HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: leech@mahler.cs.unc.edu (Jon Leech)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list
Date: 22 Nov 92 05:49:05 GMT
Expires: 6 Dec 92 05:48:57 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill


    This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and
sci.space.shuttle.

    The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is
posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on
sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below).

    The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your
news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are
two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting:

    (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous
FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory
pub/SPACE/FAQ.

    (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov'
containing the single line:

help

    The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an
index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines:

send space FAQ/Index
send space FAQ/faq1

    Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer
your questions.

    Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in
sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames
archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email
archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document
instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings.

    Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author.
From: bwebster@pages.com (Bruce F. Webster)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:06:29 GMT
Reply-To: bwebster@pages.com
Organization: Banzai Research Institute

In article <BxrA4D.4vx@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
> Lunar "colony" reality check, part 2:
> 
> [More red-flag waving deleted]
>

Sheesh!  Just when things were starting to settle down, too.... ;-)

..bruce..

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce F. Webster             | No! I am not Bill Gates, nor would I want to be;
Chief Technical Officer      | I'd rather parse the fish than own the knife;
Pages Software Inc           | (Imagine! Having moby bux but chained
bwebster@pages.com           | to forty million lusers, what a life...)
#import <pages/disclaimer.h> |     -- Jeff Duntemann
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 07:16:24 GMT


-From: borden@sol.UVic.CA (Ross Borden)
-Subject: shuttle computers
-Date: 20 Nov 92 20:42:27 GMT
-Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA

-Do the GPC's have hard drives?  

I'm virtually certain they don't. Hard disks *are* used in personal
computers on the Shuttle (after all, they're mighty convenient),
but they don't have anywhere near 5000 hours MTBF under the conditions
in the Shuttle. (As I said before, one hard drive on a personal computer
seized up on the last flight.)

-If so, how do they guard against
-shock, vibration, etc?

-|                           rborden@ra.uvic.ca                                |

I would guess that they're powered down during launch and landing. (There
could well be military disk drives that would have a better chance to work
under those conditions, but even those would be likely to reduce the
reliability of the GPCs if used in them.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: davem@ee.ubc.ca (david michelson)
Subject: Re: *Angle of Attack*: have you read it?
Keywords: X15, Apollo, engineering and politics, public perception
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:30:46 GMT

In article <18NOV199210235080@cl2.cl.uh.edu> SWEN1B1F@cl.uh.edu writes:
>
>Of course, the ``China Syndrome'' was good strong fictional story rooted
>on details he learned in writing his book about Three Mile Island, the
>sympathy shown to the Jack Lemmon character seems about right for the
>level of portrayal of Harrison Storms life, works, personality and
>achievements.
>
>graham
>--
>oneil@aio.jsc.nasa.gov
>

Did he write a book on TMI *before* the accident?  (The China Syndrome
started playing in the theatres just before the TMI accident, to the best
of *my* recollection.)
 
--
Dave Michelson
davem@ee.ubc.ca

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Laser Divergence
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 23:48:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <By38BE.Kyy.1@cs.cmu.edu> GFH101@URIACC.URI.EDU (Paul Klinkman) writes:
>I'm looking for information about interstellar lasers.  They sound like a
>great idea.  My question is: what keeps the laser beam from diverging
>over long distances?

Nothing.  It does diverge.  But with good optics on the sending end, it's
relatively slow divergence.

>A carbon dioxide laser in a physics lab has a 1/4 inch beam when it leaves
>the laser and a one inch or two inch spotlight on the far wall.

Run it through the right optics -- basically, a telescope -- and divergence
will be much slower.  You can't get rid of all of it, because of diffraction,
but your laser's unassisted output is definitely not "diffraction-limited"
quality.  A modest astronomical telescope can hold a visible laser down to
a 1-2km spot size on the Moon.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Subject: Re: COSTAR
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 03:32:28 GMT


-From: roelle@uars_mag.jhuapl.edu (Curtis Roelle)
-Subject: Re: COSTAR
-Date: 17 Nov 92 15:07:18 GMT
-Organization: Johns Hopkins University

-Has an assessment of potential risks has been prepared and reviewed?
-What could go wrong?  Where are the primary risk areas?  e.g. failure
-to grapple the telescope, failure to extract the module COSTAR
-replaces, engineering uncertainties that might lead to the new optical
-path missing the aperture opening, etc.  

During the closeout, a technician inadvertently leaves an unopened Coca-Cola
can inside COSTAR. (Later analysis of the checklist reveals that "remove
any extraneous beverage cans" was signed off by *two* different inspectors.)
When the boom is deployed, it ruptures the can, causing the entire interior of
HST to be coated with a liquid that quickly dries to a black, tarry layer. :-)

Somewhat more plausible scenario - the mirrors only partially deploy,
blocking the original light paths, but not implementing the new light paths,
and efforts to retract them fail. (I presume they'll try to deploy while
HST is still attached to the Shuttle - if all else fails, a couple of burly 
astronauts can try to yank the whole assembly out of HST.)

The mirrors and the boom *are* designed to be retractable, aren't they?

Another question: is COSTAR designed to be hooked into the existing HST
power supply?

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle replacement
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:43:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.034010.18488@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes:

>Whatever program you support lets make sure is flying before the shuttle stops.

That's the rub. Shuttle is a very expensive thing to fly. So much so that
all the money which could go to building a replacement is spent operating
the Shuttle. Every year we fly Shuttle delays its replacement by one year.

Shuttle doesn't do anything which can't be done by existing and near term
systems. Let's phase it out so we can build them!

>and let go of our heaviest capacity lift vehicle.

Titan IV can lift any existing or planned payload Shuttle can lift.

  Allen
-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------156 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com
Subject: Re: ROTATION OF THE MOON
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 03:55:02 GMT

In article <1ejrttINNchl@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes...
>jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
> 
>>labmas@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Andersson) writes:
>>>>Do you know if that rate is constant?  Say around 63M years ago,
>>>>around the time of the end of the dinosaurs, the day would have
>>>>been 175 hrs longer!

>>>No.  If the rotation is slowing, then days used to be shorter.

>>Right, so the rate obviously isn't constant or the Earth would have been
>>spinning at relativistic speeds shortly before our astraulopithic ancestors 
>>appeared.  Since the rates depends on tides and gravitational fields it's very
>>likely that there are exponential terms in the equation.  If I recall correctly,
>>you have cubics in the formula for tidal forces, which results in a much
>>different curve than trying to plot it linearly.

I remember seeing a discussion studying the fossils of some coral.  The coral
animals adds a thin layer of coral every day, and in the summer it adds more
each day.  This gives something like growth rings of trees.  From studying the
daily variations and the annual variations the length of the years measured in
the length of the days of the time can be determined. If I remember correctly
there were 370 days in a year at the time when the dinosaurs died out (meaning
the days were ~23h40m long), and early fossils showed 400 day years (or days
shorter than 22 hours). 

>I have heard (potential Urban Legend warning)  that one of the ocean basins
>(Pacific? Atlantic?) has a slosh frequency which is resonant with the
>tides, which greatly increases the tidal drag.  In the past, the continents
>were at different positions, so the oceans had different frequencies,
>so the tidal drag was much less.

I read somewhere that half the ocean's tidal friction was in the Bering Strait
and it has something to do with it being shallow.

Sorry, no references to either of these tidbits of information, my mind is
full of useless trivia like this, most all without references.

-Mike
From: roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Shuttle computers
Date: 16 Nov 92 05:07:23 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology formerly National Bureau of Standards
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU


-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Subject: Re: What kind of computers are in the shuttle?
-Date: 14 Nov 92 23:58:37 GMT

-There are also some other little problems, like the fact that the orbiter
-computers aren't independent systems -- those five main computers operate
-in very close lockstep for fault tolerance.  This isn't just a tougher
-version of a commercial computer system.

Do you recall how tight the lockstep is? I don't believe I've seen anything
written on that since before STS-1.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
From: adamsd@crash.cts.com (Adams Douglas)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Spinoff Survey
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:58:14 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services (crash, ctsnet), El Cajon, CA

This is posted for my roommate, Donna M. Gagnon. She does have a
net email address, but no News access. 
 
PLEASE EMAIL ALL REPLIES TO: dragon@pnet01.cts.com
 
     I am a Research Associate for Jan Howard Finder's Shadow
     Cabinet, an organization of space enthusiasts attempting to
     develop a coordinated space policy statement _sellable_ to
     the general public. At the moment I am collecting
     information for several cabinet members. Please email me
     answers to the questions I have listed below. I will post a
     summary for those interested.
 
     While I personally am globally minded, for purposes of this
     survey the answers to these questions should explicitly
     reflect the benefits to the U.S.A. as distinct from those to
     the planet.
 
     1. Does the space program contribute to the american
     economy, if so how? Please give explicit examples. Also,
     please don't answer the next two questions in the answer to
     this one.
 
     2. What physical products (e.g., bowling balls,
     photosensitive sunglasses) are in use in present-day America
     that we can attribute to the space program? Please be
     explicit. 
 
     3. What non-physical products (e.g., weather reports, better
     communications) are available in present-day America that we
     can attribute to the space program. Please be explict.
 
                                   Thank you, 
                                Donna M. Gagnon
 
REMEMBER, REPLY TO: dragon@pnet01.cts.com
Xref: sparky sci.space:16164 alt.sci.planetary:339
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
From: cash@husc10.harvard.edu (Benjamin Cash)
Date: 20 Nov 92 12:04:25 EST
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Nov19.020207.11499@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au> wharvey@gucis.cit.gu.edu.au (Wayne Harvey) writes:
>
>I seem to remember some theory a while back that the moon was actually 
>*captured* by Earth at some stage (I think it was about 800 million
>years ago), which also has corollaries in some of the very early

 Just to toss a couple of pennies at this one, I believe that the latest and
best accepted theory on how we got the moon involved a collision between 
proto-earth and another proto-planet about the size of Mars (note that this
was emphatically NOT Mars itself) We ran a computer simulation in one of my 
geology classes that showed that at the proper angle the collision produced
a cloud of debris that set up in orbit around the earth, in a stable enough
situation that they would stay there instead of crashing back down or flying
away. This explains why the moon and earth have very similar compositions,
are of approximately the same age etc...

I learned this a couple of years ago, so it may be out of date and I may have
forgotten some, but this was definitely seen as much more likely than the 
captured, simultaneous formation, or the 'tearing off' theories. Anybody who
is more up-to-date feel free to correct me, and I'll try to hunt down my 
notes for that class.  

Ben Cash
cash@husc.harvard.edu
Havard University

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: pgf@srl01.cacs.usl.edu ("Phil G. Fraering")
Subject: ...and another golden oldie...
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 21:44:46 GMT


     The NAA and its Sky Shuttle, obviously a reference to NASA and
the Space Shuttle, is not a valid analogy.  The reason is simple:
it is very easy to build a scale model of a bridge out of balsa
wood, but you must use a qualitatively different material when
building the real thing.  In case you didn't follow that, I'll
rephrase it:  scale is very important.

     There is a very real difference in scale between the fictic-
tious Sky Shuttle, an airplane, and the Space Shuttle, a space
ship.  An airplane is such a simple device, in its most primitive
form, that one can be built single-handedly with the resources
available to a single person.  Thus, the Wright brothers were able
to pioneer in the field without any financial backing.  The Space
Shuttle, on the other hand, is one of the most complex machines
ever built by man to date (even if it will look hopelessly primi-
tive some day in the future).

     The moral of the Sky Shuttle scenario is that space travel
would be better developed by tinkers working in their backyards,
or, more realistically, by major corporations.  However, the simple
fact is that the Space Shuttle is too complex a machine to be
/developed/ by any corporation existing today.  NO company has the
financial resources to plunge billions of dollars into something
that will take decades to pay itself off.  I am willing to concede,
however, that once space travel has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED,
private enterprise will be running the space ships under the
equivalent of the airlines' air traffic control system, and I do
support NASA's plan to eventually sell its shuttles.


Note from phil: god, didn't any of these people use .signatures?
BTW, nice how "NASA's plan to eventually sell its shuttles" worked
out, huh?













-- 
Phil Fraering
"...drag them, kicking and screaming, into the Century of the Fruitbat."
<<- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: NASA Town Meetings Schedule
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Distribution: sci.space
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:12:03 GMT

In article <SRCTRAN.92Nov20102422@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes...
>    Here's a list of the remaining NASA Town Meetings around the country.
>I missed the New England because I found out too late (was this stuff ever
>posted to the NET?).
>

Yes, this information was posted to sci.space and sci.space.news a month ago.

>		December 3, 2:00-6:30 pm, Ramo Auditorium, CALTECH, Pasadena

One update, the location for December 3 NASA Town Meeting has been changed to 
California State University, Dominquez Hills.

>For more information, call 202-453-3006
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     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: Town Meeting
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 08:50:39 GMT


I just saw the midnight NASA Select replay of the Indianapolis Town Meeting.
I thought it was very interesting - many important issues were brought up.
Administrator Goldin covered much of the same ground in his introductory
speech as he did in the previous Town Meetings, but not in exactly the
same words, which I thought showed some consideration for the television
audience.

The meeting went very well, at least until some maniac (didn't quite catch
the name - Huggins, or some such) totally disrupted the proceedings by asking 
some tough questions on DCX and other subjects. :-) :-)

I'd better let Bill comment on the reply. (If he wants, I can extract a
transcript of the question and the answer.)

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Space suit research?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:51:24 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <Bxs6ou.2F4.1@cs.cmu.edu> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

>-or are there long term bio effects????

>There *may* be. For example, one of the Apollo astronauts, after a busy day
>on the moon, had bleeding under his fingernails - thought to be mainly a
>result of the low pressure. Little indications like that made NASA uneasy. :-)

I can't see any reason why low pressure would cause bleeding under the nails
as long as the pressure inside the body was equally low.  Sounds like NASA
was worried about a pressure leak in the gloves, causing the pressure there
to be lower than the pressure in the rest of the suit.  That could, quite
likely, cause bleeding, with the pressure inside the body pushing a small
amount of blood through the skin under the nails (which is quite thin).  

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Space suit research?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 03:39:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.180102.20839@eos.arc.nasa.gov> brody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Adam R. Brody ) writes:
>Actually, the latest I have heard is that cold plates will be used
>for cooling and the sole reason for high pressure is health.

Air cooling is also relied on, at least on the Shuttle: There is a
10-psi mode, used during EVA missions to reduce pre-breathing 
requirements. Rockwell, however, was sufficiently concerned about 
cooling at low cabin pressure, to have a clause written into the
contract: Rockwell has no responisbility what so ever for any electronics
failures related to low cabin pressure...
  
>The fact
>that people live in high elevations like Denver and Mexico City, where
>the atmospheric pressure is lower than sea level does not hold much weight.

Actually, Vail or Aspen at ~10 psi average, would be a better example
than Denver (~12 psi...) I have never understood why NASA doesn't
consider this fact relevant. I know the reason the Case for Mars IV
conference endorsed 14.5psi for Mars missions: NASA apparently likes
it and will probably be using that pressure in many existing systems
by the time a Mars mission is launched. Having two different pressures
is a _major_ pain, so the general consensus was to stick to 14.5psi...

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "Jonathan's Space Report, No. 133"
Summary: Attention Satellite Observers - New large object in orbit.
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:34:33 GMT
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.

In article <1992Nov18.234517.12340@news.arc.nasa.gov| mcdowell@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
|
|Jonathan's Space Report 
|
|No. 133		1992 Nov  18
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|The first successful Zenit launch in over two and a half years
|occurred from Baykonur on Nov 17, after three failures in a row. It
|placed a Russian military signals intelligence satellite in an 850 km
|orbit inclined 71 degrees. The Zenit launch vehicle is built by NPO
|Yuzhnoye in the Ukraine.

With the military payload the upper stage remains in orbit.
The upper stage (1992-076B) is larger and brighter than the payload. It is a
cylinder measuring 3.9 meters in diameter and 10.4 meters in length.
There are identical examples launched with Cosmos 1697, 1833, 1844, 
1943, 1980 and 2082. Each of these reaches a dependable +2.5 magnitude 
often brightening to +2.
 
While the earlier cylinders have settled into a gravity gradient mode, length
perpendicular to the earth's surface, each spent time tumbling after launch.
The expected tumbling of Cosmos 2219 r/b will cause it to vary in brightness as
it passes overhead.
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)  Tumbra, Zorkovick; Sparkula zoom krackadomando.  
....alien language from an SF short story on a 78-RPM record I had as a kid.
Xref: sparky sci.space:16218 sci.astro:12280 alt.sci.planetary:344