HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hauserma@osprey.cahs.colostate.edu (Jake Hauserman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars for $30M ???
Date: 9 Apr 92 15:49:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: yuma.1992Apr09.154924.46738
Organization: Applied Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins CO

In article <32431@darkstar.ucsc.edu> speth@cats.ucsc.edu (James Gustave) writes:
>
>A poster (sorry, I don't remember who) recently talked about a proposal by
>Griffin to go to Mars for $30M.  I assumed this meant $30 million.
>Is this correct?  What did the proposal involve (ie. equipment, crew, etc.)?
>
>To me, this sounds unreasonably low.  Are there other Mars mission estimates
>in this order of magnitude?
>

The lowest estmate that I have found so far is ;

"Stewart Nozette of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 
promoted the "Great Exploration" strategy, a plan led by Lowell
Wood, the Livermore SDI "Brilliant Pebbles" scientist. This 
proposal calls for "attainment of Mars" in the present decade, 
and at a cost of barely $10 billion. "
- Ad Astra July/August 1990


 They want it hot when it's cold,| Jake Hauserman      
 Want it cold when it's hot,     | Colorado State Unviersity               
 Always wanting what is not.     | Ft. Collins Co.             
           - anonymous           | hauserma@osprey.cahs.colostate.edu
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DCX and making Boeing do something as well...
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:27:57 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <pgf.703375461@srl01.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
> jimj@cleanplate.EBay.Sun.COM (James D. Jones) writes:
> 
>>In article <11453@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>>I seem to recall, several years ago, one of those gosh-wow Popular Science
>>cover stories about a one-man shuttle project that Boeing was trying 
>>to interest the government in.  In this plan, the craft was to be 
>>small, cheap, -- and air-launched from the back of a 747.  
> 
> Boeing might have looked into something similar, but this was
> Space Van, thought up by MMI...
> 
Boeing did indeed do this.  It was discussed extensively in *AvWeek*
in the early Eighties.  I heard a rumor that described the RL-10-powered
spacecraft as "just about able to lift its own paint into orbit."  
It was fairly similar to Space Van, but I heard of it well before I 
heard of MMI's plans.

CAPTAIN BILL'S CHICAGO TOURS             Bill Higgins
 See the Loop by Submarine!              Fermilab  
Shopping?  Take our convenient           higgins@fnal.fnal.gov
Bathyscaphe to Marshall Field's!         higgins@fnal.bitnet
Xref: sparky sci.space:7582 news.answers:1085
From: edotto@uipsuxb.ps.uiuc.edu (Edward C. Otto III)
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:07:39 GMT

rhl@d62wdf.mitre.org (Roger H. Lincoln) writes:

>Which story is correct?  Or is there a new definition of the word
>"flawlessly" that I wasn't previously aware of?

According to the astronauts involved, what actually happened is that the
computer had to be overridden at landing - :30 seconds due to the
presence of a rather large boulder WHERE THE LANDER WANTED TO BE.

That's the reason for the 'four left, three down' remark by Armstrong
just before touchdown.

--
Edward C. Otto III   	    *  E-mail addresses:  e-otto@uiuc.edu
Printing Services Office    *  Phone:  217/333-9422
54A E. Gregory Drive	    *  "The only thing we have to fear is
Champaign, IL  61820	    *  24 line .signature files..."
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:57:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: SLACVM.92101.105727DOCTORJ
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

In article <=34t35=@rpi.edu>, kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) says:

> DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler) writes:
>> The advocates of complicated systems usually underestimate the problems
>> associated with their construction and operation.  SDI is by no means
>> unique in this regard.

>Ahh.  I see the "those weapons designers have no idea of the complexity of
>their task" argument has come up again.  It's been repeated so many times it
>must be true.  There were many complicated systems which "can't work" that
>actually did work -- and worked well -- in the Gulf, among them being JSTARS,
>the Patriot, the Nighthawk, and the Apache.  Complicated tasks often require

I didn't say anything of the sort.  I was merely pointing out that most
large projects turn out to be more expensive and take more time than was
originally proposed.  Do you want me to list 20 examples?  Are you claiming
that "those weapons designers" are significantly smarter or better
organized than (for example) NASA, the plasma fusion researchers, or the
builders of the SSC?  If so, I'd like to see some evidence.
From: haake@eagle.cvs.rochester.edu (Bill Haake)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 7 Apr 92 15:29:23 GMT
Organization: Center for Visual Science, University of Rochester, Rochester NY

In article <11230@ksr.com> jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes:
>
>Violet looks like a combination of blue and red because the sensitivity of
>the blue cells falls off quite rapidly with increasing frequency, whereas the
>red cells' sensitivity falls off much more slowly.  Hence, it would make sense
>for UV to look pinkish.

This explanation is wrong. Color perception is based on all three cone types.
Whether the response of the red cones is higher than blue cones
does not decide color perception by itself, otherwise 500 nm light
(which is green) would appear red, because red cones are much more sensitive to
500 nm light than blue cones.  The response of green cones relative to red and
blue cones is very important to color perception. Furthermore, red cones are
the least sensitive of the three cone types to short wavelength cones and
blue cones are the most sensitive, particularly when normalized to their
peak wavelength sensitivity.

References:

Boynton, R. M. (1979). Human Color Vision. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
	Winston
Baylor, D. A., Nunn, B. J., and Schnapf, J. L. (1987). Spectral sensitivity of
	cones of the monkey Macaca fascicularis. Journal of Physiology 390,
	145-160.

Bill
--

Bill Haake                      haake@cvs.rochester.edu    (128.151.80.13)
Center for Visual Science       Voice: (716) 275-8680
University of Rochester         Fax:   (716) 271-3043
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: SCHLEGEL@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Mark)
Subject: What is the chemical formula for Shuttle SRB fuel?
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 20:55:30 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11


I wish to figure out what the annual input of chlorine into the 
atmosphere is due to shuttle launches.  I already know the mass of
fuel in the SRBs (1010 metric tons) but need the formula(s) and 
mass fractions of each if there are several compounds.  I seem to 
remember that the fuel contains a type of perchlorate 
(maybe iron/aluminum with perchlorate).  

I have heard outlandish claims of large shuttle outputs of chlorine
for each launch and the effect on ozone and what to see if they are
justified.  As far as the effect on the ozone it should be remembered
that much of the chlorine will be put into the atmosphere at low altitudes
and will be removed by chemical processes in the troposphere.
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DCX and making Boeing do something as well...
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:59:31 EDT

games@max.u.washington.edu writes:
>I own some Boeing stock, and as a stockholder I am entitled to ...
>make proposals at those meetings that all of the stockholders then vote on.
> ...
>On to the point:  Why not propose that Boeing build a prototype of an SSTO
>to be offered commercially. (With FINAL development being done after
>commercial orders are booked.)
>As with all other proposals, I expect that this one will be voted down,
>however it will send the message to Boeings management that space is something
>to be considered more seriously than just government contracts.

Well, actually, having it fail with a 99.7% rejection rate would sent the
message to Boeing's management that they're on the right track already...

Also, Boeing might be studying such a concept already but is not revealing
their plans so as to avoid having the other players in the market plan how
to freeze them out.  Their reaction to the proposal would almost certainly
be "Shareholder proposals are not an appropriate means for making strategic
decisions" regardless of how they really feel about getting into the SSTO
market...

There are managers at Boeing who are aware of the potential market in space
travel, I'm sure, and if there is a real opportunity for them to make money
in launchers, I'd think there's a good chance they'd go for it (after all,
they would have instant credibility).  They will, however, probably want
to see binding offers of cash on the barrel (if not cash up front) from
customers before they try it, just like they do with airplanes.
From: dbriggs@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Daniel Briggs)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: RFD for IMAGE PROCESSING newsgroup
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:45:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: zia.1992Apr13.184543.4171
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

[Third and last time that I'm going to try and post this.  Sorry about the
multiple posts, but something in the crosspost list is buggering things!]

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)
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: g kids teleoperation (was Re: Teleoperation on the moon)
Date: 9 Apr 1992 03:41:43 GMT
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Originator: kjenks@krakatoa

In article <167BE9741.M22079@mwvm.mitre.org> M22079@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> The real way to do teleoperations is to use a virtual reality system
> and have feedback to the controller.  It [won't] always work but your
> activities will be relatively smooth and if the actual robot has enough
> protection hardware it can prevent itself from being destroyed.
>  Karl Pitt

Put your talent where your mouth is.  I challenge you to prove it.
Computer simulation is an acceptable proof; a paper (or electronic)
study is tolerable.

Are you up to this dare?

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

     "...back to the moon, back to the future,
      and, this time, back to stay." -- George Bush
From: dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: * SpaceNews 06-Apr-92 *
Keywords: SAREX, SOYUZ TM-13, Satellite Logbook
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:13:48 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institut fuer Radioastronomie


In sci.space.news you write:

>* DECAY NOTICE *
>================
>NASA has reported that SOYUZ TM-13, object 21735 (1991 069A), decayed in
>the Earth's atmosphere on March 25, 1992.

Isn't it a bit tough to describe a picture-perfect *landing* of a manned
space capsule as a 'decay in the Earth's atmosphere'... :^)
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:39:57 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: loren@pixar.com (Loren Carpenter)
-Subject: Re: Human UV vision
-Date: 7 Apr 92 01:21:05 GMT
-Organization: Pixar -- Point Richmond, California

-In article <9204030413.AA14725@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
->
->[This was originally a discussion on whether organisms from other planets
->might see the same spectral range that we do.]
->-...
->-Cal Lopez
->-Sophomore Hobart&Wm Smith Clgs
->
->Thanks for your reply. Now I wonder what the "color" of UV is! (My guess would
->be blue.)

-It's an electric indigo.  Near IR is an electric magenta pink.  At least
-that's what I see doing the following...

-	Obtain a Wratten 18A filter, preferably 3"x3" glass.  It is a 
-		notch filter for visible wavelengths.  I don't have the
-		parameters handy, but the glass looks real black.  I got
-		mine from Kodak about 20 years ago.

-	Get a simple glass prism and hold it against the filter.

-	Look at a bright white light source, through the prism and the
-		filter.  I looked at the sun, but you might not want to
-		be that adventurous.

-	What I see is 2 images of the light source, one corresponding
-		to UV and the other to IR.  The UV one is fuzzier than
-		the IR one, probably due to being more out of focus.

As someone pointed out in private email, that might not be a valid test.
Filters seldom cut off a frequency range sharply and absolutely, and the
human eye can function over a brightness range of millions to one, which is
probably greater than the cutoff of your filter at the ends of the visible
spectrum. So there's a considerable chance that what you see is just strongly
attenuated visible light. (As I mentioned before, I've never come across a
UV light source that I couldn't see *some* visible light from.) (Are there any
gas discharge tubes that give off *only* UV? How about dye lasers? Maybe a
free electron laser could be built to do the job.)

As far as I know, IR is not seen just because the photons are not energetic 
enough to activate the rods and cones in the eye.

Others have reported that UV does look like a deep violet - which would stand
to reason, since the red and green receptors have much lower cutoff 
frequencies - the only question was whether the "blue" cones would be 
activated, or just the rods.

In analogy to cameras, lack of UV filtration should make it harder to see
long distances through haze (greater UV scattering).

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:19:37 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institut fuer Radioastronomie

In <YdrC22m00WBKI6t78H@andrew.cmu.edu> kr0u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Kevin William Ryan) writes:
> [...] 100-250 in a day, under _local_ {AAAHHH!!} anesthetic, with no lens
>replacement. They just give the patients some thick glasses to restore
>the eyesight to a useful level. Perhaps someone knows one of these
>people and can ask about the color of UV?

There was a paper by a British astronomer in the J.B.A.A. a while ago on
just that: UV looks blue, just deep blue. What else did you expect?
[I could look up the references; there's quite a literature on visual
UV astronomy by people w/o lenses. They see strange things on Venus, e.g.]
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A quick question about distances
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:33:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <18183@oasys.dt.navy.mil> lung@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Terence Lung) writes:
>What units of measure of length are there larger than a parsec?

The SI units of exceedingly long distance are:

	petameter	10^15m	about 0.1 lightyear, 0.03 parsec
	exameter	10^18m	about 100 LY, 30 P
	zettameter	10^21m	roughly the diameter of the galaxy
	yoctometer	10^24m	real big :-)

I don't vouch for the exact spelling of the last two prefixes; they are
fairly new and I haven't had cause to use them much!
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: pgf@usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: U.S. black programs
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:38:15 GMT
Article-I.D.: srl05.pgf.702787095
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana

larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith) writes:



>Also the ability to recreate ball-lightning (a confined plasma) like
>phenomenon reported last year in Nature. This was done with microwaves and 
>a microwave resonant cavity in ambient air, by Japanese researchers.

This was done in the '40's by Piotr Kapitsa. How did their method
deviate from his?

--
Phil Fraering pgf@nasa12.usl.edu 318/365-5418
"How about a dragon that breathes neutrons instead of fire?  Kills the
elves, leaves the buildings intact..." - Nick Szabo
From: fcrary@ocf.berkeley.edu (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mars by 2019
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:34:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.rsmftINNbak
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <9204041556.AA27680@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>>	"New NASA chief Daniel Goldin said President Bush's
>>	 goal of a manned space flight to Mars by 2019 is
>>	 unrealistic because it would take longer to develop
>>	 the spaceship and fly the robotic missions that
>>	 must precede humans."

Developing the spacecraft certainly wouldn't take 25 years. At _most_ it
would take 10 (though NASA could probably strech anything out to 25 years
if they tried...) 
How many robotic probes are required is a matter of opinion. I've heard 
people say that there should be no manned missions untill _all_ of Mars
has been throughly searched for life by robots (since contamination of
Martian samples by human astronauts would make a discovery of Earth-like
bacteria questionable), even if this means waiting 100 years. On the
other extreme, a Mars mission _could_ be flown with only one new Mars mission
(although the manned mission science would benifit from a more detailed
pre-mission robotic study.)
I'm inclined to think that 25 years of robotic Maras missions isn't 
realistic: The public would be too boared with advanced robots wandering
around Mars to fund more than 4 or 5 missions.

>don't think a full $400 billion mission has much chance of ever being approved.

The $400 billion is based on almost _no_ technological risk, a very inefficient
architecture, and covering the _entire_ SEI (e.g. expanding Freedom, returning
to the Moon, establishing a Lunar base, _and_ going to Mars.)
If you make different assumptions (try new technology, give up on Freedom, 
etc.) the cost goes down an order of magnitude.

							 Frank Crary
							 UC Berkeley
Xref: sparky sci.space:7374 rec.arts.sf.science:1392
From: kellmer@milton.u.washington.edu (Brent Kellmer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: MARS (surface conditions)
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:25:58 GMT
Reply-To: kellmer@u.washington.edu
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

A quick question:   

	Does anyone out there have any ideas on what the most likely surface
regolith conditions would be on the sides of one of the Martian Volcanoes  
(Olympus Mons, for instance, in Tharsis)  Would it be solid volcanic rock,
sand and rock, or what?  A high concentration of sand would seem unlikely
because of wind conditions, but I'm not sure.

Any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Brent Kellmer
kellmer@u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:54:19 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr9.030409.11527@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
>>Entirely true.  But why do you say that such interceptors are not under
>>our physical control?  For one thing, if they can hit missiles, they can
>>most surely hit each other.
>
>Surely *not*.  A missile is a large, bright target...

I was not thinking of hitting an interceptor in flight -- there would not
be adequate warning time to arm another in such a case anyway -- but of
hitting it beforehand.  Although it depends somewhat on sensor choices
and such, hitting satellites is generally much easier than hitting
missiles, because the satellites are much more predictable.

That large, bright target, by the way, has a tiny little missile inside
it.  It's not just a question of homing on the flame.  At high altitudes,
the exhaust plume is very large and typically completely envelops the
rocket.

>Someone suggested that having the system under human control would
>make it safe against accidental destruction of civilian launchers.

How safe is "safe"?  The contention is that it can be made roughly as
safe as existing military systems, which appear to be considered acceptable.
Absolute safety is not to be had in this world; a demand for it is a
political ploy to kill a project, not a realistic requirement.
-- 
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: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Sonic boom remedy
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:06:31 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: larry@ichips.intel.com (Larry Smith)
-Subject: Re: U.S. black programs
-Date: 7 Apr 92 20:58:08 GMT
-Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon

-Following is a reprint of the 1/22/68 AW&ST article talked about above.
-Remember this was in Jan. 1968!!

-"Northrop Studying Sonic Boom Remedy"

-Hawthorne, Calif. - Use of electrical forces to condition the air flowing 
-around an aircraft at supersonic speeds may lower drag, reduce heating and 
-soften sonic boom, Northrop Corp. said here last week.

-Although practical applications of the technique, assuming research validates
-it, is quite far in the future, Northrop said its findings in company 
-studies show enough promise to justify government funding of more intensive 
-research. NASA is reportedly interested in the method.

-Air molecules ahead of the aircraft would be ionized, probably negatively, 
-through a corona. The nose of the aircraft would be charged to the same
-negative potential, forming an electrostatic force field which would tend to
-repel or alter the course of the molecules as the aircraft approached.

-Possible flight technology using static electricity or/and E-M waves!!

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.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: dfi@specklec.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Daniel Fischer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: BUILD YOUR OWN HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
Date: 16 Apr 92 12:28:55 GMT
Organization: Max Planck Institut fuer Radioastronomie

This reminds me of the ideas (some 10 years ago much publicized) of having
an *amateur* space telescope built and launched as a secondary payload on
teh shuttle - they had even started collecting money for some of the
hardware. Whatever became of the project/the organizers/the money???
Newsgroups: sci.space