HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.geo.meteorology,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
Subject: Re: AURORA WATCH: Middle Latitude Auroral Activity Watch
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:10:50 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Sep3.061445.8821@ccu.umanitoba.ca> youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:
>
>   I would say "MODERATE" auroral visibility is an understatement!  Right now
>   (about 6h UT) I am under the biggest auroral storm I have ever seen.  (Here
>   in Winnipeg, we get to see a *lot* of them.)  The aurora is pulsating and
>   rirpling so fast it's almost hard to follow it around the sky.  Intensely
>   bright (easily casting shadows), with mostly green and a brilliant cyan
>   (which I have not seen before).  Is anyone else getting this stuff farther
>   down south?  It goes to my south horizon; I'm curious to see how far that
>   it can be seen.
>
>   Scott Young

It was noted in the weather observations as far south as Laramie, Wyoming, 
though no other stations around that part of the country noted it, the next
furthest south station reporting aurora being Alexandria, Minnesota.
(Laramie reported it only on one hourly observation, Alexandria reported the
aurora for many hours). I hope we get to see it in Madison tonight! (We will
have clear skies.)

Stephen Jascourt   stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: punisher@iastate.edu (Frank Castiglione)
Subject: Two event horizons of black holes.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 19:23:25 GMT

All,

Over the summer, my girlfriend had told me that there are two event
horizons associated with a black hole.  She also hinted about "traveling"
to other universes.  I'm a psychology major, but I've had two basic courses
in Atronomy.  It is one of my interests and would like to find more 
information about this phenomenon.  Any and all help is greatly appreciated.

Send e-mail to:

/---------------------------------------\
| Don B. Bennett | aka The Punisher     | "The difference between a successfull
|---------------------------------------|  person and others is not a lack of
|  InterNet  punisher@iastate.edu       |  strength, not a lack of knowledge,
|            taa32@ccvax.iastate.edu    |  but rather lack of will." 
|					|
|    UUCP    uunet!iastate.edu!punisher |	 	   -Vincent T. Lombardi
\---------------------------------------/
From: marcoseb@ocf.berkeley.edu (Marco Sebastiani)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: telescope for sale
Date: 29 Aug 1992 18:03:38 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: ca
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

I have a telescope for sale.  It is an Edmund Astro Scan 2001 with
a 3 degree field of view.  I'll sell it for $150.  You can also make
your own offer if you wish.  Please e-mail all inquiries to:

marcoseb@ocf.Berkeley.EDU

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Subject: Re: condensation inside a SCT
Reply-To: chaloux@mandolin.mitre.org (Dave Chaloux)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:48:33 GMT

All this talk about hot air, cold air, and sealing the air in a SCT
resurfaces a question I have wondered about from time to time. Air when
it cools contracts and when it gets hot expands. The amount of expansion or
contraction is not insignificant over the range of temperatures typically
encountered. A BTE calculation for -10 C to 30 C would be about 15%. This
leads to significant over or under pressure compared to the Atmosphere
depending on when it was sealed. I remember demos of gas cans being sealed,
put in icecold water and getting squished. I have very bad images in my
head of corrector plates imploding or exploding on my SCT. Is this a real
worry? If not, why not? At very least I would think it would significantly
affect the figure of the corrector plate. I had come to the conclusion based
on such thinking that there must be some venting of the inside to the outside
either intentional or due to loose tolerances. If so, we can "seal" dry air
or nitrogen in to are hearts content and it will have a long term affect of
zero as the inside reaches equiliabrium with the outside. Yes? No? You tell
me!
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 31.08.1992.
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:23:00 MESZ
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 31.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7267 02N 31W Bxo   20   b
7268 06N 93W Axx    0   a
7270 09S 52E Cro   50   b    5


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Konica 3200
Date: 31 Aug 92 04:09:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Aug31.040940.13500
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Hypered film does not lose all its hypering instantly.  Rather than
cutting the film, I have been known to seal the camera body in a plastic
bag and put it in the refrigerator until the next night.  If the outdoor
temperature is fairly high (i.e., in the summer), give the camera several
hours to warm up before opening the bag again.

Technical Pan 2415 will retain its hypering for _weeks_ at room 
temperature.  Ektachrome 200 is good for a couple of days at least.
Admittedly there is some deterioration, but it's better than not
being able to take pictures.

-- 
+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
+ VOTE NO GEORGIA LOTTERY - we need not imitate mistakes of other states.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,rec.radio.amateur.misc,rec.radio.shortwave
From: oler@rho.uleth.ca (Cary Oler)
Subject: Daily Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for 27 August
Organization: University of Lethbridge
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:39:59 GMT

!!BEGIN!! (1.0) S.T.D. Solar Geophysical Data Broadcast for DAY 240, 08/27/92
10.7 FLUX=093.8  90-AVG=125        SSN=054      BKI=2234 4222  BAI=013
BGND-XRAY=B1.1     FLU1=4.4E+05  FLU10=1.5E+04  PKI=3233 4332  PAI=013
  BOU-DEV=013,016,028,048,051,015,011,014   DEV-AVG=024 NT     SWF=00:000
 XRAY-MAX= B5.0   @ 2014UT    XRAY-MIN= A9.8   @ 1231UT   XRAY-AVG= B1.7
NEUTN-MAX= +005%  @ 0005UT   NEUTN-MIN= -001%  @ 1455UT  NEUTN-AVG= +0.8%
  PCA-MAX= +0.1DB @ 1850UT     PCA-MIN= -0.2DB @ 1015UT    PCA-AVG= -0.0DB
BOUTF-MAX=*****NT @ ****UT   BOUTF-MIN=*****NT @ ****UT  BOUTF-AVG=55397NT
GOES7-MAX=P:+107NT@ 1741UT   GOES7-MIN=N:****NT@ ****UT  G7-AVG=+077,+044,+011
GOES6-MAX=P:+102NT@ 0002UT   GOES6-MIN=E:****NT@ ****UT  G6-AVG=+086,-006,+032
 FLUXFCST=STD:098,103,103;SESC:095,100,100 BAI/PAI-FCST=010,010,010/010,010,010
    KFCST=2224 4112 2224 4112  27DAY-AP=011,009   27DAY-KP=2223 2334 3312 2322
 WARNINGS=
   ALERTS=
!!END-DATA!!
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Binary stars, lifezones. HELP!
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:55:51 GMT

jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (Scott Miller) writes:

>The kicker was the calculation of the life-zone around stars, which,
>although I am aware of it, it does not get mentioned in the above
>mentioned texts.  Any formulae or references would also be
>appreciated.

Others have answered your other questions. On life zones; these are
just what they would be for the individual stars, but the problem to
consider is whether regular orbits within them are stable. R S
Harrington worked on this in the 70s (Astronomy Journal 1978, I think)
and concluded that if the radius of a planet's orbit around one
companion were less than 1/4 the separation between the stars,
then the orbit was stable. With such an arrangement the companion
star contributes only 1/16 as much energy as the primary on average
to heat the planet, which will raise the temperature above what would
have otherwise prevailed by 1/64. (This is for equal masses and
luminosities, and for circular orbits.) You get the 1/64 by adding
eps = 1/16 to the baseline energy flux received,
        F --> (1 + eps) F_0
and then note that the equilibrium temperature goes like F^(1/4):
        T = (1 + eps)^(1/4) T_0
          \approx (1 + eps/4) T_0 --> (1 + 1/64) T_0,
where an input flux F_0 yields a baseline temperature of T_0.

For a close binary about which an outlying planet orbits, the same
ratio of 4 prevails, but now the orbital radius about the binary's
c/m must be at least 4 times the separation. Example: replace the
sun with a binary of two stars and the earth's orbit is stable if
the separation is less than 0.25 AU. Of course the problem with
respect to life gets complicated since luminosity does not scale
linearly with mass. However, a stable, life-giving arrangement
around a close binary is possible for a range of spectral types
roughly commensurate to the case for single stars.

Harrington was able to decide stability since when instability
occurred it was very fast--it was either on or off. He commented
that for weak ellipticity, the same ratio of 4 was sufficient for
stability if it were between planet periapsis and binary apoapsis
(close binary) or between planet apoapsis and binary periapsis
(wide separation). Alpha Cen satisfies these conditions easily,
and a stable orbit about a Cen A gets only a couple of degrees C
worth of heat perturbation from a Cen B.

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Space Poop
Date: 2 Sep 1992 23:09:17 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Since 1957 more than 3,300 launches have produced 7,000 trackable
objects currently in orbit,  equalling approx 3000 tons of man made
material.
Of these 7000 catalogued objects, the US and USSR have produced approx
3300 each.  The rest are from Europe and other countries.
Of the 7000 objects, only 400 are operational satellites.
The rest of this number include abandoned or non functioning satellites,
upper stages, and fragments including lens covers, separation bolts,
and clamp bands.
Further, there are from 30,000 to 70,000 smaller objects greater than
1 cm which have not been catalogued.  Any pieces in this size range
can damage spacecraft.
Objects above the geo stationary orbit of 1000 km will remain there
for 1000 years, orbitting the earth 5 million times, posing a constant
risk of collision.

Interactive collisions in earth orbits will eventually generate sufficient
debris to creat a dense Debris Belt and prevent further launchings.
Some scientists predict that sufficient debris will begin to reduce
solar radiation and thereby affect global climate.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: A Meta question...
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:34:51 GMT


jcj@tellabs.com (JCJ) writes:

> 1)  In the MM, what's the value of Omega?

     In the Meta Model, Omega (the closure parameter) = 0 because the
universe is infinite.  Omega has little meaning outside of a big bang
context.

> 2)  Given that MM doesn't accept/include a big bang (with or without
> inflation), what sort of origin does this imply?  Does the MM rehash a
> steady-state model?

     MM is infinite in five dimensions, one of which is time.  (The fifth is
scale.)  It bears no resemblence to the SS model other than for the lack of
an origin event.  Such an origin event is (I think) unique to the big bang
among the many modern cosmologies.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Space Poop
Date: 3 Sep 1992 03:05:45 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


Mr. Steuven:  you ask, "what is my point"?

Let me answer then by:  read your journals, .......
                      esp. Acta Astronautica vol 26 July 1992.
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: matthews@ajsh.colorado.edu (Alex Matthews)
Subject: Re: Anthropic Principle?
Originator: matthews@ajsh
Organization: JILA, University of Colorado at Boulder
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 16:45:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.002050.7540@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> newberry@newton.as.arizona.edu (Mike Newberry) writes:
>
>I look at this whole idea as being something of a nonsequitur--what's the
>point?  Does this lead to anything?  I think we have to be especially careful
>about this kind of... well, for lack of a better word, "religion". The 
>direction of causality in the use of "because..." bothers me a great deal.
>If you reversed the sentence, then it would destroy the anthropic principle
>but make a heck of a lot more sense to me; to wit, "We are here to observe
>the universe because of the way it is", an obvious fact. As stated, the AP
>can't help but carry some baggage about an omnipotent entity created in
>Man's own image who cares more about humankind than about the rest of the
>universe.  In short, I have no use for the Anthropic Principle.

I agree with this.

It is somewhat disquieting that our estimates of the probability of
the occurrence of life are very low.  But in the framework of science
this can be accommodated quite handily.  Either our knowledge of the 
universe is incomplete and our estimates faulty, or we have discovered
a clue to the existence of a "creator".  The first possibility is
under the constant scrutiny it deserves, and the second can only be resolved 
by the appearance of a kindly old white-bearded man who says to us, "I brought
you into this world, by God I can take you out of it!" and then proceeds
to do so, rendering the point moot from a practical standpoint.  

-- 
-Alex Matthews (matthews@ajsh.colorado.edu)
DoD #0010   
"It's too pure, too unrefined."  - Lance Holst, August '91
From: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: condensation inside a SCT
Keywords: condensation SCT C8
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:54:35 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

You can get a clear filter that screws onto the back of the telescope
to keep out moist air.  Fill the telescope with very dry air from a
hair dryer, then put the clear filter on.  (Lumicon sells them.)

I've done this with good results, except that in my case the filter
is actually on the front of my diagonal (which I seldom remove).

-- 
+ Michael Covington - Artificial Intelligence Programs - U of Georgia - USA 
+ Unless otherwise noted, these are private opinions, not official statements.
+ VOTE NO GEORGIA LOTTERY - we need not imitate mistakes of other states.
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 24.08.1992.
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:30:01 GMT
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 24.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7260 16N 78W Eko 1150   bg   4
7265 19S 13E Hsx   40   a


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: hoffman@src.honeywell.com (Mary Jo Hoffman)
Subject: Concept of Operations
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:32:04 GMT

Hello Space Community -

I am currently working on a space navigation system with
plans to flight test in 1995.  We recently had a design
review with the customer.  One thing that the customer
requested was "Concept of Operations" (Con Ops) senarios.
I have defined several and now need to document them. Thus,

I was wondering if there is a standard format for documenting 
Con Ops?  I got the impression that there might be.

Thanks in advance, Mary Jo Hoffman (hoffman@src.honeywell.com)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: jblackwe@av8r.uucp (John Blackwell)
Subject: Re: condensation inside a SCT
Organization: Daniel Webster College, Nashua, NH
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 23:58:30 GMT





well now...interesting that nobody here has ever heard of that nasty
granular stuff: silica gel!  Yep...I've tried the sun, the heater, the
hair drier, the cold air method....short of just leaving the 'scope
out and opened up, the only thing that really easily dries out the
inside optics is a packet of silica gel placed just inside the baffle
that goes through the primary...then seal off the end...and MAKE SURE
that you don't tip the 'scope over an let the packet skidadle onto the

secondary!  not good



happy skies folks!

Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow)
Subject: Re: Space Poop Message Deleted?
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:02:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.154708.26494@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1861fdINNoov@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano) writes:
>>...
>>a constant hazard of collision with other objects.
>...
>No, such collisions _may_ create enough secondary debris to _interefer_
>with future orbital operations.


I'm not so sure we shouldn't take this problem more seriously.  Please send
$10 each to the address below, and when I recieve enough $$ to pay for the
mission I'll see if I can't convince NASA mgmt to send me up there with a 
big garbage bag to collect some of that stuff.  

I knew I'd find a way into space sooner or later!  :-)

Bob

--
Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
bobv@quarky.jpl.nasa.gov         - standard disclaimers apply -
From: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de (Jost Jahn)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Sunspots at 23.08.1992.
Date: 23 Aug 92 17:29:05 GMT
Reply-To: j.jahn@abbs.hanse.de
Distribution: sci
Organization: ABBS AstroMail, D-W 2121 Dahlenburg / Germany
X-Version: ZerUU V6.45c

Sunspots at 23.08.1992., 0 h UT.

No.    Pos.  Cl.  Ar.  Mag. SF  F  M  X
---------------------------------------
7260 16N 63W Ekc 1070   bg  18
7264 13N 24W Axx    0   a    1
7265 19S 27E Hsx   40   a


No optical or x-ray flares yesterday observed.


 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBS AstroMail, the first and most popular German astronomical bulletin board
------------------------- for amateur astronomers ----------------------------
    + 49 5851 7896 / V.21, V.22, V.22bis, V.32, V.42, V.42bis and MNP5
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.astro
From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Meta-model, pubished ?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:36:18 GMT


Earlier, I wrote:

>> The first publication of the Meta Model will be in book form around the
>> end of this year.  I will announce specifics such as title, publisher, and
>> date of publication as soon as the manuscript is far enough along to allow
>> an accurate forecast of its appearance date.

and cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) replied:

> I hope too that you're going to publish soon in The Astrophysical Journal,
> to maximize the exposure of your model to people who can contribute most
> effectively to its development.  You're obviously devoting a lot of effort
> to this and you deserve to be heard.

     The Astrophysical Journal is not too interested in long, theoretical
papers on non-mainstream topics.  (I refer to the editors, not to referees.)
I have submitted shorter papers on special topics, such as "Quasars: near vs.
far".  Even then, the editorial reception is far from friendly, and the
delays are enormous.  I am doing what I can.  Thanks for your expression of
interest.


and sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) replied:

> Are you just going to skip the peer-review process all together?  Or will
> there be some kind of accompanying paper which appears in a journal?

     The presentation of the full Meta Model itself is too lengthy for a
journal.  Moreover I have written at a semi-technical level so that non-
astronomers have a chance to read and judge the issues.  The book manuscript
has been thoroughly reviewed: by four astronomers that I asked to review it,
and by two referees that the publishers chose.

     If the model merits further attention after this publication, perhaps
the journals will be more receptive to some technical papers on it at that
time.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.optics
From: dsc@gemini.tmc.edu (Doug S. Caprette Bldg. 28 W191 x3892)
Subject: Re: cleaning mirrors - NOT!
Organization: NASA GSFC CDP VLBI
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:11:31 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.141132.9895@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>...
>So I got some pool chlorine (stronger than chlorox) and put a
>little on the mirror.  To my horror, the aluminum film
>began to dissolve.  Quickly rinsing it under water I partly
>saved the coating; I suspect what remains is about 50% reflective 
>now.
>
>At least I know how to remove the old coating before I send 
>it out for recoating :-)  
>
>Anyone know what the chemistry of an Al film plus 
>sodium hypochlorite solution would be?
>
>--

Well, Aluminum is (was, my terminology may be out of date) referred to as
an amphiprotic metal, in terms of acid/base theory.

This means that it reacts with both acids, and bases (caustics).  The
hypochlorite solution is probably caustic.   I recommend not exposing a
mirror to a caustic solution for very long, even when deliberately removing
the coating.  Strong bases etch Pyrex glass, which is why one doesn't mix
and store them in Pyrex glassware in a well run chemistry lab, plastic is
used instead. 

Interestingly enough, Aluminum is impervious to concentrated Nitric Acid, which
is often shipped in aluminum containers.  Nitric acid is a very potent oxidiser
in pure form, but only has acid properties when mixed with water.


Newsgroups: sci.astro