HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jetson@vab02.larc.nasa.gov (Greg Fruth (JIAFS))
Subject: Re: Martian Chronology
Organization: VAB, NASA Langley
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 17:42:15 GMT

One proposal for a Martian time scheme can be found in AAS paper 87-269,
"Metric Time for Mars" by Bruce A. Mackenzie.  This paper may be found in
_The Case for Mars III_.  In it, the author presents a possible
time convention for human settlers on Mars, which I shall summarize:

unit		equivalent Mars units	equivalent Earth time   use
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mars day	1 day = 25 hora		24 h 39 m 35.238 s	~ day
		1 day = 1000 millidays	1.0275 Earth days

Mars hour	25 hora = 1 day		0.9864 hours		~ hour
or 'hora'	1 hora = 4 centidays	59.184 minutes
		1 hora = 40 millidays

centiday	100 centidays = 1 day	14.796 minutes		~ quarter of
or 'quarter'	4 centidays = 1 hora				  an hour

milliday	1000 millidays = 1 day	1.4796 minutes		~ minute
or 'mil'	40 millidays = 1 hora
		10 millidays = 1 centiday

beat		100 beats = 1 milliday	0.88775 seconds		~ second
(as in
 heartbeat)

I do not necessarily espouse this proposal; I just thought I'd mention it.

-- 
Greg Fruth                                      jetson@vab02.larc.nasa.gov
 ___            ___  ____               __      ____        ___  __  
/   \|   |  /\  |  \ |        /\  |\  | | \     |    |\  |   |  /  \ \   /
\___ |___| /__\ |__/ |__     /__\ | \ | |  \    |__  | \ |   |  |  |  \_/
From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Venus orbiters
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:37:00 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <6wZ5PB7w164w@curlie.UUCP> thierry@curlie.UUCP (Thierry Lach   ) writes:
>baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>> In article <rabjab.39.0@golem.ucsd.edu>, rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof) w
>> >Is the Pioneer Venus orbiter still functioning?  
>> 
>> Yup, but it is running out of propellent and is due to burn up in the
>> atmosphere of Venus this December.
>> 
>> >Besides Magellan,
>> >what other spacecraft (Russian?) may be still functional?
>> 
>> Here's a list of deep space spacecraft that are still operating.
>> 
>
>Will magellan be in any position to gather data from the burn-up?
>


Magellan doesn't *need* to be in any position to gather data from the
burn-up.  PVO will be transmitting until the bitter end. The thing that will
cause the last data drop out is the 'breeze' blowing the PVO antenna off
pointing to Earth.  *Much* data will have been gotten by that point.

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aavso@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Tom Quesinberry)
Subject: Clinton/Gore Space Position
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Lewis Research Center/NASA
Date:  3 Sep 1992 10:57 EST  


I found this on Case Western Reserve University's excellent
cleveland.freenet, and I thought It might interest sci.space
readers.

The Republican Position was not posted on freenet, so I have not
included it. If it's posted later I will provide it to sci.space.

				       Quiz 

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Tom Quesinberry                 | E-MAIL: aavso@scivax.lerc.nasa.gov
  Research Analysis Center/CSD    | PBX:    (216) 433-5130
  Lewis Research Center/NASA      | LIFE:   I would rather see starlight
  Cleveland, Ohio 44135           |             than streetlights.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  * Some Ignorance Is Indestructible



---------------------------------------------------
Article 100 of nptn.campaign92.dems:
Newsgroups: nptn.campaign92.dems
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Saturn class (Was: SPS feasibility and other space
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:52:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.151058.2650@eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes:

>>SS Freedom construction and supply IS a viable commercial market for 
>>HLVs this decade.

>It is NOT commercial. 

Not now, no. However, there is absolutely no reason it cannot become
commercial. Until it does, we aren't going anywhere.

>It is not a market. 

A market is nothing more than a demand for goods and services which can
be met. If we have a space station, then there will be a demand to
transport people and supplies.

It is therefore a market.

>It is a monopoly subject to the whims of the Federal Government. 

It need not be. If you lack the imagination to see that, say so
and I'll just drop it.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 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?"                               |
+----------------------240 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:45:11 GMT
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Aug23.093003.5591@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <174ns5INNqom@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:

>>We can't get away (now) with just using robots in space.  

>Funny.  All commercial space projects, the vast majority of military
>space projects, and all exploration projects that have gone farther than
>Moon, have gotten away with using fully automated spacecraft.

And, if we want to remain at our current level of space capability, we can 
keep on using what we've got.  If we actually want to go places and do 
things, though, we're going to have to open things up for *real* robots 
(despite what you have claimed in the past, things like Voyager are *not*
robots) and real manned space travel.
-- 
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,sci.astro
From: munk@prl.philips.nl (Harm Munk)
Subject: Fireball over The Netherlands Wasn't
Summary: Shockwaves over NW Europe caused by plane ?
Keywords: Fireball,US Secret Plane
Organization: Philips Research Laboratories Eindhoven, Netherlands
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:42:08 GMT

On wednesday, August 19, seismic stations located in the northwestern part
of the Netherlands registered an atmospheric shock wave, which, apparantly,
was not related to any seismic activity. In the following days, the Royal
Dutch Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in the Netherlands investigated the
matter and came to the conclusion that it had probably been a meteor with a
cross section of 30 cm which had exploded over the town of Joure in Friesland
(a Dutch province).

[See previous postings on Fireball over NW Europe]

Later investigations by the KNMI and a group of astronomers showed that the
only possible explanation left is not a meteorite or space junk, but some kind
of supersonic, military airplane breaking the sound barrier some ten miles west
of the island of Texel. According to the KNMI, this is the only explanation left
allthough it is an unsatisfactory one.

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.

So, what was it? Rumours in the newspapers suggested that it was that highly
secretive airplane that Lockeed is developing for the DoD: the two stage get
to orbit plane (like DynaSoar and Saenger ?). Now, this plane has been sighted
in the US a few times.

The supposed sighting in the Netherlands was accompanied not only by sonic 
booms (energetic enough to crack the front of a house somewhere in the province of
Friesland) but some people reported seeing a flash of light as well. Was this
also the case with the sightings in the US?

And why would the DoD start testing a secret plane outside US territory?

And why was someone from Lockeed Space and Missiles Systems asking questions
on the net about this event (;-)?

+----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
| Harm Munk                              | Building WAY 11                    |
| Philips Research Laboratories          | P.O. Box 80 000                    |
| Knowledge Based Systems                | 5600 JA  Eindhoven                 |
|                                        | The Netherlands                    |
| #include <standard.disclaimer>         | tel. +31 40 74 46 59               |
|                                        | email: munk@prl.philips.nl         |
+----------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Date: 23 Aug 92 09:30:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Aug23.093003.5591
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <174ns5INNqom@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes:
>cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes:

>We can't get away (now) with just using robots in space.  

Funny.  All commercial space projects, the vast majority of military
space projects, and all exploration projects that have gone farther than
Moon, have gotten away with using fully automated spacecraft.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: davecole@cie.uoregon.edu (Dave Cole)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:46:25 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange


  Many of the robot probes have died because the antenna won't open too.  
Gee...  If only someone could just shake the antenna a bit.  Oh well, there
goes another million bucks...
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phew@mullet.gu.uwa.edu.au (Phew)
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Organization: University Computer Club --- Perth, Western Australia
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 06:53:18 GMT

arnold@clipper.ingr.com (Roger Arnold) writes:

>It's easy to make telepresence look bad or difficult if you can get away
>with discussing it in terms of the capabilities of autonomous robots.  

>I see telepresence not as competition to manned space activity, but 
>as a bridge to the level of space activity that will be necessary to
>bring costs down and make it worth building real space stations.  A
>teleoperated research facility in low earth orbit would find no short-
>age of commercial customers.  If they only had to pay for delivery of 
>small quantities of material and a share in amortization of the equip-
>ment in orbit, it would be a bargain.

>Obviously, there are limits to what you can do with telepresence from
>earth.  That doesn't mean that what you *can* do isn't worth doing.

I fully agree that telepresence has validity in a large number of
applications. What I would object to is development of telepresence
as the *sole* means of presence in space.
 
Telepresence and robotics may be the fastest way to make affordable
space technology, but depending upon them entirely could lead   
to problems if permanent human presence is ever required/desired on
the Moon, Mars or beyond. It may require a total redevelopment of the
technology to date if future human presence is *not* envisaged now.

An example of how hard it is to replace existing technologies is current
household refridgeration. These are largely based on CFCs and will have
to be replaced due to ozone depletion. The current CFC replacements are
also not safe, and it may take a total rethink of the technology to get
something that works properly.

The fridge example was the result of lack of scientific understanding,
not because we didn't understanding ourselves, or our objectives. 
If it is Human-Kinds goal to have a permanent presence in space, then
the technology to achieve this must be developed, starting now.

Patrick Hew
1st Year Science/ Engineering
University of Western Australia

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom)
Subject: Robots or Automatons? (was telepresence..)
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:28:10 GMT


In article <1992Aug24.043114.23137@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 writes:

 > Not the same thing at all. Except for the Viking landers, *none* of the
 > spacecraft that ventured beyond the Moon have been able to manipulate
 > their environment. They have been mere sensor platforms. The common
 > usage of robot is more specialized than automation. It requires the
 > ability to manipulate the environment. The term robot also ordinarily
 > means autonomous to a large degree, capable of on the spot decisions.
 > This is in contrast to teleoperated devices that require distant super-
 > vision at the detail level in near real time.

[long elucidation on descriptions of past vehicles, etc., with Gary's
position above fleshed out, but pretty much the same]

Gee, Gary, I think your definition of 'robot' is a little too constrained.
Especially as you refer to the 'common usage', which I would say is more
like "A machine that has some behavior similar to the human form, or mind."

I think the reason that Voyager et.al., didn't manipulate their environement
was because there was no point.  Not only did we have no clue (well, little
clue :-) what was there to be manipulated, their job was just looking around.
Note that 'just looking around' is a behavior similar to the human form,
which I think is why many people consider it a robot.

Or,  if you prefer Heisenberg, you cannot help but manipulate the environment
by looking at it, therefore sensing platforms are robots by your definition.

Or, the term 'robot', which refers to special machines built for constructing
cars are not robots by your definition. No matter how hard they all work,
they will never change the fact that in front of each of them is a pile of
parts, and behind each is an assembly, leading to a built car.  They don't
manipulate their environment, since it never changes!  Sure, they assemble
stuff, but a picture of their environement taken at any random time would
not appear different than any other.

And, finally, to be just a little more nit-picky, a paraphrase from websters:

Robot:

1. A machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts
(as walking or talking) of a human being;...

2. An automatic apparatus or device that performs functions ordinarily ascribed
to human beings or operates with what appears to be almost human intelligence.

3. A mechanism guided by automatic controls.

-Tommy Mac                     .  "                  +
.------------------------  +                      *       +
|   Tom McWilliams; scrub       ,     .                        "        +
|  astronomy undergrad, at     *       +;.     .  '             There is
| Michigan State University   '                      .    "   no Gosh!
|   18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu                        '      ,   *
|       (517) 355-2178       ;  +  '                                 *
'-----------------------
From: bruggink@neep.engr.wisc.edu (Dennis Bruggink)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Need GIF (JPG, whatever) of Shuttle Landing
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:17:56 GMT
Distribution: sci.space

Maybe someone can save me some hunting:  I've checked a number of sites
w/ GIFs for an image of the shuttle landing; I've found one in the Hubble
series (hubble24.gif) which is exactly the view I'm after, but it's not
very sharp.  Basically the shuttle has just touched down, and is seen
as from a side view.

Going through various achives has taken a lot of time, and the directory
listings are usually not at all specific (e.g., shuttle1, shuttle2, ...).

So ...    doesn't anyone have a pointer to this image, or recall coming
across it anywhere??  

thanks,

-dennis bruggink
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Antarctica (was: SPS)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:45:06 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a2@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <9209020213.AA15023@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov>
roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

> -Then there's the cosmic ray project, to
> -analyze waves in the interplanetary medium. (They wanted to hire me to
> -take care of it, but I turned them down. Living at the South Pole would
> -be fun, for three weeks, but they wanted me to stay for 53 weeks!
> 
> I don't blame you - I wouldn't want to stay at the South Pole for 53
> weeks either! :-)

Yes, and it puzzles me: why are people who wax rhapsodic about living
in space not more enthusiastic about Antarctica? You don't even have to
make your own air and water in Antarctica!

A graduate student in the experimental space physics group here, whose
thesis on ionospheric plasma waves is based on data from a radio
receiver he designed and built here and set up at the South Pole, is
the best potential astronaut I know. I gave him a copy of Eugene Miya's
FAQ article on how to become an astronaut, and he's interested. All he
needs to do is take up flying as his #1 hobby, which will be a lot
easier once he's graduated and making real money. Perhaps this would be
at a job doing something else at NASA, perhaps an NRC postdoc. He's got
everything else mentioned: working on Ph.D. in something directly
space-related and mandatorily hands-on, and NOT software development;
athletic; easy to get along with; clean nose. No, he isn't my student,
and he's not paying me to write this. (Perhaps he should...)

Fred
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: TOPEX Update - 08/28/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  TOPEX, JPL, CNES
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 11:53:05 GMT

Forwarded from:
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109. (818) 354-5011

                  TOPEX/POSEIDON STATUS REPORT
                         August 28, 1992

          The TOPEX/Poseidon satellite entered into safe hold
mode on Aug. 27, 1992 at approximately 11:13 a.m. PDT.  This
incident occurred during the inclination maneuver about 6 seconds
from the end of the propulsion burn.

          The inclination maneuver was successful and placed the
satellite in the proper 66 degree inclination toward the Earth.

          Project managers have determined that the safe hold
mode was the result of a "bug" in the software code which set the
failure detection correction limit for a roll angle of 3 degrees,
not 7 degrees as intended.  This was a result of residual LANDSAT
code which did not correlate to the program design language.

          All satellite hardware is functioning properly based on
detailed review of the maneuver playback data.  Reconfiguration
of the satellite back to the standard configuration prior to safe
hold mode is in process at this time and is expected to be
completed tonight.

          The solar array was offset to -55 degrees at 12:45 p.m.
PDT today prior to the start of occultation.  This was done so as
to not overcharge the batteries when the Sun hits the solar array
after coming from eclipse.

          Since the inclination maneuver goals were achieved, the
flight team is proceeding with the nominal maneuver campaign.
There are four more maneuvers to go.  In-Plane Maneuver One is
planned for Wednesday, Sept. 2, 1992.

          The NASA radar altimeter was turned off when the
satellite entered the safe hold mode.  It will be turned back on
about 6:30 p.m. PDT tonight.  Initial data from the NASA
altimeter prior to the incident looked very good.

                             ######
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Optimists live longer
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | than pessimists.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Xref: sparky sci.space:12348 sci.astro:9367
From: klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Soviet Rovers on Mars
Keywords: Mars, Soviet, rovers
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:30:04 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


        The Soviets were the first nation to place unmanned rovers on
    the surface of the planet Mars back in 1971, though unfortunately 
    they were never able to utilize them.

        The MARS 2 and 3 mission plan was to orbit the Red Planet and 
    place unmanned landers (similar in design to the LUNA 9/13 landers
    of 1966) on the planet and transmit data to Earth.  The landers
    also carried several small rovers attached to the craft by fifteen
    meter tethers.  They were to maneuver around the landing site and
    analyze the soil.  The landers were never used due to the apparent
    crash landing of MARS 2 and the communications failure of MARS 3
    after ninety seconds of transmission from the surface.

        This information was first revealed to the West in July/August
    1990 issue of The Planetary Society magazine THE PLANETARY REPORT.
    The issue includes a black-and-white photograph of the rover.

        Since the landers of the MARS 6-7 mission of 1974 were similar
    in design to MARS 2-3, it is possible that they too carried small
    rovers.  However, the MARS 6 lander crashed upon landing and MARS 7 
    missed the entire planet and drifted off into solar orbit.

        The PHOBOS 1-2 mission landers were not rovers, though one
    lander was designed to hop across the moon's surface using metal
    bars.  The other lander type was to be anchored into the ground
    with a harpoon.  The mission never happened as planned when PHOBOS
    1 failed enroute in 1988 and its sister craft ceased transmitting
    while in Mars orbit just one week before the landing in 1989.

        Larry Klaes  klaes@verga.enet.dec.com
		     or - ...!decwrl!verga.enet.dec.com!klaes
    		     or - klaes%verga.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com
                     or - klaes%verga.enet.dec.com@uunet.uu.net

             "All the Universe, or nothing!" - H. G. Wells

        EJASA Editor, Astronomical Society of the Atlantic
Newsgroups: sci.space