HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Satellite of the Month
Date: 13 Apr 92 17:52:58 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Alpha Science Computer Network, Denver, Co.


 
The upper stage of the rocket used to launch Cosmos 2082 is 
currently visible to observers of the mid latitudes of the
northern hemisphere during the early evening hours. Cosmos 2082,
probably an electronic intelligence satellite, was launched
from Tyuratam on 1990 May 22.22 UT. The rocket body (Norad no.
20625, int'l des 1990-046B) is in an orbit of inclination 71
degrees, height above the earth of about 850 km, with a period
of 101.9 minutes. It is the last stage of the CIS Zenit (Zenith)
Type J or SL-16 intermediate payload launch system. What remains
in orbit is roughly a cylinder of diameter 3.9 m and length 
10.4 meters. There are 6 such rocket bodies in similar orbits.
Due to subsequent problems this is the last Zenit to be launched.
 
In July 1990, I observed Cosmos 2082 r/b varying in brightness 
with a maximum of +2.5 magnitude. In September 1990 it appeared
to be steady in brightness, however the following November it
varied with a period of one second. In January 1991 the period
had lengthened to 1.2 seconds. Currently the period is 13 seconds.
The previous 5 Zenith rocket bodies acted similarly. The variability
is caused by the tumbling of the cylinder. Eventually the long axis
will point to the earth and the variability will cease. 
 
Cosmos 2082 r   10.4  3.9  0.0  4.6                                  
1 20625U 90046  B 92 78.31206941  .00000565  00000-0  29911-3 0  3092 
2 20625  70.9888  49.4186 0012824  68.4651 291.7800 14.13581569 94122 
-- 
Bruce Watson (wats@scicom)     nuqneH tlhlngan Hol Dajath'a'Do'Ha' blmoHqu 
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth)
Subject: Re: New Astronauts
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.40    
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 18:32:00 GMT

In article <13270@pucc.Princeton.EDU>, STENGEL@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes...
>15 new astronauts were recently named by NASA.  Who are they, and what are thei
>r backgrounds?
First of all, I believe the number is 19...15 mission specialists and 4 pilots.

As for who they are, well, 18 of them I don't know...but I do know Dr. John
Grunsfeld.  Dr. Grunsfeld received his SB degree from MIT in Physics in 1980 
(worked in the same lab that I worked at when I was an undergrad there in the 
mid-80s).  He received his MS and Ph.D. degrees in Physics from the U. of
Chicago.  His area of specialization is high-energy experimental astrophysics,
and he is a co-PI for one of the instruments on the Compton GRO.  He has been
a senior research fellow here at Caltech for the past several years, working
mainly with Prof. Tom Prince (one of the leading gamma-ray astronomers in the
world).  He is also the faculty advisor to the Caltech chapter of SEDS (which
is how I know him :-).  He has mainly been helpful with our GAScan program,
and his expertise has led us to building a gamma-ray telescope for launch on
the Space Shuttle sometime in the next 18 months (hopefully :-).

He is married and his wife is employed at JPL (hopefully, she'll be able to
transfer to JSC this summer when they move there...).

As you can imagine, we are all VERY thrilled about Dr. Grunsfeld being named
as a shuttle mission specialists, and the members of Caltech SEDS wish him
the best in his new endeavours with NASA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
irwin@iago.caltech.edu                |
ih@deimos.caltech.edu                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DCX
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 12:10:13 PST
Organization: Club Zen BBS - Santa Clara, CA - +1 408 248 9213

roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:

> It wouldn't be so bad if people said, "DC is *predicted* to have the followin
> capabilities...". But the way many people are talking, it's coming out more
> like "DC *has* a turnaround time of 3.85216 days, a payload of 19582.3 pounds
> and it's painted a light blue, with golden likenesses of Spiro Agnew inlaid
> all around the base".

How'd you know I wanted to paint them light blue?

        8-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wallis                               |UUCP:    mwallis@clubzen.UUCP
Computer Consultant, Santa Clara, CA         |#include <Standard/Disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology
From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Steve Jascourt)
Subject: Re: Big BOOMS over east coast in 1970's - what were they?
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 23:25:18 GMT

In article ( Robert DeMillo ) writes:
>In article (Steve Jascourt) writes:
>> In article (Martin Connors) writes:
>> >William Corliss, in his "Handbook of Unusual Natural Phenomena" (Doubleday 
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >Martin Connors >> >Space Research >> >University of Alberta
>
>> I would hope someone from a Space Research organization would know better than
>> to cite Corliss' book. A friend once read the book and started saying very
>> peculiar things, so I critiqued part of it for him. It is filled with utter
>> nonsense spewing extraterrestrial and magical explanations for common things.
>
>> Stephen Jascourt     stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
>
>I'd read the book again, Steve. Corliss' sourcebook project is 
>merely an attempt to collect folklore, categorize it, and bring
>it up for discussion. Nowhere in the book does he try and
>advocate "extraterrestrial and magical explanations," nor does
>he attempt any explanations outside of stating eyewitness accounts.

Here is a typical sample quote from Corliss' book: "A popular subject in
today's scientific journals is the possible invasion of influenza viruses
from outer space, perhaps carried in the dust of comets' tails." Many of his
diagrams are purposefully misleading, such as a description of clouds at
"headings" of 214 and 034 degrees with a picture showing them at right
angles rather than oppositely directed. Or, take this for another typical
quote, "While admitting forest fires to be the cause of most dark days, we 
should also ask whether a rare few may not also owe their origins to 
stratospheric or extraterrestrial clouds of obscuring matter" -- this is
his commentary, his explanation, not him quoting a turn-of-the-century
observer. He constantly is claiming that observations can't be explained by
known science, and therefore extraterrestrial influences cannot be ruled out.
For a book published in the 1980's, it is peculiar that almost all of his
most recent references, the ones he claims to base his explanations on, are
from the 1960's or earlier. There are many instances where more recent work
provides good scientific explanations of things he claims are mysterious and
can't be understood (the Morning Glory of northern Australia is one example).

>The phenomenon related in the book include things like the 
>Alaskan "mirage" of a British coastal town, Sun and Moon "dogs,"
>the loud sky "booms," pizzeo-electric activity, "light" that
>accompanies earthquakes, etc etc etc...a lot of this, if true, is
>explanable, a lot of it isn't. 
>
>If your friend started spouting nonsense, and you think it was 
>due to the book...you had both better reread it. I read Corliss'
>book when I was in high school and it was responsible for me pursuing
>a career in science...
>
> - Rob DeMillo			| Internet: 	 demillo@juliet.ll.mit.edu
>   MIT Lincoln Lab 		| Also Internet: rjd@brown.cs.edu

Stephen Jascourt
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Alternative methods of propulsion
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:53:11 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Apr14.135927.6346@bsu-ucs.uucp> 01crmeyer@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>What research/investigation has been done on sending
>energy to a rocket from ground-based lasers, boiling hydrogen or helium
>running through a heat exchnager on the vehicle, and thereby driving it
>foreward, much like the nuclear rockets, only the energy is transmitted
>to the vehicle, not carried along?
>
>Has anything like this been researched?

There have been proposals and mini-studies.

>Wouldn't there be an advantage to the rocket not needing to carry
>any fuel along?

*If* it has to carry reaction mass along anyway, it might as well
burn it and get the energy that way without the complication of
a massive laser launcher. The claimed advantages for laser launchers 
depend on either using the atmosphere as the working fluid so you don't
have to carry reaction mass, or on getting such high energies to the 
vehicle that a working fluid of less mass can be used to give enough 
thrust. Pretty much the same reasoning that shows an internal combustion
engine is more efficient than an external combustion engine, like a
steam engine, applies here. If you have to tote a lot of working fluid
anyway, you might as well get your energy from it. You don't see many
airplanes powered by steam engines.

Gary
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar Power Satellites... what do *you* know?
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:35:50 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <29e10405-15cd.4space-1@oldcolo.UUCP> jburger@oldcolo.UUCP (Joseph Burger) writes:
>Interesting approach to non-logic.  'now i know ew were wiretapping the 
>homes...'  which you do not prove, and then go on to the ultimate
>idiot comment that 'see during wartime we are also good at trashing
>civil liberties.'  
>Dumbest comment I have read since 'If we can put a man on the moon
>why can't we cure.....'

It's public knowledge that during the Gulf war the FBI wiretapped Iraqi
nationals living in the US and interviewed many to gain intelligence
information. It was in the papers and on TV. As to trashing civil
liberties, you only have to look at the internment of Japanese-American
citizens during the second world war to see that.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Subject: Re: Cost of aerospace systems
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 06:06:52 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 <9600.29E3A11E@ofa123.fidonet.org> Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org (Wales Larrison) writes:

>   And yes, my data showed a substantially higher $/lb for the SRB 
>than the ET (since the ET is an even simpler system) - but still a 
>lot less than the orbiter. 

As I said, that is what I would expect.  Just as the drop tanks (or
Rocket-Assisted Takeoff pods, back when fighters still used them)
carried by a jet fighter are a lot less expensive than the airplane
itself.
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:03:51 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) says:

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

>> Entirely true.  But why do you say that such interceptors are not under
>> our physical control?  For one thing, if they can hit missiles, they can
>> most surely hit each other.

> Surely *not*.  A missile is a large, bright target -- the engines,
> burning tons of propellant, have exhaust radiating many megawatts of
> heat.  The interceptors are *much* smaller, accelerate to top speed in
> a short time, and thereafter only use even smaller rockets for course
> correction.

I was under the impression that fast-burn (about 200 sec, I think)
technology could let an ICBM leave the atmosphere with its engines already
off.  It would be much more difficult to hit in this case.

> Someone suggested that having the system under human control would
> make it safe against accidental destruction of civilian launchers.
> The familier of former Iranian airline passengers will be happy to
> hear this.

The advocates of complicated systems usually underestimate the problems
associated with their construction and operation.  SDI is by no means
unique in this regard.
From: CSG0669@vax2.queens-belfast.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: RE: SPACE Digest V14 #1077
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:44:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Internet

Subject: Property rights in space

> Here's a hypothetical question regarding current international law:
 Suppose person A from country A is lost at sea, floating on a piece of
 driftwood. Along comes person B from country B, on another piece of driftwood.
 Person B insults person A, and person A shoots person B. Eventually, person
 A is rescued, and the details of the adventure become known.


I doubt it happens much anymore, but I believe the law of the sea is such
that the captain of a ship could try and execute him on the spot...

The powers of a sea captain can be quite godly. I am not sure in what
ways more "modern" law has changed this, if at all.

						Dale Amon
From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS!
Date: 16 Apr 92 10:58:15 EDT

01ksdavis@bsu-ucs.uucp writes:
>	Mind you, this is a rumor I heard from a friend of mine who thinks he
>knows everything, but it has set upon me a nagging doubt.
>	He told me that now that the Soviets are out of money, they can't send
>up a shuttle to bring back their remaining astronauts.

Your rumor is late.  They were saying this about the previous crew, the one
that just got replaced.  The CIS is short on cash, but their space program
doesn't quite cost as much as ours does.  Most of the delay was waiting for
the dust to settle.  Note that if they did just run out of cash, the cosmonauts
would simply climb into the re-entry capsule which is ALWAYS stationed at Mir
and descend; they need relatively little help from the ground.

>	He also told me that our guys Space Shuttle Atlantis couldn't rescue
>them, not only because they didn't have room, but also because they couldn't
>dock to the soviet spacestation Mir.

Correct; nor can our Shuttle reach Mir's orbit (which is highly inclined with
respect to the equator due to the high latitude of their launch site).

>	At least somebody tell me that Mir is self-sufficient.

No, it requires regular resupply.  Which it got during all the turmoil.
The only problematic issue was scheduling the next crew to go *up*.
From: speth@cats.ucsc.edu (James Gustave)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Mars for $30M ???
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:27:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32431
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


A poster (sorry, I don't remember who) recently talked about a proposal by
Griffin to go to Mars for $30M.  I assumed this meant $30 million.
Is this correct?  What did the proposal involve (ie. equipment, crew, etc.)?

To me, this sounds unreasonably low.  Are there other Mars mission estimates
in this order of magnitude?

Thanks.

-- 
Jim Speth
speth@cats.ucsc.edu
From: Robert.Officer@f405.n208.z1.fidonet.org (Robert Officer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Cd -roms
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 92 22:44:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:208/405 - Hornets Nest, Manteca CA

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.


--- TosScan 1.00
 * Origin: HORNET'S NEST BBS (209)239-5133 (1:208/405)




--- TosScan 1.00
 * Origin: HORNET'S NEST ADULT BBS (209)239-5133 Call when your HOT!!  (1:208/405)

--  

Robert Officer
Internet: Robert.Officer@f405.n208.z1.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Robert.Officer@f405.n208.z1.fidonet.org
From: mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: "The Machine That Changed The World" - inaccuracy?
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 92 21:32:32 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

And, just out of curiousity, was this the same computer developed by
AMI in the 1960's?  I think this was the first LSI computer, comprising
about 40 LSI chips (the AMI computer, don't know if it was the Apollo
computer).  That was considered incredibly compact in those days.
From: reeder@reed.edu (Doug Reeder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: DCX
Date: 14 Apr 92 09:32:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Apr14.093243.26096
Organization: Tether Propulsion Division, Institute of Knowledge, Jinx

In article <9204140103.AA21962@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
-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.)
-

The DC-Y is a full-scale orbital prototype.

It should be noted that the DC-X project is currently funded, by SDIO, but
their charter is not for orbital vehicles, and they will not be funding
the DC-Y.




-- 
Doug Reeder                                   USENET: ...!tektronix!reed!reeder
Internet: reeder@reed.EDU                     BITNET: reeder@reed.BITNET
"They were conversing strictly in Looks, a language which to the untrained eye
seemed to consist entirely of sidelong glances." _Schismatrix_,Bruce Sterling
Xref: sparky sci.space:7397 rec.models.rockets:849
From: jack@rml.UUCP (jack hagerty)
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: More Titan Sources
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:52:13 GMT
Followup-To: poster
Organization: Robotic Midwives, Ltd., Livermore, CA

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 :-)

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.

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.

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

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

4) Is anyone out there familiar enough with the III series that I could
just ask my question directly? The questions are really pretty simple
(locations of external piping and cable troughs, surface markings, etc)

Thanks in advance,

-Jack


=============================================================================
||Jack Hagerty, Robotic Midwives, Ltd.                 jack@rml.com        ||
||Livermore, CA		           NOTE! New, improved address! ^^^        ||
||(510) 455-1143	            (old ones will still work)             ||
||-------------------------------------------------------------------------||
||"While your brains may not be so large to look at as those of the Scare- ||
||crow, you are really brighter than he is -- when you are well polished." ||
||    -- Glinda to the Tin Woodman, original edition                       ||
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: degroff@tricorder.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: Re: Aye, robots
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 22:06:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr5.134151.5675@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:
|> In article <9204030422.AA14746@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:
|> >-Just as an interesting side note; If a truely self aware robot were ever
|> >-built, maybee it would not want to go to Mars.  Just a thought.
|> >
|> >-                                                Bob Tidrick
|> >-                                                GPID Engineering
|> >-                                                Tektronix Inc.
|> >-                                                Wilsonville OR.
|> >
|> >The technology of artificial intelligence is advancing, and it might someday
|> >be technically feasible, but I don't see any possible advantage to humans
|> >in deliberately making machines with the ability to decide whether they
|> >*want* to follow orders. The risks are likely to outweigh the benefits.
|> 
|> It may not be *possible* to make a self aware robot without giving it
|> the ability to think about such choices.
|> 
|> Gary
  Equally to the point and of significance looking at who and how 
robotics may be going is the issue of "those who give legitimate"
commands and who not... the capability to evaluate "the acceptability
of an order and orderer" would be essential for any out in the world
system, other wise, punks and criminals will have a great time instructing
them to self destruction. (Asimov was fun but the three laws just don't
work, the first military, industrial and private systems have to 
have "program restriction", SELF AWARE systems may just have to
rationalize...I was just following orders from my authorized superiors!
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: New "rockoon" concept
Date: 17 Apr 92 02:33:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Apr16.201332.23222@ssd.kodak.com> dj@ssd.kodak.com (Dave Jones) writes:

> We have to assume you mean to fly your airship at, say, 20km altitude
> and couple hundred kph velocity, otherwise there's little or no point.
> The idea of air-launch is to get above most of the atmosphere and maybe
> get some initial velocity.  If you're only going up a few km it hardly
> seems worth it: its easier to launch from the ground.


Even launch from a few kilometers up can be useful.  The reason is
that it allows the first stage engines to operate at a lower nozzle
exit pressure without being too badly overexpanded.  This improves
first stage Isp, or, alternately, allows the first stage to operate at
lower chamber pressure.  Dropping the nozzle exit pressure by a factor
of 2 (roughly, a 5 km increase in altitude) doubles the pressure ratio
of the first stage at ignition.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu