HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsf5454@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Subject: Software/NASA employees
Reply-To: dsf5454@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:14:18 GMT

Hello... I was wondering if anybody knows HAL/S (High-order Assembly
Language/Shuttle)? That is, how different is it from regular assembly language?

Also, I can't confirm this information that I recently obtained, but I'd like
to know if anybody can say anything more about this:

Access to the shuttle is very restricted - compartmentalized, in fact... The
key personnel are given chance to get access with the understanding they go
through an extensive background security check -if they refuse, they don't get
access...however, in order to get access at any particular time, they have to
have a particular reason to be there at a particular time.

And that, in the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building) at KSC (Kennedy Space
Center), all personnels are required to wear hard hats up to the top levels,
where everybody is *STRONGLY* encouraged NOT to wear anything that could fall - 
i.e., glasses, hat, ID badges, rings, etc. to prevent any damage to the
orbiter.

Incidentially, is the area that KSC is in still referred to as Cape Canaveral
by its employees, tourists, or the local natives?

I'd like any information or comments. Many thanks!!

--Dan Foster

In case my .sig doesn't work (Problems lately...you could say I'm debugging
it!), you can always send e-mail to: dsf5454@ritvax.isc.rit.edu


|------|  Dan Foster, Rochester Institute of Technology
| Rent |  <-- This space for rent!
| Me!  |      Sorry, this .sig is still in beta testing!  :-)
|------|  Internet address: dsf5454@ritvax.isc.rit.edu                
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Launch sequence of events?
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:04:17 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov7.234954.2416@serval.net.wsu.edu> kfarmer@wsuaix.csc.wsu.edu (keith farmer;S10000) writes:
>>Shuttle launches now use a "direct ascent" trajectory, no OMS-1 burn is
>>performed...
>
>Does this invalidate the Space Shuttle Operator's Manual?

The SSOM was written pretty early in shuttle history and I don't think it's
been updated.  Don't take it as gospel on fine points.
-- 
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: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Telnet access to spacelink ?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:23:26 GMT

In article <phfrom.375@nyx.uni-konstanz.de>, 
phfrom@nyx.uni-konstanz.de (Hartmut Frommert) writes:
> Can someone please tell me if and how it is possible to access and use 
> NASA's SPACELINK facility via telnet (I know how to ftp, but...) ?

From VMS you type:

$ telnet spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov

I suppose the UNIX form is similar.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
From: tom@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Date: 07 Nov 92 00:03 PST
Subject: e
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1469200004:000:39
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!tom    Nov  7 00:03:00 1992


do we still use UDMH as a liquid fuel?
From: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:06:44 GMT
Reply-To: michael@vk2bea.UUCP (Michael G. Katzmann)
Organization: Broadcast Sports Technology, Crofton. Maryland.

In article <1992Nov5.162250.29699@ulysses.att.com> smb@ulysses.att.com (Steven Bellovin) writes:
 >You know, this is even better than rec.humor.funny....

 Yeah, I liked the "Brain Scrambling" bit!

-- 
Michael Katzmann                  >   Broadcast Sports Technology Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	         <    Crofton, Maryland. U.S.A
Amateur Radio Stations:           >     
NV3Z / VK2BEA / G4NYV / AAR3VK   <    opel!vk2bea!michael@uunet.uu.net
From: petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: grounded astros/who will beat Young
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:17:32 GMT
Reply-To: petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis)
Organization: <92308.105328ASNTB@ASUACAD.BITNET>o

In article <92308.105328ASNTB@ASUACAD.BITNET> ASNTB@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
>.... Of these, only Story Musgrave is scheduled for a fifth at the
>present time.  I think Musgrave is ~57 years old,  so I think his chances
>of tying or beating Young are unlikely.  However, I did have a chance to
>meet Story once, and he seemed quite set on remaining an astronaut for as
>long as possible.

I saw Story Musgrave in the Neutral Buoyancy water tank at Marshall last
week along with Tom Akers working on Hubble Telescope. Among them and many
other support divers was an IMAX cameraman shooting scenes.

Peter Jarvis......
From: Richard.Reynolds@f5.n7103.z5.fidonet.org (Richard Reynolds)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Rovers
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:36:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: catpe.2853.2B029F6A
Organization: FidoNet node 5:7103/5 - The Chatterbox, Durban

Hi there!

What sort of planetry roving vehicles are being built for the Mars
landings and how good are they? Also, and this is a way out question,
what is the closest predicted time for getting a man on Mars by?

Cheers
Richard
 ~ SLMR 2.1a ~ Save trees - eat a beaver.


--  
INTERNET: Richard.Reynolds@f5.n7103.z5.fidonet.org
via:  THE CATALYST BBS in Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
       (catpe.alt.za)   +27-41-34-1122 HST or +27-41-34-2859, V32bis & HST.
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
From: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Reply-To: kevinq@Ingres.COM (Kevin Quinn)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:02:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.185152.2122@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
[ deleted excrement ]

Oh Bobbie, you of the purported degree (which I have come to doubt): can the
crapola, son.  You've flooded so many forums, so often, so repeatedly, with
the same junk, that you are no longer amusing.

Go away, boy.



--
Kevin Quinn                         | kevinq@ingres.com
                                    | {mtzinu,pacbell,ll-winken,sun}!ingres.com
My opinions are my own.  Should you think otherwise, think again.
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Nasa Coverup
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:57:47 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester


In article <BxB0L9.1nr.1@cs.cmu.edu> amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

> I mentioned Paul Dietz: he is part of our community here, and is a
> very respected part of it at that. If he is not busy with life outside
> of cyberspace, I'm sure he could address what you have said, and far
> better than most of us. If he is listening in now, it is up to him.

Oh, good grief.  This snarfy person is either a leg-puller or a
clueless, paranoid buffoon.  I am surprised Henry made even one reply.
The suggestion that Apollo was faked is just too much for any sane,
moderately informed person to believe.

	Paul
Xref: sparky sci.space:15675 alt.sci.planetary:274
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Date: 11 Nov 1992 03:42:07 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov11.002919.1688@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, skoester@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott A Koester) writes:
>
>   I don't know too much abotu many of the specifics, but in the sense of the 
>moon 'colony' paying for itself, did any mention the fact that if solar arrays 
>are set up on the moon the can produce a large amount energy, energy which 
>could be used to power the base/colony, or could be beamed back down to the 
>EArth in the form of microwaves and then collected and tranformed back into 
>usable energy.  This could be sold at a rate to other countries also.

Power produced on the lunar surface and beamed directly to earth would have a
number of drawbacks:
	1)  You'd need a very tight beam, which you'd have to be able to aim.
	2)  Even if you manage to take care of 1), the energy would be
	    available at any particular place on Earth only 12 hours out of the
	    day, with efficiency of the microwave link going down toward the
	    ends of the period.  Furthermore, the time of day when the energy
	    is available at any particular place on earth won't be the same
	    from day to day.  It will vary throughout the day over the course
	    of a lunar month.
	3)  Any particular lunar installation will be inoperative for half of
	    every lunar month, with decreasing efficiencies toward either end
	    of the period in which it's operational.
Now, you *COULD* alleviate the second problem by using geostationary relay
satellites, and you could alleviate the third by having installations spread
around the moon, using yet another relay station (at L4 or L5).  However, we're
now talking about a LOT of hardware.  It would almost certainly make more sense
to put the solar cells on the geosync satellites.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:34:33 GMT

From article <1992Nov11.005151.15358@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>, by jenkins@fritz (Steve Jenkins):
> 
> Oxygen, like many gases, has narcotic effects at very high pressures,
> such as in deep-sea diving.  It can cause blindness in newborns
> 

Yes to blindness in newborns, but it is the *nitrogen* that has the narcotic
effect in deep sea diving -- hence the use of helium for the really really
deep dives.

Trust me, I'm a librarian.

-John D. Boggs     john-boggs@uiowa.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:04:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.032649.48720@datamark.co.nz> david@datamark.co.nz (David Rowland) writes:
>In article <1992Nov1.124016.12004@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
[Glad bag plant story deleted]
>>
>>The moral of this story is that robotics is not yet adaptive enough to
>>unexpected conditions to operate without waste and possible harm in less
>>than critically supervised operations.
>
>But wouldn't the robots been discussed here be operated remotely by
>ground based people.  This way, there is no need to program much AI
>into the system.  

That isn't robotics, it's teleoperation. That's available now. The
Shuttle has the Canadarm and so will Freedom. They're operated on
site because the maximum 7 second communications delay through the
relay satellites is too much for real time assembly from the ground.
Robots have autonomy, at least of a limited kind. They have to respond
in real time to real time events. My example about the bag plant was
to show that unforeseen  things still come up in well understood
environments. A robot can't react to a stimulus it isn't programmed
to recognize as a problem. 

I expect that improvements in routing statellite communications could
get the average control lag down to under 1.5 seconds. That would help
a lot. However, the lag is constantly changing due to the low Earth
orbit so I'd expect it to be a nightmare for the operator to compensate.
I also expect that as we gain more experience in space assembly, we'll
know what kinds of problems are likely to occur and can program a robot
to recognize them and react properly. That's likely to be one of the
lessons learned from Freedom assembly.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check and Apollo fire
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:36:43 GMT

In article <11NOV199208300719@vx.cis.umn.edu> soc1070                          writes:
>>   The fire ignited the velcro under high-pressure, and the resultant toxic
>>fumes killed the astronauts within seconds.
>
>I beg to differ. It was in fact Apollo 1, as many have pointed out. If you
>check your Apollo history, you will see that 8 circled the moon, 9 did
>LEO tests, 10 tested the LM in lunar orbit, 11 landed, 12 landed next to
>the Surveyor, 13 blew an oxygen tank on the way to the moon, etc.

You are right, of course...  Rechecking my refs., I should have said 
"Spacecraft 12" and not "Apollo 12".  Damn naming conventions.  :)
Apollo 1 was the mission number, and Spacecraft 12 was the spacecraft
name...Pardon my confusion.

>Secondly, the cause of the fire was never traced to any specific source.
>According to Micheal Collens in _Carrying The Fire_, the inside of the
>craft was so fried that a single cause could not be found; rather there
>were several *probable* causes that resulted in an almost complete redesign
>of the inside of the capsule. 

Correct.

>You were right that almost anything will burn at 16psi pure O2, even
>stainless steel. Unfortunatly for Grissom, White, and Chaffee, they didn't
>die of toxic fumes. It was the fire that did them.

I beg to differ on this point.  The burns weren't fatal.  The astronauts had
suffocated.  The velcro and nylon netting in the spacecraft burned very *very*
rapidly under 16psi of pure O2( later tests showed that the velcro burned at
a rate of almost 3 inches per second), and filled the entire cabin with gas.
The fire itself was very selective...a flight manual inside the craft (where
White was located) was almost untouched.

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Reply-To: giglio@betsy.gsfc.nasa.gov (Louis Giglio)
Organization: NASA/GSFC
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:17:01 GMT

In a previous article I wrote:

>In article <1992Nov9.192439.1354@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W.
>Sherzer) writes:
>
>|> >* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.
>|> 
>|> Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived
>|> weeks on end on pure oxygen.
>                   ^^^^ ^^^^^^
>
>I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either party, but I want to point
>out that
>this can't possibly be correct.  The oxygen had to be diluted with
>something.
>They would have died otherwise.

As lots of folks have pointed out, I was wrong.  I was stupidly assuming a
one atmosphere cabin/suit pressure.  One can match the partial pressure of
oxygen in air by reducing the pressure of a pure oxygen atmosphere.


--------------------
Louis Giglio
Severe Storms Branch
NASA/GSFC
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Russian Engines for DC-Y?
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 06:47:12 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Nov5.055945.28439@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rbw3q@helga9.acc.Virginia.EDU (Robert B. Whitehurst) writes:
>	The interesting thing about this article was that it said that
>the RD-701 used only two turbopumps, with the LOX and kerosene being
>pumped by one, and the LH2 by the other.  I read it quickly, so I
>might have this wrong, but that sounds rather intriguing.  Is
>fuel/oxidizer premixed in other engines? ...

I haven't seen the article yet... but almost certainly that means a
common turbine driving two separate pumps.  It's fairly normal to
use a separate pump turbine for hydrogen, because a hydrogen pump is
a very different animal due to hydrogen's very low density, but a
common turbine for more normal propellants is nothing unusual.  The
thought of trying to pump premixed propellants would make any sane
rocket engineer dive for cover, even disregarding the fact that you
*can't* premix LOX and kerosene due to temperature differences...
-- 
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:15657 alt.sci.planetary:269
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Date: 10 Nov 1992 22:09:07 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: concertina

In article <roelle.721413660@uars_mag> roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle) writes:
>
>Are you certain that Apollo astronauts breathed pure O2?  I thought that
>after the fatal Apollo 1 fire, which killed astronauts Grissom, White, and
>Chaffee on January 27, 1967, pure O2 was no longer used because it was a
>proven fire hazard.  Or did NASA simply reduce the cabin pressure as
>suggested by Carl Lydick?

After the pad fire, NASA quit running the ground overpressure test in
pure O2.  In orbit, it was still pure O2 at about 3.5psi. Even that is
a bit above the partial pressure of O2 at sea level (~ 3.08 psi)

--
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
-------------------------------------------------------
From: nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Coverup - gravity doesn't exist?
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:21:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BxB4C8.5oq.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Originator: nickh@VOILA.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

John Roberts writes:

   Peter J. Scott writes:

   -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?  

   *I* haven't, but my roommate in college did. He was a pretty honest fellow,
   so I expect he was telling the truth about the results.

I've done an inverse-square experiment (not very well), and a big-G
experiment. But gravity is genuinely very difficult to test
accurately. That's why there are still a fair number of people
experimenting with it (and every so often one of them comes up with
evidence for gravitational mass depending on, say, baryon number (I
kid you not)).

   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.

Cobblers. No such tree. I have, however, bathed in the fountain that
Byron's bear used to play in :-)

Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Subject: Re: Apollo fire
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 18:37:53 GMT

In article <BxK9DG.I27@access.digex.com> mheney@access.digex.com (Michael K. Heney) writes:
>Finally, the image of being killed by Velcro is mind-boggling. (Lunatic
>Loop-strips!  Hook-strips from Hell!)  Toxic fumes in the smoke were the
>cause of death - burning velcro could have been one source, but wiring,
>insulation, etc also contributed.

The burn rate of the velcro and nylon was so rapid that they were the most
likely contributors to the toxic fumes that led to the deaths outright.  Kinda
makes you lose faith in synthetics, doesn't it?  :)
   What's also sad about the whole affair, was that Harrison Storms was turned
into the scapegoat at the end.  He wasn't even allowed on the launch site of
the Apollo 12 mission, and he had been basically the centerpiece of the whole 
Apollo project...


-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
Xref: sparky sci.space:15345 sci.astro:11651
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Duncan Steel on Swift-Tuttle
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:20:13 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


>(3)  There has been a lot of bull written in these columns about
>   P/Swift-Tuttle and whether it will hit the Earth and what the
>   consequences might be.  

How true.  I have not yet seen ONE independent confirmation of
the orbital calculations and a sober error analysis.  For all we
know, this could be somebody's mistake.

---------------------------------
Jeff Bytof
rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy
From: jboggs@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (John D. Boggs)
Subject: Re: NASA Coverup
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:02:01 GMT

From article <4603@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us>, by snarfy@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us:
> 
>    As promised ,here come the ...
> 
>                     TEN EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MOON
> 
>    1.) Where did the moon come from , and how did  it  attain  it's  present
>        orbit?
>    2.   Is  the  "  apparent " size similarity (as viewed from earth) of the
>      sun and moon a mere coincidence?
>     3. Why are moon rocks so much older than earth rocks?
>   4. Why are the "maria" or "lunar seas" located almost entirely on one side
>      of the moon?
>   5. Was rustproof iron found on the moon ?
>   6 . Is the core of the moon hot or cold ?
>   7. Were immense clouds of water vapor ever observed on the moon?
>   8. What caused the "Glaze" on the lunar surface?
>   9. What are "mascons" and how did they get there?
>    10. Is there anything "funny" about the moon?
> 

While interesting (and I do want to find references in something other than
a Frank Edwards book to that pillar of unrustable iron in India), what does
all this have to do with a coverup of some super propulsion system?  Please,
give some sort of references for some of your points, as it is, this post reads
very much like the aforementioned Frank Edwards book (and others in the genre).

-John D. Boggs     john-boggs@uiowa.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:29:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.044348.827@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Military COBOL and Intel processors, FRED IS DOOMED. :-) :-)

Oh I don't know about that. After all, the Terminator used COBOL and
8080 assembly language and it worked pretty good.

  Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------163 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+