HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graves@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Graves)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:39:23 GMT

In article <BxErtu.K68@zoo.toronto.edu> kcarroll@zoo.toronto.edu (Kieran A. Carroll) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.064256.7682@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>Is anyone looking into robots with very limited autonomy? That is,
>>under direction from a human, but able to execute instructions on
>>their own for periods of, say, ten seconds?
>>
>>                                         Frank Crary
>>                                         CU Boulder
>
>Yes. The Canadian Space Agency (who are developing the Mobile
>Servicing System for SSF) are spending about CDN$50M per year 
>on research into automating various aspects of MSS, through their
>STEAR (Strategic TEchnologies for Automation and Robotics)
>program. The work is being done by various Canadian companies,

A system has been developed at NASA-JSC which demonstrates earth
based control of SSF robotics maintenance tasks. It consists of a
workstation where a human can control a manipulator system which 
is in a room across the hall. Tests were performed to determine 
the communications delays by routing all signals 
between the workstation and manipulator through a series of satelites
and ground stations which are used to test the shuttle communications
path. Since this communications route is not available for robot
experiments very often, the delay was measured and can be "simulated". 
It is hoped that this system can be developed into a ground 
control station for SSF maintenance. 

The Shuttle Remote Manipulator System has a little used (if ever used)
mode called Automatic Control Function, which is capable of tracking
a preprogrammed trajectory. That's about as autonomous as the 
system gets, mainly because it is lacking the sensory systems 
required for anything more sophisticated.


-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Lee Graves, graves@drseus.jsc.nasa.gov
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.space:15530 sci.astro:11787 sci.physics.fusion:2635
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Where are Pioneer and Voyager Headed?
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:41:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxM3pC.ADF.1
	<1992Nov11.225206.7968@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

In article <1992Nov11.225206.7968@samba.oit.unc.edu>
cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes this table:

   The Starflight Handbook, p.6 quotes figures from
   Cesarone, Sergeyevsky, and Kerridge, ``Prospects for the
   Voyager Extra-Planetary and Interstellar Mission'', JBIS 37
   (March 1984), 99-116.  Anyone have this handy? 

   The Starflight book gives the following table:
		   Pioneer 10    Pioneer 11   Voyager 1   Voyager 2
   Loss of Signal   1994/59 AU   1996/45 AU   2012/121 AU 2013/106 AU
   Departure Vel
   Asymptotic (AU/yr)  2.4       2.2          3.5         3.4
   Trajectory angle
   to Earth Orbit plane 2.9      12.6         35.5        -47.5
   (degs)
   Closest stellar     3.27      1.65         1.64        0.80
   approach (ly)
   Star                Ross 248  AC +79 3888  AC +79 3888 Sirius
   yrs to reach        32,600    42,200       40,300      497,0000

   The Pioneer 11 & Voyager 1 trajectories look quite different, but they are
   both going in the general direction of AC +79... whose name gives the Dec
   at least.

I did some back-of-envelope figures on these, and something's wrong
with them.  To 2sf, these are the distances of P-11 and V-1 from the
sun at their respective closest approaches to AC +79 3888):

Pioneer 11: 1.5
Voyager 1 : 2.2

In order to obtain these, of course I've had to assume that the probes
will be travelling at a constant velocity equal to their asymptotic
velocity. This should be a good approximation (the sun's influence at
these distances being tiny). Having got these figures, we can
calculate a number for the distance to the various stars, by
Pythagoras.  AC +79 3888 must be sqrt (1.5^2 + 1.65^2) = 2.23 ly from
the sun, according to the Pioneer figures, and sqrt (2.2^2 + 1.64^2) =
2.74 ly from the sun according the the Voyager figures. Not only are
these numbers very different from each other, they're also much less
than the correct distance to AC +79 3888.

Doing the same calculation for Ross 248 gets us a distance of 3.5 ly
(correct figure is 10.3), and for Sirius 26.8 ly (correct figure is
8.7 ly).

So am I going wrong or are these figures just nonsensical?

(back-calculating from the distances to Ross 248 and Sirius gives me
`yrs to reach' of 268,000 and 170,000 respectively).

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Xref: sparky sci.space:15523 sci.astro:11783
From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Media report on Swift-Tuttle threat.
Date: 8 Nov 92 14:35:57
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au's message of Sun, 08 Nov 92 11:02:57 GMT

In article <721220577snx@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au> cam@syzygy.DIALix.oz.au (Cameron Newham) writes:


   Well, I've just had a good laugh after reading a half page article on the
   possible Swift-Tuttle impact in our Sunday paper.

   Although the article contains the usual misinformation, speculation and

 ...

   In it he is quoted as saying "A chance of one in 400 is not small when you
   are talking about the extinction of the human race."

   1 in 400?  Where did this figure come from?  I thought it was 1 in 10000, and
   that at a back-of-the-envelope calculation.  Has the knowledge about Swift-
   Tuttle's non-gravitational forces suddenly taken a gigantic leap forward?
   Hardly.

The 1:400 seems to be a consequence of someone noting that if P/S-T
crosses the ecliptic sometime on August 14th 2126 then there is still
a 1:400 chance it will miss assuming a uniform error. ie it takes it
about 1/400 of a day to cross an Earth diameter.

 ..

   The article goes on to say that the "International Astronomical Union then
   warned its member nations that Swift-Tuttle would cross earth's path in
   August 2126."

   News to me!  Anyone care to comment?

Well, it does have a significant probability of crossing the ecliptic
either in late July or early August, and this was stated in an IAUC...

At this point it would perhaps be best to hold off until a few months
after perihelion, about this time next year we will have a much better
orbit and will know with some degree of confidence how close it will
come next time around.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			*
*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*


Newsgroups: sci.space
Organisation: European Space Technology Centre (E.S.T.E.C)
Date: Wednesday, 11 Nov 1992 13:27:48 CET
From: C R Francis <RFRANCIS@ESTEC.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Metric again

In article <1992Nov8.222219.14106@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, sl25@cus.cam.ac.uk (Steve
Linton) says:
>My main beef about NASA metrication concerns precision. How often have you
>seen
>"This tiny widget, only about 1 inch (2.54cm) across"? If the diameter is
>given
>as "about 1 inch" the implied precision is about +-25%. As such, the proper
>metric form is "two or three centimeters" or "a couple of centimeters". 2.54cm
>implies a precision that just isn't there.

You are right.

This kind of lunacy happens because people may _use_ SI, but don't yet
_think_ SI.  It will come, over years, and then mental unit conversions
will stop being necessary, and things will make sense when you read
them.

-------------------------------------        Richard Francis
Internet: rfrancis@estec.estec.esa.nl        European Space Research and
Bitnet  : rfrancis@estec.bitnet                Technology Centre (ESTEC)
SPAN    : ESTERS::FRANCIS
smail   : C R Francis, OEE/JWP, ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, 2200AG NOORDWIJK NL
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pjs@euclid.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter J. Scott)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Reply-To: pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:24:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.011919.18158@leland.Stanford.EDU>, iburrell@leland.Stanford.EDU (Ian Matthew Burrell) writes:
> This post will attempt to completely destroy the allegation that the  
> government is hiding some undefined fact about the Moon's mass or density.   
> For, if what a you say is true, the Moon must have much different mass  
> than accepted. 
> 
> First some numbers:
> Mass of the Earth: 5.98 x 10^24 kg
> Radius of Earth: 6.37 x 10^6 m or 6370 km
> Mass of Moon: 7.34 x 10^22 kg
> Radius of Moon: 1.74 x 10^6 m or 1740 km
> Distance from Moon to Earth: 3.84 x 10^8 m or 384,000 km
> 
> Using the equation from Newton's Law of Gravitation, a = (G*M)/R^2, the  
> acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface is 9.8 m/s^2 (1G) which  
> is a undeniable physical fact.

Ah, but have you personally verified Newton's Law of Gravitation?  After
all, who do you think started this whole conspiracy?  Can any of us say
that we really knew Isaac Newton?  Einstein started to cotton on to the
whole thing but by that time the conspirators were too well established
and managed to divert his attention into the bottomless quagmire of quantum 
mechanics.

Oh, and you should see the pictures the Mars Observer boys are cooking up
for encounter; marvelous stuff.  The Galileo image fabrication lab had a
little problem getting Renderman working on their Apple II+s, hence the
HGA cover story.  If they get enough pictures ready in time, that "hammering"
maneuver will save the day.  Great idea, almost as good as the VEEGA concept...

-- 
This is news.  This is your       |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
brain on news.  Any questions?    |    (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov)


Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: JPL GIF Images Available
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:58:11 GMT

                         ==========================
                               JPL GIF IMAGES
                              November 6, 1992
                         ==========================

     I've placed seven JPL-related GIF images at the Ames site.  These
images are courtesy of the Public Information Office at JPL.  The images
are available using anonymous ftp:

        ftp:      ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3)
        user:     anonymous
        cd:       pub/SPACE/GIF
        files:
                  earthmoo.gif - Parting view of the Earth and Moon taken by
                                 Voyager 1 shortly after launch in 1977.
                  gllhga.gif   - Galileo's backup High Gain Antenna (HGA) at
                                 JPL.
                  hrms.gif     - Opening ceremony for HRMS (High Resolution
                                 Microwave Survey), formerly SETI, at
                                 Goldstone, California.  70 meter antenna
                                 shown in background.  October 12, 1992.
                  hrms.txt     - Caption file for hrms.gif.
                  jpl.gif      - Aerial photo of the Jet Propulsion Lab (1988).
                  mo.gif       - Mars Observer spacecraft in clean room in
                                 Florida being prepared for launch (1992).
                  molaunch.gif - Mars Observer launch from Cape Canaveral,
                                 Florida - Sept 25, 1992.
                  topex.gif    - Topex/Poseidon launch from French Guiana -
                                 August 10, 1992.

                                 #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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,alt.sci.planetary
From: jmowen@mona.Gwinnett.COM (John M. Owen)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: How "clean" can Orion-style nuclear propulsion be?
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:43:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: mona.1mTTTB3w165w
Organization: Flat On My Back in Bed With Mona, Duluth, GA, USA

How "clean" can a nuclear explosion be? I remember reading in sci-am
some years back that different effects could be optimised at the 
expense of others. Recent postings suggested blast might be optimised
over radiation.

It seems to me the possible uses of an Orion-style propulsion scheme 
depend greatly on how "clean" the devices are. A device which
produced little fall-out (which I gather is as much related to detonation
altitude as composition) might be suitable for launching. Earth-orbit
detonations might have unwanted effects w/r/t electromagnetic pulse or
the radiation of the Van Allen belts. Are there unwanted environmental 
side-effects with interplanetary Orion propulsion? 

I guess I'm wondering if Orion is still a viable propulsion scheme. Are 
there any other effects of the explosion besides the blast that might
be exploited for propulsion? 

-- jmowen@mona.Gwinnett.COM (John M. Owen) 
-- My .sig is bigger than yours - but I keep it offline.
From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:11:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: eng.1992Nov12.161158.1725
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park

In article <1992Nov12.045803.1096@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>The inverse square law is a hard master. A microwave array on the Moon
>needs a gain 1,000,000 times that of an array at LEO to produce the same
>beam on Earth's surface. A Lunar array needs to be 100 times larger than
>an array at GEO and is available only 12 hours a day to any given site on
>Earth, and receives solar power only 2 weeks a month.

Wellllll, yes and no. 

You build more than one array. Build a bunch of them, since some are going to
get wiped out by incoming garbage at some point in time :) Real estate is
cheap.

There's also some tricks you can do with the beam which you can't do with an
SPS, but I don't have the references or the SEI guy here to remember exactly
what you can do.

> It would take decades
>of concentrated work to build a Lunar array after permanent manned presence
>is established on the Moon, if the array is to be constructed from native
>materials.

Decades? You've been sipping from Szabo's cup, I see. :) The metals for
rectennas (?) are easy enough to cook up and stamp/mold/whatever. 



                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
From: rkolker@nuchat.sccsi.com (Rich Kolker)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space suit research?
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:39:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuchat.1992Nov12.233907.5067
Distribution: sci
Organization: South Coast Computing Services, Inc.

In article <BxL47u.6Fs.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>-Subject: Re: Space suit research???
>-Date: 11 Nov 92 21:27:59 GMT
>
>-Advanced spacesuit research is basically stalled for lack of funding.
>-A high-pressure suit (probably 8psi or so rather than full normal
>-pressure -- most people can take a certain amount of pressure change
>-without much risk of the bends) was planned for the space station but
>-scuttled by funding cuts.  It would still be useful, because prebreathing
>-greatly increases the time needed for a spacewalk.
>
>In the NASA Select coverage of a Shuttle mission (this year, I think) in which
>EVAs were used, I believe the commentator remarked that with something other 
>than the usual pre-EVA cabin depressurization, only about half an hour of
>EVA pre-breathe was required. I considered that to be an astounding
>statement, but I never heard any followup. (I'm pretty sure that the mission
>was STS-49, and the cabin pressure was 10.2 psi.)
>
>Has anyone else heard anything about this?
>

That's correct.  By lowering the cabin pressure to 10.2 psi and keeping it
there for a number of hours, the prebreathe is decreased.  It's now
standard procedure for shuttle EVAs when possible.

++rich
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: choy@skorpio.usask.ca (I am a terminator.)
Subject: NASA is too big
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:01:30 GMT

I was reading Feynman's account of his work investigating the Challenger
and he was complaining about how NASA is so backward. Now the shuttles
are flying again, what is NASA's situation?

Henry Choy
choy@cs.usask.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 11/06/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Mars Observer, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 12:03:50 GMT

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

                  MARS OBSERVER MISSION STATUS
                        November 6, 1992

     The Mars Observer spacecraft team reports that all
spacecraft subsystems continue to perform well.  Instrument
payload and payload data checkouts are continuing as planned.

     The instrument calibration flight sequence currently under
way will continue through Nov. 17, 1992.  The Magnetometer and
Gamma Ray Spectrometer instrument teams are receiving early
cruise calibration data.  The Mars Observer Camera "bakeout" to
prepare the camera for operation will continue through Dec. 26,
1992.  New spacecraft activities are expected to be minimal over
the next several days.

     Today the spacecraft is about 12 million kilometers (7.5
million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 11,800
kilometers per hour (7,500 miles per hour) relative to Earth. 
The spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
111,000 kilometers per hour (72,000 miles per hour).

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:31:14 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov7.083058.8290@ee.ubc.ca> davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson) writes:
>>Actually, some of the recent books on Apollo give a reasonably good picture
>>of just how close to the edge that crew came...
>
>I'll bite.  To what recent books do you refer?  

Murray and Cox's "Apollo: The Race To The Moon" is pretty good.  It focuses
on Mission Control, but in this context that's reasonable.  Apollo 13 was
the triumph of Mission Control, retrieving the crew from an accident that
was on the very edge of being unsurvivable.  (In fact, had you asked about
it before it happened, the official answer would have been that it *was*
unsurvivable... which is why nobody had planned for it.)

The best account is Henry Cooper's "Thirteen:  The Flight That Failed",
but it's long out of print.

>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?

Murray&Cox mention such "direct aborts" as something that would have been
considered for Apollo 13 had the SM engine still been usable.  I haven't
seen details but I don't think it's anything mysterious.  At very high
altitudes (above the Earth) orbital velocities are low and it doesn't take
that much propulsion to make quite radical orbit changes.

Just had a quick look at Cooper's book; he says there was considerable
interest in a direct abort at first, but apart from doubts about whether
the SM engine could be used, it would have meant jettisoning the LM to
reduce weight, and nobody wanted to do that with the CSM obviously in
deep trouble.
-- 
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
From: lumensa@lub001.lamar.edu (Dale Parish)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Swift-Tuttle Comet a threat to earth?
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:06:25 +1700
Organization: Lamar University - Beaumont

>>   I understand that it is pretty unlikely that Swift-Tuttle will hit
>>   earth in 2126. However, I would like to know what would happen in the
>>   case such a big object would collide with our planet? I am not sure
> 
>>You die, I die, Everybody dies!
> 
> Calm down. Do you expect to live until 2126? OK.


Wouldn't you like to believe that by that time, *someone* will be living
on the surface of another orbiting body?


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: Hubble's mirror  or Really Costar.
Organization: UDSI
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 13:02:30 GMT



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

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.

now here is my question.

why not design costar to also add filters.  given wf/pcs aversion
to the moon and sun,  if you put a filtering mirror in also,  could
you then conduct  really hi res lunar imaging?  or is this just pointless
cuz we already have more then enough capacity.

also if you can put in filters,  i think you could reduce the cone of avoidance
around both the sun and moon,  filters on, slew aroundthe sun to target
filters off.  i would think simpler and easier then the complex
pirouette they do now and safe rthen closing the main aperture door.
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Coverup - gravity doesn't exist?
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:22:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: pixel.1992Nov9.202215.347
Distribution: sci
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

John Roberts (roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov) wrote:
> 
> There's an apple tree on the NIST grounds that's a direct descendant of the 
> tree Isaac Newton was sitting under when he thought up the laws of gravitation.

Hmmm.  After that fact was disclosed in your first-day orientation class,
were you sent out to fetch a can of striped paint ?

--
||Halloween Candy: the office snack    |
||from Nov. 1st onwards............... |Puff the Magic Dragon
||-------------------------------------|Lived by the sea
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Who knows what's in the autumn mists
||Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY      |In the mind of Yadallee?
Newsgroups: sci.space