HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron)
Subject: Re: The Federation is still here
Reply-To: pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com
Organization: TI/DSEG VAX Support
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:03:11 GMT


In article <1992Aug11.155953.1@acad2.alaska.edu>, asljl@acad2.alaska.edu writes:
>Path: mksol!tilde.csc.ti.com!csc.ti.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!bionet!raven.alaska.edu!acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
>From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Subject: The Federation is still here
>Message-ID: <1992Aug11.155953.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
>Date: 11 Aug 92 19:59:53 GMT
>Sender: news@raven.alaska.edu (USENET News System)
>Organization: University of Alaska
>Lines: 33
>Nntp-Posting-Host: acad2.alaska.edu
>
>Path: acad2.alaska.edu!asljl
>From: asljl@acad2.alaska.edu
>Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
>Subject: The Federation is still here
>Message-ID: <1992Aug11.155325.1@acad2.alaska.edu>
>Date: 11 Aug 92 15:53:25 AST
>Organization: University of Alaska
>Lines: 25
>
>Hello All
>
>Yes, The Federation is still here, at the moment for those still
>interested, it is still here and still reachable. We still want to 
>hear from people interested in it or new people interested in the
>Federation. 
>	For those of you who are new to the Federation ideas, this is 
>what we are:  We are a group of people who feel it is high time we got
>off this rock and started exploring the great unknown of space.  We have
>drawn out in blue print form a drive system that is a a super semi conducting
>crystaline structure. It looks good on paper but we haven't been able to 
>test it yet. As always the problem is money. The Federation has been working
>on a personal funds of the few members base at the moment.  We do have a 
>info packet that we will happy to give you. You must have a mac that has
>5.0 microsoftword or better. Send us a 3.5 floppy and we will put it
>on there for you. send to this adrress

I normally delete all of the path crap before I post a followup, but I wanted
to save this one.

THIS IS A VERY FAST WAY FOR YOUR MACHINE TO GET SICK!!!  This sounds like a
joke, but you have no idea where your floppy has been or what is on it.  And
you don't even know who had it!

We don't know who this "Lady Rhavyn" is.  He/She could be earnest in this
effort, could be a dellusional fantisizer, or ...  You won't get any respect or
support from me as long as you are ashamed of who you are.

>
>The Federation
>C/O Lady Rhavyn
>Po box 231772
>Anchorage, Alaska
>          99523-1772
>
>If you have any questions feel free to send to this account.
>
As least post a return address.  Some people's news software isn't as generous
as mine.
--
Dillon Pyron                      | The opinions expressed are those of the
TI/DSEG Lewisville VAX Support    | sender unless otherwise stated.
(214)462-3556 (when I'm here)     |
(214)492-4656 (when I'm home)     | Lawyers are like nuclear warheads, every-
pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          | body has some, and when you use them, they 
                                    f*ck everything up.
                                                  Danny DeVito, _OPM_
From: Frederick.A.Ringwald@dartmouth.edu (Frederick A. Ringwald)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: superstrings & supralight (was SPS feasibility and other   
 space development)
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:08:35 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <Bt8Kss.4GA.1@cs.cmu.edu>
amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk writes:

> > P.S. There's a preprint running around by Richard Gott (that may or may
> > not yet have come out in Physical Review D) that actually takes 
> > faster-than-light travel seriously, basically as a consequence of what 
> > two superstrings passing each other do to spacetime. Thorne and others 
> > are trying their hardest to find what's wrong with it, as it severely 
> > strains the notion of causality...
> > 
>
> Now all we have to do is find a pair of superstrings. Details,  
> details.... :-)
> 

Well, what do you think those two big tube-things on the Enterprise are
for?

> PS: when it comes out I'd love the citation so I can go dig it out.  

To my chagrin, I find it's been out for some time, and not in Physical
Review D. It's

Gott, J. R. 1991, Physical Review Letters, v. 66, p. 1126

but he shouldn't go out and spend all his money in anticipation of the
Nobel foundation giving him one of their large checks, as the
thrashing-out process is still in progress; see:

Caroll, S. M., Farhi, E., and Guth, A. H. 1992, Physical Review
Letters, v. 68, p. 263

(this paper has a VERY surprising title for a refereed journal article,
check it out), and

Deser, S., Jackiw, R., and t'Hooft, G. 1992, Physical Review Letters,
v. 68, p. 267.

The buzzphrase here is "Closed Timelike Curve," or CTC, the distortion 
of spacetime that the parallel, moving cosmic strings cause. Every now 
and then, interest in this kind of thing flares up; in the late '60s 
there was a flurry of experiments to search for tachyons, as quantum 
field theory at the time suggested they might be worth looking for (for

some solutions of the field equations, a tachyon is the same as a 
magnetic monopole). A kindly old professor who'd been involved in this 
told me, "if you ever get an opportunity to do a tachyon experiment 
cheaply - for less than $100,000, in less than a year - DO IT!" I think
I'll lay off this here, though, as it's getting perilously close to 
sci.physics territory.

By the way, there's no need to shy away from math any more, as programs
like Mathematica are doing to math in general what calculators did to
arithmetic. I learned Mathematica's essentials over a weekend; it's
easy to use, although it requires a pretty good computer to run well.
That Sunday afternoon, I re-did ALL the math I'd ever taken in high 
school, college, and grad school, in about four hours! It was like 
standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon or Valles Marineris, looking 
at untold wonders spread out before me. (No, I'm not getting any money
from Stephen Wolfram to endorse Mathematica; perhaps I ought to.)
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Atlas Centaur AC-71 Launch Failure
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 03:25:43 GMT

A General Dynamics Atlas/Centaur booster today failed to place the
Hughes Galaxy 1R satellite into orbit.  After delaying launch for two
days due to bad weather, Saturday's liftoff occurred at the opening of
the launch window at 3:40pm (PST).  All Atlas performance was nominal.
The booster engines separated on schedule, and the sustainer engines
fired as expected.  Centaur insulation, payload fairing, and the first
stage all separated normally.

Following the Atlas-Centaur separation at about 7 minutes into the flight,
the Centaur began it's firing sequence, but the LH2/LO2 fueled engines
apparently never produced thrust.  The vehicle began tumbling out of
control, and the mission was declared a failure.

-{ DA }-
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Beanstalks in Nevada Sky (was Re: Tethers)
Date: 14 Aug 1992 09:50:56 GMT
Organization: Dis-
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Space Territoriality assumption wrong...

In article <63993@cup.portal.com> Eric_S_Klien@cup.portal.com writes:
>Yes, air space over a state is controlled by the laws in that state.
>I assume this will eventually happen with the space near the Earth
>over the state as well.  Therefore I want to build a casino over
>Nevada, with no tethers passing over the airspace over any other
>states and/or countries.  My question is how much thrust would I
>need to do this?

That will, barring massive revision of space law, NOT happen to the
space near earth 8-)

The outer space treaty, which has been ratified by all spacefaring
and most other nations at this time, agrees that there is no territory
in space, i.e. that no country can "own" space above itself.  China
was the last holdout, but they signed about 2 weeks after the US brought
up its nonsignatory status during the Long March launch debate for
a Hughes-built sattelite a couple of years ago (smart move).

If you go "into space", normally defined as >100km (62 nautical miles)
above the earth, then the only laws that apply are those of the launching
nation.  This is due to responsibility and liability issues (if your 
vehicle rams mine, who's responsible?) etc.  If the US national law does
not prohibit gambling, then you can gamble on a US station or vehicle.
If someone else's laws did, then you couldn't.


-george william herbert
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: rfedkiw@crenshaw.math.ucla.edu (Ronald Fedkiw)
Subject: Axisymmetric Navier Stokes Equations
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 21:23:24 GMT

I'm trying to do a calculation of the full compressible Navier Stokes
equations for flow past an axisymmetric blunt body.
So, I put the equations into axisymmetric form and multiply
through by 1/Jacobian = r = distance from centerline (of axisymmetry).
I need to do this to put the equations back into conservative form for 
my method.
The obvious problem is that the equations are no longer valid along
the axis of symmetry (where r = 0). The Jacobian here is infinite.
I'm not quite sure what the implications of an infinite Jacobian are,
but from looking at my equations it becomes obvious that they cannot 
be used to solve the flowfield at r=0.

I was wondering what sorts of methods ae in common practice to solve
for the flowfield near r=0.
The solution is important here since this is where the flow passes
through the strongest portion of the shockwave. (It's a normal shock
at r=0 and the heating is high, also this is the where the stagnation
streamline lies.)
So, I need a good method, this might be the most important part of the flow!

Any help is greatly appreciated.

(I've thought about bounding the domain of the grid away from r=0,
 by 1/2 of a grid cell, but what boundry condition would I use?)

Ron Fedkiw

--
Ron Fedkiw (rfedkiw@redwood.math.ucla.edu)

A plan is made by someone who is sitting and thinking ...
while others are doing.
From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Date: 21 Aug 1992 05:14:06 GMT
Organization: Dis-
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Because Telepresence isn't everything it's cracked up to be

In article <1992Aug21.001004.3768@samba.oit.unc.edu> cecil@physics.unc.edu (Gerald Cecil) writes:
[no content, just a subject line...]

Have you talked to someone who builds or works with space robotics?
When anyone suggests replacing humans in the short term, they laugh.
Space robotics aren't as strong, for the most part, have less degrees
of freedom _and_ less limbs, less end effector dexterity, and more
likely failure points than a man in space.  They're safer, but often 
can't do the job.  (note that an astronaut in EVA can't do everything
either.  both together are much more capable.)

Or are you just trying to start a flamewar?


-george william herbert
gwh@soda.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.com  herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug
From: jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Home made rockets
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:13:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BsxMI1.8r7.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts) writes
> -Here's a very simple, safe, easy and challenging part of model
> -rocketry.  With a little common sense, nobody can get hurt...
> -and it's cheap, too.
> 
> -Take a match, preferably one out of a match book with a blue head.
> -Wrap the head tightly in aluminium foil, leaving an exhaust port.
> -Deform a paper clip to about a 30 degree angle, and place the 
> -match `rocket' on top.  
> 
> Just so long as nobody tries to "improve" the design by adding more match
> heads or strengthening the containment. Match phosphor has a reputation as
> a powerful and unstable propellant/explosive.

Ooops.  I just posted about my multi-match-head designs.

> One source I read stated that just three match heads once propelled a
> quarter-inch steel bolt so that it flew right through a glass window,
> hit a concrete wall, and knocked a big chip out of the wall.

This I *seriously* doubt.  

Theoretical standpoint : Weigh the chemical mixture from three
household match heads.  Calculate the energy this represents, call it
A.  Weigh a quarter-inch steel bolt, and estimate the speed it would
need to break a glass window and then knock a big chip out of a
concrete wall.  Calculate the energy this represents, call it B.  I
will stake my reputation as a match-rocket builder (:->) that A < B. 

Practical standpoint : around about the third box of matches, I built
a couple of multi-match-head bombs to see what would happen.  A loud
pop and a flying piece of scrunched-up aluminium foil was the best I
could come up with.  If I *could* have launched lethal quarter-inch
steel bolts, you can bet that the neighbourhood cats would have known
about it. 

> Safety goggles are also strongly recommended for any work involving 
> flammable materials and oxidizers.

Yeah, the only danger I can think of is having a still-hot match
rocket fly into your eyeball if you don't blink in time.  A cheap pair
of sunglasses would be plenty strong enough to stop a match rocket,
however. 

> John Roberts
> roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Jonathan H.

PS I can think of one possible explanation for the story of the
match-launched steel bolt, which is that they were using the humungous
matches sold for use at sea/in a rain storm/in a tornado.  One of
these probably has as much chemical power as a whole box of household
matches.
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Solar System Journal
From: bankst@kauri.vuw.ac.nz (Timothy Banks)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:15:52 GMT
Organization: Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Keywords: planets,humor,NASA

>
>The other example of space piracy?  A perfectly healthy 
>working earth orbiting satellite that was shot down to
>test and probably also give PR boosts to SDIO, 4-5 years 
>ago.  You can bet the scientific investigators were mad 
>about that one as well.
> 

	Ah..I have a feeling you are talking about a satellite
	that was still producing good solar observations. It is
	mentioned in Donat Wentzel's book _The Restless Sun_ 
	(Smithsonian). Unfortunately I don't have a copy to hand
	to look the details up....

-- 
  Timothy Banks, Physics Department, Victoria University of Wellington, NZ.
       bankst@kauri|rata|matai.vuw.ac.nz, banks@beagle.phys.vuw.ac.nz.
    "He's dead, Jim!" "OK, you take the tricorder, I'll take the wallet!"
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Early Warning of missiles and meteors
From: stick@clmqt.marquette.MI.US (Stick)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 11:59:35 EDT

In <Bt1Fwn.It8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes:

>nit-picks : SAC no longer exists.  it too has gone the way of cold war.
>it has been replaced by some command that combined sac, tac & maybe
>mac.

   The new commands are Air Combat Command (missles, bombers, fighters,
etc.) and Air Material Command (cargo, tankers).

>SAC's job was to provide the offensive nuclear threat.

   SAC's mission was never characterized as offensive except by our old
opponents, the Warsaw Pact.  All planning was geared towards retaliation,
not initiation.  The airborne comand post was a perfect example.  Called
"Looking Glass", it was a mirror image of our executive branch, and was
prepared to take over in the even the President and other high government
officials were eliminated.  



>   george wm turner        turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu

>				if you want i.u.'s opinion, ask them, not me.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: nak@cbnews.cb.att.com (neil.a.kirby)
Subject: Re: What is the ASRM??
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:05:01 GMT

In article <5586@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> fortuna@cs.man.ac.uk (Armando Fortuna) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug4.140921.19282@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> pettengi@ial1.jsc.nasa.gov (James B. Pettengill) writes:
>
>>>the asrm program is dead for now but not for long. it should be resurrected
>>>latter this year or next.
>
>>Don't count on it.
>
>>>fred can't get off the ground without asrm.
>
>>Unless they use Energia.
>
>
>Or unless they use a Saturn V rocket. Rumors say that NASA is thinking
>about "resurrect" the Saturn V to launch fred in fewer flights than
>it would take by using the Shuttle.
>Of course, rebuilding the launch pads for the Saturn, and getting the
>original contractors to build the parts, would not be easier, and one
>may say cost-effective.
>
>Armando

Two major factors here (IMHO).  One: can NASA do the new one the way they
did the old one?  That is to say can NASA develop a totally new booster in
a cost effective way.  Totally new because S V production capability has
been gone for a very long time.  Everybody knows the desired outcome: a
Saturn V clone.  Getting there will take work.  The test stands are still
there at Stennis.  The launch pads would need reconversion back.  The VAB
is there.  But where is Rocketdyne?  Or all of the other contractors and
their skilled and experienced personell?

Two:  Does Congress has the will to spend that kind of money?  Not an easy
task to get new space money through the hill.

Neil

PS:  Thanks for all of the corrections to my last posting [crew
sepereation].  Teach me to post while tired.


Xref: sparky sci.space:11817 sci.physics:12853
From: Richard.Mathews@West.Sun.COM (Richard M. Mathews)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Parsecs?
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:33:32 GMT
Organization: Sunsoft Inc., Los Angeles, CA.
NNTP-Posting-Host: smaug.West.Sun.COM

mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Mcirvin) writes:
>Let's check the calculation, in fact....  Rounding and probably
>arithmetic errors are undoubtedly rampant in the above, since I did
>it by hand.

Or to avoid possibilty of errors, just use the "units" program (if you
run Unix):

$ units
you have: parsec
you want: au radian/arcsec
	* 1.000000e+00
	/ 1.000000e+00
you have:
$

Parsec is just shorthand for au radian/arcsec.

Richard M. Mathews			D efend
Internet:   richard@locus.com		 E stonian-Latvian-Lithuanian
UUCP:	    ...!uunet!lcc!richard	  I ndependence
MIL/BITNET: richard%lcc@UUNET.UU.NET
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Energya and Freedom and Soyuz ACRV 
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:06:26 GMT

In article <1469100008@igc.org> Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.org> writes:

>>[Freedom has support in Congress]

>I am not aware of any huge and lasting support.  The House votes have
>been about 230-180, far from 2-1, 

The past two votes where far closer to 2-1. Either way, this is still a
sizable majority made even larger when you realize what went into it. The
Congress rarely changes an appropriation like this after it is reported out
of committee. In addition, a very powerful member did huge amounts of
lobbying to make it happen and still failed.

To those who say social spending will beat NASA every time, look at these
votes. Freedom was carved up and $$ given to every constituency in the 
house. It still failed.

At the level we are talking about allocations tend to be based on clout
first and need second. NASA has enough clout to get about $15 billion
every year and it will get it regardless of how it is spent.

If Mr. Coffman's model was correct, Freedom would have been dead a long
time ago.

>and then only because the aerospace
>industry has already received such a big hit from DoD cuts.  

So?

>There is
>tremendous opposition to the space station, which is based on the
>essential question: what good is it?  

That is a technical question, not a political one. It's not nearly as
relevant as you think.

>>Since these will open the space frontier and produce far more tax income,
>>it seems a good idea.

>Allen, if you are refering to the Space Station, a Moon Base, or planetary
>exploration, my reaction is: Come on, give me a break.  If you are
>refering to investments in near-term space technology (improved ELVs,
>perhaps SSTO, improved automation and remote control, lightsats, etc.)
>and R&D on more distant prospects (NASP, etc.), I agree.  Which is it?

I am refering to the growth which would occure with the development of
a spacefaring civilization.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "If they can put a man on the Moon, why can't they     |
|  aws@iti.org     |  put a man on the Moon?"                               |
+----------------------253 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
From: bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Robert S. Hill)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Cosmic Ray References
Keywords: cosmic rays, image processing, hardening
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:13:00 GMT
Organization: Hughes STX Corp./NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

Can anyone send (or post) good novice references and/or info on cosmic
rays in the near-earth environment?  I got curious about about how much
particle flux things like computer chips and human beings can expect to
encounter at various altitudes, from sea level to orbital, and I
couldn't seem to find the right handles for this topic in the library.

All I know is that `cosmic-ray hits happen' and I've seen quite a few
of them on raw astronomical digital images.  But can you predict how
many for a given exposure time, a given detector, and a given observing
platform?

Robert S. Hill                  
bhill@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden)
Subject: Re: Inflatable Space Stations - Why Not ?
Organization: Rick's Home-Grown Un*x
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:30:43 GMT

geg@ornl.gov (GILES JR G E) writes:

>The LEO environment contains lots of trash.  Thin skins might not
>survive in this environment.
>Gary Giles 

How about using short-lived, unmanned inflatables as `sponges'
to deliberately soak up and remove some of that trash?  Orbit
decay and skin oxidation wouldn't hurt this application.  :-) 
-- 
 
samw@bucket.rain.com (Sam Warden) -- and not a mere Device.
From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Soyuz as ACRV
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:40:30 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <Bt8op4.8y3.1@cs.cmu.edu> jch+@cs.cmu.edu (Jonathan Hardwick) writes:
>
>Uh-huh.  Wings are great for getting back down cheaply.  Wings suck
>for getting up there in the first place.  Spam-in-a-can is going to be
>economically justified for a long time to come, and if the US space
>program sticks exclusively with winged vehicles, it's going to be
>throwing money away that could be used for something else.

Yeah but I'd rather have an operational space transporter than higher
VA benefits.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.space