.  
-It will have to be "diluted".  

One of the concerns of the Apollo program was that lunar materials might
ignite in the oxygen atmosphere of the Lunar Module. Apparently it didn't
happen. It could be that most of the materials are too thoroughly oxidized
to be particularly flammable. The book I mentioned gives average soil (< 1 mm
fraction) for seven Apollo sites, which generally show concentrations of
the components to be consistent to within an order of magnitude (mostly closer
than that.) Here's the composition for the Apollo 11 site: SiO2 (42.04%),
TiO2 (7.48%), Al2O3 (13.92%), FeO (15.74%), MgO (7.90%), CaO (12.01%), 
Na2O (0.44%), K2O (0.14%), P2O5 (0.12%), MnO (0.21%), Cr2O3 (0.30%).
(There are also tables for overall highland and maria composition.) Does
anything in there sound like it would be flammable in the stated 
concentrations?

-Can nitrogen be generated ?

There's very little nitrogen there (0.19 ppm) - it would probably have to be
imported. But I think that would be worthwhile.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: tes@gothamcity.uucp (Thomas E. Smith [LORAL])
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: nasa-jsc
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:46:37 GMT


>> 
>> This is true for the most part, but at high O2 pressure, normally inflammable
>> objects burn quite well.  So in that respect, it is indirectly a fire 
>> hazard...sort of.  :)
>> 
>
>Actually, normally inflammable objects burn quite well at sea-level pressure
>of pure *air*.  However, you need the high pressure to get normally 
>*non*flammable objects to burn.       [high pressure O2]

This is alt.sci.planetary isn't it?
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: ins866n@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au (D.A. Svendsen)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: Monash University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:42:11 GMT

Joseph Versagg (joev@sioux.eel.ufl.edu) wrote:

<stuff deleted>
: 
: Also, to answer Nicks anti-lunar base stance: if you buy the theory, any of 
: them, that the moon was part of the earth, or was formed with it in the early solar system, then there is no reason that both bodies are composed of the same elements in similar quantities. Read: it has signifigant amounts of Si, Fe, C,
: O etc. Is it mineable? Well we won't know until we get there(personally or through probes).
: 
: C'Ya
: Joe

I'm no expert on this, and you can beat me about the head with a wet flounder
if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the moon would have the same
proportion of elements that the earth has only if the earth was completely
homogeneous when separation occured.  If, however, the moon was sheared off
after the earth's heavier elements had sunk to the centre, then it seems that
the moon would be lacking in these heavier elements.  And given that in a
molten moon heavy elements would sink toward the centre, it might be a
difficult job actually finding a vein of heavy metals near enough to the
surface to be mined.
I'm not sure about aluminium, but I'd not be too hopeful of finding appreciable
quantities of mineable nickel and iron.


===========================================================================
 Dean Svendsen - 2nd Year Comp Science    |   
  Monash University - Clayton Campus      | How much wood could a woodchuck  
   Melbourne, Victoria, 3192.             | chuck if a woodchuck could
                                          | chuck wood?  
 email:ins866n@lindblat.cc.monash.edu.au  |   
  or                                      |      - Guybrush Threepwood  
       ins866n@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au    |    Le Chuck's Revenge (Act I)  
===========================================================================
                  A day not wasted is a day wasted!!!

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: imdisp
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:06:37 GMT

Earl W Phillips (ephillip@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
> Does anyone know what images are used for the imdisp
> software, and where to get 'em?
>
The image format is called VICAR.  I have one (1) VICAR image that
I got from BIX, an online service.  One of the participants there
was involved in NASA image processing.  He's also occasionally on
Usenet, but I'll let him speak up for himself if he's listening.
He has also ported the VICAR processing code to Microsoft Windows.

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Putting air on the moon
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:46:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxF0E2.7Ks.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Subject: Moon can hold its air (was Re: Mars over the Moon???)
-Date: 6 Nov 92 15:45:20 GMT
-Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

-In article <1ddrqjINNns7@uranium.sto.pdb.sni.de>, sav@nanette.sni.de (Dr.Savory) writes:
-> Any body to be terraformed should have sufficient gravity to retain
-> an atmosphere (obvious?), so exclude the moon, OK ;)

-This is unfair to the Moon.  If it were magically given an atmosphere,
-the Moon would retain it for a long time, at least thousands of years.

-As somebody already mentioned, the Moon is not a good candidate for
-terraforming because it has no large native source of volatiles. 
-However, claiming that it can't hang on to an atmosphere is not valid
-for short timescales.

Another very good reason not to do this is that the moon is just
about the only readily accessible place where you can set up optical arrays
hundreds of miles across, and maintain the dimensions of the array to within
a fraction of a wavelength of light, and also not have to worry about
atmospheric turbulence. (You probably need active feedback to adjust for
thermal expansion, tides, etc., but that's easier than doing it over long
distances on the Earth, and much easier than controlling the spacing of
multiple spacecraft.) Once we get the 1AU-diameter optical array set up
beyond the orbit of Pluto, I withdraw the objection.

The formula I found for the diffraction resolution limit of a telescope
(which ought to be put in the FAQ list) is 
  alpha = 2.1E5 x lambda / d
where alpha is the resolution in arc seconds, lambda is the wavelength
being observed, and d is the diameter of the telescope (same units as lambda).
If that's correct, then a 1000 km array on the moon could potentially give
a resolution at 10 light years of about 50 km. (Imagine mapping the continents
on the planets of nearby star systems!) Solar-system-size radio telescope 
arrays don't need the same precision of placement of optical arrays, and
could potentially give even higher resolution, but getting sufficient 
signal strength from planets might be an even greater problem than for
optical arrays.

-(Should I mention this?  Oh, what the heck, go ahead, Bill.  In the
-absolutely clunker TV series *Space 1999* there is an episode where
-precisely this happens: a mysterious alien cylinder suddenly gives the
-Moon a breathable atmosphere.  
-...We see a shot
-from outside a window of Barbara Bain and Martin Landau watching this
-magic moment. Then one of them touches a control AND THE MOONBASE
-ALPHA WINDOW SLIDES OPEN ELECTRICALLY.

There's an even better example in the Mad Magazine version of "Lost in Space".

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve Linton)
Subject: Re: Low-Pressure O2 Atmosphere
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Distribution: sci
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:24:26 GMT

In article <BxI4o7.2Mq.1@cs.cmu.edu>, flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube x554") writes:
|> Carl J Lydick <carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> writes:
|> > Subject: Lunar "colony" reality check
|> > giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio) writes:
|> > >The oxygen had to be diluted with something.
|> > >They would have died otherwise.
|> > 
|> > You would be correct had the vehicle been pressurized to 1 atmosphere. 
|> > However, your conclusion does not follow if the cabin pressure was .2
|> > atmosphere.
|> 
|> But in pure O2 lots of things burn that "shouldn't", like 
|> asbestos fibers.  This actually happened long before that 
|> Apollo capsule burned up, and should have alerted NASA.

Once again. IT ISN'T THE PURITY IT'S THE PARTIAL PRESSURE!!
In a 0.2 atm 100% O2 environment things burn just like they do on
the ground. In a 1atm 100% O2 atm things burn much better, people 
get ill after a while and so on.

The Appolo capsule that burnt had 1atm of pure O2 on the pad, which 
would have been reduced to 0.2atm after launch. Later Appolo designs 
used 1atm of air on the pad, reducing to 0.2atm of O2 after launch.


There are possible physiological problems with breathing 0.2atm oxygen for a long
(weeks) period, but they are associated with the low total pressure rather than
the purity of the gas.
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:51:29 GMT

In article <11NOV199215071378@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070                          writes:
>
>I'll concede this one. Re-reading the section of _Carrying The Fire_,
>the actual cause of death is not explectly stated. However, death by
>burns is implied. The text makes it sound as though the entire inside
>of the capsule was consumed by fire. Probably sells more books that way.

I have not heard of that book.  Who was the author?  If you are interested,
check out Mike Gray's _Angle of Attack_.  It's a history of the Apollo
program, centering on the engineering aspects of the missions.  Fascinating
stuff.

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Xref: sparky sci.space:15678 alt.conspiracy:12107
From: jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:33:35 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

> 
> 	Von Daniken also make a lot of dishonest (or _extremely_ ignorant)
> claims about a lot of other quite mundane objects from all over the
> world. Someone has compiled a list of such and it is included as part
> of a book whose name and author I can't remember. The title had
> something like "unexplained mysteries" in it and I think it was published
> by Readers Digest. There is a more complete list somewhere else but
> I can't remember even vague details about it. There might be a reference
> to it in the fisrt.
> 
I have a Reader's Digest book of this type of stuff, though it doesn't
mention Von Daniken.  It's called _Strange Stories, Amazing Facts,_
and is, along with _Strangest of All,_ [Frank Edwards?] one of my
most fondly remembered books from childhood.  It's full of 
"unsolvable" mysteries and silly stories, with not a shred of reference
to back them up.  But fun Fun FUN!!

-John D. Boggs     john-boggs@uiowa.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: Request: Mars Observer information
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords: Mars Mission
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 00:28:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.105716.29113@cs.tu-berlin.de>, veit@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Veit Zimmermann) writes...
> 
>I'm looking for Information about the Mars Observer mission (See sub).
>I know that Ron does a very good coverage on the advances of the mission
>(thank's Ron), But I need generell Information about Experiments and
>flight trajectory. I have to make a small lecture at Berlin University.
>So ANY, really ANY Information is of interest for me.
>If anybody is interrested, I could do a summary.

I've posted the Mars Observer press kit to this newsgroup, and you can
grab it from the pub/SPACE/MARS.OBSERVER directory at ames.arc.nasa.gov

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Give people a second 
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | chance, but not a third. 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space