HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Mars Observer Update - 11/20/92
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Mars Observer, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 07:29:39 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 20, 1992

     All spacecraft subsystems are performing well.

     A new flight sequence, primarily dedicated to radio science
activities, began on Nov. 17 and will continue through Dec. 14.
Checkout of the Thermal Emission Spectrometer and completion of
the Laser Altimeter checkout were performed last week.  The Mars
Observer Camera "bakeout" to prepare the instrument for operation
continues through Dec. 28.

     The second trajectory correction maneuver (TCM-2) has been
rescheduled for Feb. 8, 1993, to allow engineers time to upgrade
on-board flight software.  TCM-3 has also been rescheduled for
March 8, 1993.

     Until now, the spacecraft's solar panels have been oriented
at a 60-degree sun incidence angle to prevent excess power caused
by the solar array's direct exposure to the sun.  A star-
ephemiris table was uploaded on Nov. 17, decreasing the sun
incidence angle by 5 degrees.  These periodic changes will occur
about once a week through Jan. 2, 1993, and will cause the
spacecraft's high-gain antenna to point directly at Earth.

     Today the spacecraft is about 16 million kilometers (10
million miles) from Earth, traveling at a speed of about 14,500
kilometers per hour (9,000 miles per hour) relative to Earth.
The spacecraft is traveling at a heliocentric velocity of about
111,500 kilometers per hour (70,000 miles per hour).

                              #####
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Learn to recognize the
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | inconsequential, then 
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | ignore it.

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Shuttle computers
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: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:14:27 GMT


-From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
-Subject: Re: Shuttle computers
-Date: 20 Nov 92 14:31:48 GMT

-John:

-TO my knowledge they only load the machines from tape on board. They  
-do have the ability to override and to take out machines manually via  
-a set of buttons at the front of the shuttle. I think they are in the  
-center position, reachable from either left or right hand seat.

-I'd have to pull out my copy of the control panel documentation (the  
-REAL thing :-) to be sure.

I wonder if they've ever considered a system by which a spare tape can be 
written by instructions from the ground, for checking and subsequent loading
into the GPCs. That could be useful if (for instance) one of the flight
control surfaces is damaged in an unanticipated way, and the basic flight
protocol has to be modified. Writing to a tape would overcome some of the
objections to direct loading of programs from the ground.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: nataraja@lima.egr.msu.edu (Joshua Natarajan)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Antenna Specs
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:26:49 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Michigan State University

I came across the Friis equation and would like some data to play around
with it.....Does anyone know the gain,transmitted power etc for the
probes we sent ? 

Well,   P_r/P_t = D_t*D_r*squ(lambda)/squ(4*pi*r)

what is the typical recieved power and the gain of the receiver?
Also what is the typical beam width of those transmitting antennas?

Thanks in advance

Josh   nataraja@egr.msu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: golden oldie: Shuttling off the mortal coil
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:57:23 GMT

Administrative change: titles of the reposted articles now
appear on the subject line. - Phil. Now here's the article:

        As concerns having 'blown' it by building the Shuttle, I  remind
the audience  that the  Shuttle, although  full of  innovations and  new
hardware, is based in mid-70's  space technology, which IS reliable  AND
proven (unlike  esoteric  methods  such  as  laser  launching  and  mass
drivers).

        It is  obvious  that  chemical  rockets  are  not  going  to  be
sufficent in the long run for  getting places. HOWEVER, that is  exactly
what we are  stuck with  for the time  being.  Of  course, the  esoteric
methods could probably be made to work if a gigabuck or two were  poured
into them, but there is always the  problem of "What if it doesn't  work
on the scale we need it to?"   With current technology, we KNOW it  will
work on the scale involved (up to the scale of the Saturn V).

        While  undoubtedly  politics  were  involved  with  the  Shuttle
winging its  way back  to earth,  that is  ALSO based  on known,  proven
aerodynamic technology.  Also,  an aerodynamic return  vechile has  more
flexibility  on   landing   site   selection   than   the   falling-rock
Mercury/Vostok/Gemini/Vokshod/Apollo/Soyuz genre.

        Face it, there  are LOTS of  things that COULD  have been  done.
But if you were  going to attack the  problem of reusable (cheap)  space
transportation, with  ~2  gigabucks of  taxpayers  money, (and  all  the
political bullshit attached thereto) would you adopt untried  technology
for its base?  No one  wants their  head on a  pole because  of a  wrong
decision, not scientist or engineer or Congressman.

-------
Final comment from Phil: how much have we spent on the Scuttle
since this article was written?

According to the header, it was written by Clyde Hoover.

I need to keep the attributtions straight....

pgf

-- 
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: Space suit research?
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, 18 Nov 1992 04:19:42 GMT


-From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
-Subject: Re: Space suit research?
-Date: 17 Nov 92 04:13:22 GMT
-Organization: UDSI

-ALSO in apollo were EVA's part of the planned mission?  sure on lunar landing,
-but what about in flight for the command and service module.  were they
-recovering sample panels or was this just emergency plans?

I believe the astronauts normally moved between the Command Module and the
Lunar Module via a pressurized docking adapter. However, while two of the
astronauts were on the moon, a camera mounted on the Service Module was
busy taking beautiful stereo aerial photos of the lunar surface. When the
astronauts came back from the moon, one of them had to do an EVA to
retrieve the film. This is depicted in the NASA Select video of Apollo 16
(a great video, if you ever have a chance to see it).

I'm not sure whether this was done before or after unsealing the Lunar Module -
Command Module adapter - I would guess before, so the Command Module would
not have to be depressurized.

Question: was the Lunar Module normally pressurized before takeoff? And
after the film EVA, was it pressurized again before unsealing the docking
adapter?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: Saturn V for Freedom deployment
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:29:35 GMT

In article <dfegan.722009437@node_2204c> dfegan@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug  
Egan) writes:
> In <BxtoxL.7n0@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> coley@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Chris Coley)  
writes:
> 
> 
> 	The Saturn V booster consumed extreme amounts of liquid fuel.
>     (NOT practical today...)
> 	I am also under the impression that the design documents were
>     somehow lost...  (Maybe to favor the Shuttle program.) 
>  
Read the FAQ to find out that the design documents were not lost.  Just kept  
out of the picture and not mentioned until people started wondering about them.

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Scientific method
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:38:27 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <By059r.p8.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>... for instance, for instance, the Earth-impact model of the formation
>of the moon has risen from obscurity to the "most favored model", with
>(as far as I know) little or no new input of information - it's based on
>mathematical models and old Apollo and Voyager data...

There is no problem testing a new theory quite rigorously using old data,
if you do it carefully.  The trick is simply to get some testable predictions
out of the theory before you look (closely) at the data, and then see if it
checks.  This does get more difficult if the new theory has to be calibrated
using the same data, but sometimes it can still be done.  It is more
satisfying to have prediction precede experiment, because that *guarantees*
that the theory was not custom-cooked to match the results, but having a
theory derived from general principles precisely explain measured phenomena
in detail is a valid test, and often a fairly good one.

Mercury's perihelion shift is considered one of the big early tests of
general relativity, even though the odd behavior of Mercury's perihelion
was known well before GR was developed.

In the case of the lunar-origin models, bear in mind also that "most
favored" is not necessarily synonymous with "completely accepted".  None
of the other major theories can explain the known facts *at all* without
truly drastic special-case assumptions.  It's not hard being the best
runner if all your competitors are in wheelchairs.
-- 
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
Xref: sparky sci.space:16055 rec.arts.books:20303
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:14:19 -0500 
From: Maulik Harish Shah <msb0+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Dyson Sphere's (again???)


Hello,
	This had probably been discussed (I caught the tail end of a Dyson
Sphere thread in the backposts). But:
	How would you detect a dyson sphere? A true dyson sphere (as far as I
know) would totally enclose the sphere. And, logically, the Material
that  you would have to make the dyson sphere out of would have to have
an enormous tensile strength. Wouldn't such a material block most
radiation (visible, or otherwise)? 
Hit me if this is a stupid question or if this has been discussed before.

				-Mo


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

The following sentence is true.
The preceding sentence is false.
                              -Somebody I know

********************************************************
From: tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM (Trevor German)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:37:08 GMT
Organization: Imaging Systems Division, NCR Corp, Waterloo, Ont., CANADA


	There was a question in rec.puzzles asking how to send a message
	to the future (real time) say a million years or whatever and I
	send it this responce.

	-----------------------------------------------------------------

	Re: sending a message to the future.

	Obviously anything placed on earth is likely to be destroyed
	by plate techtonics etc so no good burying something. A transmition
	that takes that long to get back would be hard to receive even if
	you were expecting it.

		I have a much better idea. Take a dead satelite. A big one,
	like say the moon. Then blast its surface with  enough nukes to
	make an easily recognisable pattern that would be only partly
	erased by comet and meteoride collisions. Then just for good measure,
	adjust the rotational velocity of the moon so that the message
	always faces the earth. The message could be something like
	a big face......................


	Came to me in a dream.

	------------------------------------------------------------------

	I was being a tad facetious (?sp), but it got me thinking about the 
	rotational speed of the moon. I know it has a rotation time
	that matches the orbit time but I was wondering why this is ?
	Is the match exact ? I assume it is extremely close since there are
	no records of it being any different from how we see it now, or
	at least I don't know of any.  What is the governing factor, or
	is it just a wild coincidence ?

	-------------------------------------------------------------------


--
       >|  "Only average people            | Trevor J German BSc    |<
       >|        never make mistakes."     | NCR, Waterloo, Ontario |<
       >| tjgerman@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM | Canada.                |< 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones)
Subject: Re: Feynmann's legacy...
Organization: Vonnegut Tent Rentals, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 14:26:40 GMT

Miroslaw Kuc (wizard@r-node.gts.org) wrote:
> In article <Bxos7A.IyH@access.digex.com> mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney) writes:
> >HL-20 and consideration of a "skunk-works" style program for developing
> >a successor to the shuttle.
> >-- 
> >Mike Heney                |   Senior Systems Analyst and     |  Reach for the
> >mheney@access.digex.com   |  Space Activist / Entrepreneur   |  Stars, eh?
> >Kensington, MD (near DC)  |     * Will Work for Money *      |
> 
> What does "skunk-works" mean? 
> 
> Miroslaw Kuc

Its any kind of special project or program that is removed from the "normal"
design process, where brilliant people are basically just let loose without
having to spend much time keeping suits and bureaucrats happy.

Originally a team at Lockheed adopted the title for their own dept., taking
it from Al Capp's cartoon strip "Li'l Abner".  They felt shunned by the rest
of the company and took the name of the odious factory in the strip
to reflect this.

Legend has it that the name became widely known when one of their number
received a conference call intended for someone else, picked up the phone
and announced "Skunk Works here!" to a meeting of puzzled executive types. 


||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY | 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctica
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Organization: [via International Space University]
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU
Distribution: sci
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:32:34 GMT

> Antarctica is now a nuclear free zone and the reactors were removed.

Another round goes to the nucleophobes. It's enough to make one want to  
leave the planet...

======
Happiness is the Earth in			Dale Amon 

your rearview mirror.				amon@cs.qub.ac.uk
======
From: daver@sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu (David Ray)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Date: 23 Nov 1992 19:00:07 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: sunspot.ssl.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov19.185510.15578@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> pauln@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (paul.h.nelson) writes:
>Since the moon is gradually receding from the earth, due to tidal effects,
>can we extrapolate backwards in time and postulate how close it has been
>to the earth and when?

Scientists have been grappling with this issue for years. It is one of the
scientific paradoxes of our lifetime.

The moon's orbit is also inclined with respect to the earth's equator, and
the orbit would have been *more* eccentric in the past -- tidal effects
are making it more circular. If you extrapolate backwards, the eccentricity
of orbit would have become impossible for any orbit to exist more than
a few hunderd million years ago. Yet, We have confirmed the Moon's age of
well over a billion years from carbon dating. So, either the moon was "captured"
into Earth's orbit well after its formation, or its orbit was significantly
perturbed after it was in Earth orbit.

The degree of tidal dissipation in the past is another large uncertainty. 
We can measure the slowdown rate now, but scientists believe that the tidal
dissipation rate was much different in the past, particularly during the
ice ages. Virtually all tidal dissipation of the Moon's orbit comes from the
ocean. During ice ages, there was less ocean, more ice. The issue of "resonant"
frequency of some parts of the ocean is another issue. If only a small part
of the ocean constitutes most of the tidal dissip[ation, the effects of changes
in the tidal dissipation due to changes in ocean might not be as simple as 
just the quantity of available ocean mass.

Another hitch is the lack of iron in the moon. The amount of iron tells us if
the moon came out of (or was formed near) the Earth in the formation stages 
of the solar system. Normally, a body the size of the Moon should have an
iron core making up about the same % of total mass as the Earth (say within
a factor of three). But our data indicates it is almost an order of magnitude
less. So, did it not form from the same primordial mass? They can't answer
that one, either.

The only single theory that makes sense is that:
1. The earth formed from a primordial mass with a normal amount of iron
2. There was a gravatational pertubation very close to the earth at a very
   specific geologic time, after most of the iron in the earth settled to the
   center. The pertubation expelled material out of only the outer portions of
   the earth, which were depleted in iron.
3. The Moon formed from the material expelled from the pertubation, and has
   orbited the Earth ever since.
4. There has been at least one gravatational pertubation to the moon's orbit
   after it was completely formed, knocking it into its irregular orbit that
   we now observe.

dave


>
>ALso, can we pick a lower bound earth orbit, where the moon would have broken
>up and fallen into the earth, and use that as an UPPER bound for the
>age of the earth-moon system?


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Re: Space suit research?
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Distribution: sci
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:33:52 GMT

In article <BxwA7z.LsH.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
>
>I believe the astronauts normally moved between the Command Module and the
>Lunar Module via a pressurized docking adapter. However, while two of the
>astronauts were on the moon, a camera mounted on the Service Module was
>busy taking beautiful stereo aerial photos of the lunar surface. When the
>astronauts came back from the moon, one of them had to do an EVA to
>retrieve the film. This is depicted in the NASA Select video of Apollo 16
>(a great video, if you ever have a chance to see it).
>
>I'm not sure whether this was done before or after unsealing the Lunar Module -
>Command Module adapter - I would guess before, so the Command Module would
>not have to be depressurized.

The film cassettes were retrieved during the trans-earth coast -- long after
the LM ascent stage had been jettisoned.

The EVAs were conducted through the main CM hatch by the CM pilot.

>
>Question: was the Lunar Module normally pressurized before takeoff? And
>after the film EVA, was it pressurized again before unsealing the docking
>adapter?

The LM was certainly not pumped down to vacuum before liftoff :-)  I suspect
that some sort of pressure equalization valve was used to reduce the pressure
from 15 to 5 psi during ascent as was done in the CM.  But I don't recall 
reading anything about that before... 

--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca


Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
Subject: Re: Clinton's address (was Re: Feynmann's legacy) 
Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston
Distribution: sci,na
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:29:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.133235.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes:
>For such a together dude, why doesn't Clinton (and Gore) have an e-mail 
>address and access to the NET???  They'll Never know what's going on 
>unless they be on-line.  They should at least be FAQed in. 
>
Until recently, there was a set of email bridges between all 4 of the
major campaigns and a set of alt.politics.canditate groups.  The Clinton
group is in transition :-) to a more permanent setup.  It is my
understanding that the Clinton an Bush campaigns answered 1500+
questions each.  In addition, all 3 of biggest candidates had some kind
of presence on Prodigy, with 250k+ messages generated.

Maybe someday there will be an bill@saxiphone.whitehouse.executive.gov
mail address.......

-- 
Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
hack@aio.jsc.nasa.gov - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca (Bruce Dunn)
Subject: Re: Mars Simulation in Antarctic
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:27:00 GMT

> Frank Crary writes:
> MacMurdo Station, the main US base in the Antarctic, used to operate
> such a reactor. It was _not_ a space-related system such as the SNAP
> designs, just an ordinary, small, Earth-based system. I don't know
> if it is still opperational...


        Any idea on power output, mass and heat rejection requirements?


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.space