HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Human UV vision
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 21:39:58 GMT
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 <BM9MxJ.435@world.std.com> tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker) writes:

>>He reports that photographic UV blocking filters look slightly pinkish
>>to him, and that Skylight filters look much pinker than with the other
>>eye.

>So I would be very interested if he is reporting that his father sees
>UV as pinkish!  (Or is this just the sheen on a lens filter?)  All
>interesting either way.

He said UV-blocking filters, not UV-transmitting filters: A red
filter (one we see as red) is on that passes red light, not one
that blocks it.  So it's quite natural that a filter that blocked 
UV light would appear slightly pinkish to someone who saw UV, since
he would be seeing less UV and hence a higher percentage of red in
the light shining through it.
From: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com (Steven J. Edwards)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Apollo XI LM computer overload
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:09:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: xylos.SJE.92Apr17160914
Reply-To: sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com
Distribution: sci
Organization: Bull HN, Worldwide Information Systems, Billerica, Mass., USA


	Yes, it is true that the Apollo XI lunar module's computer did
repeatedly signal overload alarms during descent.  This was later
determined to be caused by incorrectly leaving the LM rendezvous radar
active when only the landing radar should have been running.  I do not
recall if this was a mistake by the astronauts or by the system
design, but it was corrected in later missions.

	The equipment and mission rules wisely allowed for a manual
override.  I understand that the first LM landed with just under
thirty seconds worth of hovering fuel.

	Years after Apollo, I came across a copy of the programmer's
guide for the LM computer.  Sort of interesting if you like real time
assembly language programming for 16 bit machines.  It appeared that
the computer was very nearly programmed to its limits and there wasn't
much extra margin.

 [The above opinions expressed are my own; not necessarily held by others.]
      == Steven J. Edwards           Bull HN Information Systems Inc. ==
      == (508) 294-3484              300 Concord Road         MS 820A ==
      == sje@xylos.ma30.bull.com     Billerica, MA 01821          USA ==
"That Government which Governs the Least, Governs Best." -- Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky sci.space:7627 sci.astro:5102
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: What is Current Status of Project SETI?  And a Question.
Date: 17 Apr 92 19:11:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Hello,

I was just reading through the Feb. 90 issue of Acta Astronautica, which
was devoted to the sociological and legal aspects of a verified receipt
of an alien civilizations' radio signal.  It was very interesting.

One of the authors (I don't recall his name) stated that it is likely that
any receipt of such a signal might be instantly 'classified' by the Government,
and he gave several plausible reasons.

Thus, I'd like to know:  1) What is the current status of Project SETI? and 
2) Are there mechanisms in that project to prevent the Government from
classifying whatever is uncovered, that is, to make sure that it is publicly
disseminated?

Thanks for your feedback.

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro
From: 473furtaw@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: *HELP* for proving Freedom
Date: 14 Apr 92 16:46:12 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

A few weeks ago I wrote to U.S. Rep Howard Wolpe (D-Mich) reagrding Freedom.
He replied stating his reasons for wanting to kill the program.  This is what
he said:
"...The termination of the space station will enable NASA to pursue the 
sensible agenda laid out for it earlier this year by the advisory committee
on the future of the U.S. Space Program: the first priority should be space
science; second, the study of the Earth from space; and third, to the extent
that it is affordable, manned exploration of the solar system..."

Wolpe will be speaking on campus tomorrow and I hope to get a chance to meet
him and talk to him about this.  I am very much in favor of Freedom, but also
realize that it isn't perfect.  Does anyone have any ideas for what I could say
to him that _might_ change his mind?  More or less, his reasons for killing
Freedom are what I understand to be the reasons for _building_ Freedom.  Please
e-mail me some ideas.  If I do get a chance to talk to him, I'll make a posting
telling how it went.

Thanks in advance.
Scott Furtaw
473furtaw@gw.wmich.edu

Keep the dream alive & Remember the Challenger 7
From: 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: <None>
Date: 8 Apr 92 01:48:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr7.204842.5813

As for the war question, couldn't you have a moderate National Hydrogen 
Reserve, in case of satellite failure?

Also, we'd have a considerable conventional-fuel backup infrastructure, 
that we could dust off and run overtime to provide energy in case of 
emergency, wouldn't we (on coal, mainly)?

Have you read the article in a recent Air & Space about generating 
solar power on the moon?  The fellow that's all hog-wild about it
says that selling it at ten cents/KWhour (one of my sources says nuclear runs
for 9 cents now, you'd be making billions of dollars per day within a decade 
or so.

Advantage being, of course, that you could make the panels out of the
lunar soil itself, and just ship up the processing equipment.  Of course, 
the next problem would be directing the microwaves back to earth, and for
that you'd need to AIM the reflecting mirrors, and that could get 
hairy.  (You'd need fuel to move them, right?  How else could you apply a 
force?)

Another thing about the moon thing is that, of course, half of the 
lunal panels would be in the dark, thereby doubling the costs.

Craig Meyer
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: tnf70@isuevax.iastate.edu (Greg Radke)
Subject: GIFs or images of Lauches -NOT shuttle
Followup-To: tnf70@evax.iastate.edu
Reply-To: tnf70@isuevax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 20:03:09 GMT


just a quick question,

where can I get some images (gif/image/jpeg - for a macintosh) of
a launch of ANYTHING but a shuttle.  I would like to see a
scanned image of Titan , Ariane, Soyuz launch(es)...

Please E-mail me ASAP.
Sorry if this is a FAQ or obvious, I checked "archie" under
"space" and "launch"...the only thing I really noticed was
a scud+launcher.gif.

Thanks,
Greg Radke
  ___________________________________________________________________________
  Greg Radke - Iowa State Univ.    | Over tolerance of inaccurate thinking 
  Senior - Aerospace Engineering   | causes part of social downfall.
  Internet: TNF70@evax.iastate.edu
NOTE:THIS ACCOUNT WILL CEASE TO EXISTS AFTER MAY 15, 1992.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Payload Launching Systems--technologies
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:37:21 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Apr9.135243.5975@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>1.  Where is most of the cost of launch allocated?  Was it Mr. Wright
>    that said most of the cost isn't in the fuel or the craft,
>    but the sluggish NASA beurocracy? ...

It's not *quite* that simple.  Fuel costs are minor, definitely.  Hardware,
considered as a collection of materials, is likewise cheap.  The big cost
item is the manpower needed to build, test, and launch.  You can't easily
separate that from the cost of the "craft", however, if you're using a
craft that is extremely manpower-intensive.

>   ... Would THAT
>    be the best place to cut costs, and not in new launching technology?

Many people feel that existing technology is entirely adequate to produce
launchers that need much less manpower and hence are much cheaper.  There
is no absolute proof of this, as yet.

>2.  Besides chemical, has here been any research/interest in investigating
>    alternative methods of propulsion?

There has been lots of nickel-and-dime research on a wide variety of schemes.
What is needed is not research, but *development*:  these schemes will not
attract a risk-averse NASA or risk-averse private investors until they are
demonstrated to work.  What we need most is small-scale demonstrators, to
prove that promising-looking methods will actually work well enough to get
something into orbit, and to give us some idea about costs.  NASA's aviation
side does this sort of technology pioneering all the time; the spaceflight
side should but doesn't.

>3.  Please tell me about DC-X.  Is that what others call the X-30?

See the Frequently Asked Questions posting that appears regularly.  They
are totally different projects.  The X-30 is trying to advance the state
of the art in hypersonic technology.  DC-X is trying to use existing
technology to build a demonstrator of a radically better launcher.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
From: barry@citr.uq.oz.au (Barry Kitson)
Subject: Re: Moon Market Survey
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 01:42:13 GMT

bhoughto@hopi.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <LDZ1iB1w164w@netlink.cts.com> jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>>How much would you be willing to pay for a small amount of moon dust?
>>Say, a fraction of a gram.
>Not with my life, or even a fraction of it.
>All items brought back from the moon, even a speck of
>moon dust, are Property of the US Government, and if
>anyone possesses them privately they are breaking
>Federal Law.

	Have the Soviets (or Russians, or whatever they're called 
now :^) been informed of this? 

	Is private possession of items from the Earth an offence
under Lunar Law?

	Inquiring minds want to pass judgement :^) ,

		Barry.
From: 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Payload Launching Systems--technologies
Date: 9 Apr 92 18:52:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr9.135243.5975

Few questions about launching payloads:

1.  Where is most of the cost of launch allocated?  Was it Mr. Wright
    that said most of the cost isn't in the fuel or the craft,
    but the sluggish NASA beurocracy?  Where's the beef?  Would THAT
    be the best place to cut costs, and not in new launching technology?

2.  Besides chemical, has here been any research/interest in investigating
    alternative methods of propulsion?  The electromagnetic system sounds
    good, but it's main drawback is that you can't AIM it, isn't it?  So,
    you couldn't send things up a piece at a time, 'cause they'd be scattered
    all over, separate from one another?

3.  Please tell me about DC-X.  Is that what others call the X-30?

4.  Any other information about new launching systems?

Thank you,
Craig Meyer  01crmeyer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu
From: 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Art. Grav. and Space Medical Problems
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:45:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: bsu-ucs.1992Apr14.134554.6343

What ever happened to spinning the vehicle around 2001-style?
If it was made in two units, connected by a long passageway, you'd
have some big, rotating, interplanetary barbell.

Wouldn't it work, though?  Why is artificial gravity never discussed?

CM
Xref: sparky sci.space:7423 rec.models.rockets:873
From: lc2b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lawrence Curcio)
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: Re: More Titan Sources
Date: 10 Apr 92 00:11:34 GMT
	<1992Apr9.185449.23656@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>
Organization: Doctoral student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Having worked for MM, I can tell you they are a mixture of geniuses and
idiots. Those of us who were in between left. Also, they like to shake
up the staff a lot, being aerospace types.

If you try again, you might get a genius. The person you spoke to may
not even be there anymore :-)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: lou@Cadence.COM (Louis K. Scheffer)
Subject: Re: Censure the sensor censors
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Distribution: ba
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 1992 20:54:35 GMT

willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) writes:

>The problem is not the sensor.  You also have to cool anything the
>sensor sees other than the object of interest, i.e. you have to limit
>the field of view with _cold_ optics.

>Think of it this way: each pixel receives light from an entire
>hemisphere, but only a small part of that solid angle is the area of
>interest.  You have to make sure no photons from areas NOT of
>interest reach the detector; otherwise, statistical fluctuations in
>their arrival rate create noise.  This noise exists even for perfect
>sensors; real sensors are often good enough that this is the dominant
>noise source.  Improving the sensors, without cooling the optics,
>will not decrease the noise.

I think this is wrong - What really counts is not the temperature of the
optics but how much radiation they emit.  The best examples are the large
radio telescopes - they achieve noise figures of a few degrees K despite
the fact that to optics (main and sub-reflectors) are at ambient temperature.
This works because the surfaces are good reflectors (high reflectivity,
low emissivity) so the temperature you see is mostly the refected sky
temperature, rather than the temperature of the antenna itself.  I think
some of scientific infrared telescopes also use the same idea.

The field of view questions are tricky; you need a low noise object to
do your field of view limiting.  However this can be a small object
close to the detector, and can be cooled much more easily than the main
optics.  In radio telescopes, the field of view limiting is done by the
radiation pattern of the feed antenna.  This is tricky since you want the
feed to cover the whole dish (for best efficiency), but if the feed pattern
spills over the edge then the warm ground will radiate directly into the
feed.  Since the ground does not have the nice properties of the main
dish,(it's dirt, not aluminum), it does look like it's at ambient temperature,
and ruins your noise figure.

Note that with modern IC technologies, you can build antennas of the same
size as infrared wavelengths, so you may be able to build a sensor directly
that has only a limited field of view (like the feed antennas used with the
radio telescopes).  I think NIST is working on this.

Anyway, in many cases, cooled optics are not needed to take advantage of a
low noise sensor.
   -Lou Scheffer
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DCX
Date: 14 Apr 92 01:03:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cmr.9204140103.AA21962
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
-Newsgroups: sci.space
-Subject: Re: DCX
-Date: 8 Apr 92 05:11:52 GMT

-In article <ewright.702584574@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
->>I'm not certain, but I think Boeing doesn't get paid until a working and
->>tested plane is delivered. (Maybe some Boeing people could comment on this.)
->>That would take some of the pressure off of the customers.
->
->Boeing definitely takes, and expects, deposits on new aircraft.  I'm not
->sure whether they begin accepting money before the prototype has flown,
->but it wouldn't surprise me.

-Boeing wants to see binding orders, with commitments of money from people
-who can prove that they have it, before they get anywhere near building a
-prototype.  They don't even start detailed *design* on a new airliner until
-enough "launch customers" have signed on the dotted line.  Nobody builds a
-new large airliner on speculation.

-Mind you, this is not quite as one-sided as it sounds:  those contracts
-are conditional on Boeing delivering a product that meets the specs, and
-delivering it on schedule.

That approach does sound reasonable. (By "prototype", I presume Boeing would
normally mean a full-scale prototype, which DC-X and DC-Y are not.)

A binding order is also different from a cash deposit.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Re: CD-ROMs
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:48:22 GMT

In article <9547.29E12B75@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Robert.Officer@f405.n208.z1.fidonet.org (Robert Officer) writes...
>Some time ago I read on this forum that NASA was producing/ releasing CD-ROMS 
>with the voyager data and the Star Catalogue for the Hubble Telescope. If 
>anyone has this information, would they please email me.
> 
     There are twelve CD-ROMs that contain about 30,000 images taken
by Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 on their encounters with Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus
and Neptune.  There is are also 48 Magellan CD-ROMs containing over 25,000 
images of Venus (there will be about 62 Magellan CD-ROMs for Cycle 1 alone).  
The  CD-ROMs  are available to the general public at the NSSDC (National Space 
Science Data  Center) at the Goddard Space Flight Center.  There is a charge 
of about $120 for the 12 Voyager CD-ROM set.  The Magellan CD-ROMs cost $20 
for the first CD-ROM and $6  for any additional CD-ROMs.  These charges may 
be waived in certain cases.  You can contact the NSSDC at:

        National Space Science Data Center
        Request Coordination Office
        Goddard Space Flight Center
        Greenbelt, MD  20771

        Telephone: (301) 286-6695

        Email address:   request@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov

     The images are stored in compressed format on the CD-ROM with each
image being about 220K.  A decompression program, called PCDCOMP, and an
image display program that runs on an IBM PC computer, call IMDISP, are
included with the CD-ROMs.  The most recent version of the IMDISP (version 7.7) 
program can also be obtained via anonymous ftp at ames.arc.nasa.gov  
[128.102.18.3] under the filename imdisp77.zip in the pub/SPACE/SOFTWARE 
directory.  When the images are uncompressed, they will be about 670K in size, 
so a large hard disk is recommended.  For each compressed image there is a 
corresponding "browse" image, which is a scaled down version of the original 
image (1/16 size) which can be viewed directly off the CD-ROM.  All of the 
images are the raw, unprocessed images taken by the Voyager spacecraft.  The 
images on the Magellan CD-ROMs are not compressed and can be viewed directly 
off of the CD-ROM.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | People will believe
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | anything if you whisper it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: More Titan Sources
Organization: Hewlett-Parkard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:54:49 GMT

jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty) writes:
: A few months ago I posted a request for information on the Titan IIIB
: (I'm building a flying scale model). Of the repsonses I got, Jeff Maass
: suggested I call the Martin Marietta Pubic Affairs Office (and included
: the number) and Rich Carnahan recommended contacting the Wright-Pat museum. 
: Jonathan McDowell even sent me a complete launch history of the IIIB.
: 
: My efforts at following up have been unsuccessful. I called the Martin PAO
: and spoke to a very pleasant lady named Joy who said that she'd see
: "what they had" and send it to me. After two months I suspect nothing's
: coming :-)

Have you done any followup with MM? It is possible for people to lose
information. Maybe they have all the information waiting, but cannot find
your name and address. I would suggest you call them again and ask Joy
what progress is being made.

: I looked for Wright-Pat AFB in my system map here and found one machine
: (logdis1.hq.aflc.af.mil) listed. I sent a brief note to the postmaster
: there asking if the museum had an account or, barring that, a phone number 
: or mailing address for their PAO. That mail disappeared into the ether, 
: neither bouncing nor being answered.

See below.

: My followup questions to you good folks are:
: 
: 1) Should I bug the Martin PAO again? I don't want to make a nusance of
: myself asking for free info.

Yes, see first response above.

: 2) Is there a better place to call at Martin, such as a Titan program office?

This I wouldn't know - that is why the PAO office exists, to handle such
questions.

: 3) Does anyone have the e-mail/surface mail/phone number of the Wright-
: Pat museum?

You might try long distance information.

Bill
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites... what do *you* know?
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 02:50:20 PST
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Santa Clara, CA - +1 408 248 9213

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:

> This line of argument (which crops up in certain other contexts too) has
> always struck me as roughly "well, we don't really want to start a war, so
> we'll just obliterate Washington and New York and leave the rest of the
> country alone, so they won't get too upset".  Attacking a nation's overseas
> possessions, or its ships at sea, is just as much an act of war as attacking
> the nation itself.  Claims that it somehow "isn't as bad" make lots of
> assumptions about rational decision making in circumstances where rationality
> would be in short supply.  This is academic fantasy, not realistic politics.

Anyone who doubts the validity of this should look at Britain's
response to Argentine claims and capture of a few small rocky outcrops
in the South Atlantic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis                               |UUCP:    mwallis@clubzen.UUCP
Computer Consultant, Santa Clara, CA         |#include <Standard/Disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: M22079@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: g kids teleoperation (was Re: Teleoperation on the moon)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 15:45:20 GMT

The real way to do teleoperations is to use a virtual reality system and have f
eedback to the controller.  It wont always work but your activities will be rel
atively smooth and if the actual robot has enough protection hardware it can pr
event itself from being destroyed.
  Karl Pitt
Newsgroups: sci.space