HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: What is this ?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:38:03 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <BvCEtC.4F4.1@cs.cmu.edu> PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes:
>Have the U.S. some kind of RPV with such performances ?

If so, it is secret, so why bother asking?
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Redefining failure, space camps, & other changes of subject
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 23:08:17 GMT

>> Paul Dietz writes, in response to Dennis Wingo:
>>In other words, "the shuttle's not a failure, and it's not NASA's
>>fault anyway!".   Can you write two sentences without contradicting
>>yourself?
>> 
>>The purpose of the shuttle was to reduce the cost of getting into
>>space.  The shuttle has been a dismal failure in meeting this,
>>its primary goal.
>
In article <27SEP199216051882@judy.uh.edu> wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes:

>Only half right.  The primary reason for the Shuttle is REGULAR access to
>space.

The stated goal being a flight every week, the actual result being less
than a flight per month.  Of course, we're allowed to redefine that
endlessly as well, just as we're allowed to decrease the functionality
of the space station, increase its cost from the promised $8 billion
to over $100 billion, and use accounting gimmickry and clever arguments
to say, "hey, that's what we planned all along!"  I was there when
the promise was made, so let's not dredge up the Boeing accounting -- SSF 
was sold as an $8 billion project, in disregard of what Boeing 
engineers actually projected as the costs, information that was 
not made available to me at the time. We were shamefully involved 
in promoting the wrong numbers, because we were operating by wishful 
thinking; we didn't bother to think critically and ask the right 
questions. Similar NASA/NSS figures on astronaut projects in the 
future should be con sidered against this history of deceit.

>["space camp"]

We were talking about commerce here.  The tiny revenue earned from
space camps is lost in the NASA bottom line, and what NASA chooses
to propagandize to children in space camps hardly constitutes what
is good for industry.  It's hard to remember, since Dennis keeps
changing the subject, but this thread was about industrial
competiveness.

The camp's content doesn't reflect what children dream of, BTW. It 
reflects what NASA PR wanted them to dream of when they designed the camps --
big fat NASA contracts for all the traditional goals.  In my high
school physics class the Viking project was one of the teacher's
motivational schticks; astronauts were nowhere in sight.  Polls show
that Americans support the astronaut and automated programs equally
even when not shown the relative program costs.

Furthermore, "keeping people interested in space" has no predictable
correlation to space project funding.  If anything there may be
an inverse correlation; the height of interest during Apollo
corresponded with the deepest cuts to NASA.  The most visible programs
are the most likely targets for budget cuts when Congress gets
around to trying to convince us that they're fiscally responsible.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  	  Tuesday, November third  ##  Libertarian  $$  vote
Tuesday  ^^ Libertarian  --  change  **  choice && November 3rd @@Libertarian 
Xref: sparky sci.space:13972 sci.skeptic:17449 alt.conspiracy:10956
From: mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (John P. Mechalas)
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.sci.planetary
Subject: Re: Pioneer Venus Out of Fuel, Orbit Deteroriating
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:47:57 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

In article <1at959INNru4@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks) writes:
>>Contrary to some beliefs, PVO is not simply on a crash course into the 
>>center of the planet. It is in a highly elliptical orbit with a periapsis
>>that is slowly decaying.  It has a 24 hour orbit period and literally every
>>day, at closest approach, the s/c dips a little deeper into the atmosphere
>>and suffers more drag. The next orbit, then, has an even *lower* periapsis.
>>Around Wednesday, this effect will become so pronounced that it won't be
>>able to continue through the orbit and will have its orbit slowed so much that
>>that periapsis encounter will be its last.
>
>I am not sure I understand this.  It seems to me that every time the S/C
>encounters atmospheric drag, the orbit should lose energy.  I always thought
>that this would circularize the orbit (decrease the apoapsis) before
>significantly decreasing the periapsis.  Where did I go wrong?  Don't circular
>orbits of a given radius have less energy than an elliptical orbit with
>that same value as the periapsis?

Yes, but the radius to the spacecraft changes because of the drag forces.
   When a s/c enters the atmosphere, the drag force cause the semi-major axis
to decrease by 4 * pi * Drag / n^2 per orbit (assuming a nominally cirular
orbit).  The altitude of the s/c also decreases.  Since orbital velocity is
inversely proportional to the semi-major axis and the radius, as those
terms decrease, the velocity must increase.  Orbital energy is defined as
being inversely proportional to the semi-major axis as well, so energy 
increases, too.  The result is a more energetic, and more elliptic orbit.
   It is very counter-intuitive, as is a lot of orbital mechanics.  :)

-- 
John Mechalas                                          "I'm not an actor, but
mechalas@gn.ecn.purdue.edu                                 I play one on TV."
Aero Engineering, Purdue University                     #include disclaimer.h
From: agc@bmdhh298.bnr.ca (Alan Carter)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Easter Goof
Date: 1 Oct 92 09:49:38 GMT
Organization: BNR-Europe-Limited, Maidenhead, England

Oh boy, when I make a mistake I make a big one! I have, quite honestly,
thought from childhood that the Resurrection was on Easter Monday.

I've received much email correcting me on this, my thanks to all, 
especially Nick Haines who pointed out ""Early in the morning on the 
first day of the week ...". The first day of the week is Sunday, the 
day after the Sabbath.", and Warren Kurt who clarified things 
"  The resurection did happen on Easter Sunday.  The ancient Hebrews measured a
day as sunset to sunset, so, since the Sabbath started at sunset of Friday,
Jesus had to have already died by then.  Three days later would be Sunday.
(Friday gets included in the count for no good reason)."

My confusion was added to by the way that Easter is celebrated in the UK. 
Because there is an established Church, the Christian faith was a bearing
on the law. Easter Monday is treated like a Sunday for trading and licensing
purposes, as is Christmas day. Christians point out however, that Easter is
a more important festival than Christmas, and they usually do this on 
Easter Monday.

My apologies if my lack of understanding distressed anyone.

   Alan (who knows more than he did yesterday)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Maidenhead itself is too snobby to be pleasant. It is the haunt of the
   river swell and his overdressed female companion. It is the town of showy
   hotels, patronized chiefly by dudes and ballet girls. 

   Three Men In A Boat, Jerome K. Jerome, 1889
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Telepresence
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:47:10 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen)
-Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
-Date: 6 Oct 92 15:25:19 GMT
-Organization: MDSSC-Space Station

-If the location can be scanned with enough detail,..then the data
-transmitted back to Earth.... a vitual simulation can be constructed
-Earthside.  Use of telerobotic interfaces using a form of batch commanding
-can be feasible...  Earthside builds the batched commands using the virual
-simulation then transmits...  The scan is performed again after the
-completion of the commands as feedback again to the virtual simulation
-Earthside....

Sounds good. I've been advocating that for use on Mars rover missions as a 
precursor to or enhancement of autonomous operation.

Here's an interesting item from the July 1992 issue of NASA Tech Briefs:

..............

  Predictive Display for Teleoperation With Delay

  The Predictive image helps the operator control the remote manipulator.

  NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California

  A computer-graphical simulator helps an operator control a robotic 
  manipulator located so far away that controlling and monitoring signals
  are delayed significantly in transmission. The simulator displays a phantom
  image of the robot superimposed on the delayed "real" monitoring image of
  the robot. The phantom responds to control signals immediately -- that is,
  without transmission delay. Its motion predicts that of the real robot.
  After the transmission delay, the real image of the robot follows the motion
  of the phantom image.

  The system includes a high-fidelity, real-time computer-graphical display.
  It gives the user depth, perspective, and lighting cues that improve
  control. [Several paragraphs of details.]
..............

It sounds to me like this approach would be especially useful where the
delay is a fraction of a second to several seconds - Earth orbit (via
geosynchronous satellite) or the moon. For greater distances (i.e. Mars),
batch mode operation with more complex simulation sequences might be better.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dp10@mc4adm.UWaterloo.ca (Derek Kirkland)
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Starwars Defense System
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:30:56 GMT

Sounds like this guy has been reading too much science fiction.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA Daily News for 09/30/92 (Forwarded)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:22:35 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <1992Oct3.041048.13395@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>>>... the second shuttle mission for a CSA astronaut -
>
>I seem to have missed something: The only "CSA" I'm familiar with
>is the Confederate States of America...

Think hard, Frank. :-)  What does "SA" stand for in acronyms like NASA
and ESA?  Okay, that's two letters out of three.  Now, think real hard
about what countries starting with C fly astronauts on shuttle missions.
(No, Virginia, there will be no prize awarded for silliest suggestion.)
Looking up what country Steve MacLean is from is cheating. :-)
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: With telepresence, who needs people in Earth orbit?
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:12:33 GMT

In article <Cohena-061092082023@l30346.mdc.com> Cohena@mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes:

>I'm not sure...but it seems that Allan doesnt support the notion of
>telerobotic exploration....consider this...

Not at all. Telerobotics and automation have an important and critical
role to play. My dispute is only with those who claim that they are enough
and that humans aren't needed.

The reason for the bet is to show that they won't work in all situations.

>If the location can be scanned with enough detail,..then the data
>transmitted back to Earth.... a vitual simulation can be constructed
>Earthside....

Sure. This is not a new idea but it may work for very very simple
applications.

>The technical challenges include the scanning device, the throughput for
>the scanned data back to Earth and the simulation Earthside....all are
>easily solved...

People have been working for years on this very idea. The problems are
far from solved.

  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?"                               |
+----------------------201 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Switching ALSEP back on
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:02:03 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: higgins@fnalc.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
-Subject: Switching ALSEP back on (was Re: another sad anniversary)
-Date: 5 Oct 92 16:12:08 GMT

-In article <BvMqJ2.Dx@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
-> In article <1689@tnc.UUCP> m0102@tnc.UUCP (FRANK NEY) writes:
->>Is there any way to turn ALSEP back on once we get the ground station
->>set up properly?  Or was it a no-return type of prodedure?
-> Such turnoff procedures are usually irreversible, I believe, to minimize
-> the chances of dying hardware later reversing them on its own.  I'm not
-> sure about ALSEP in particular.
-Oh, I don't know. Armed with a soldering iron, a wiring diagram, and a
-space suit, I imagine you'd find it pretty easy.

As I recall from the bus tour of KSC two years ago, the standard speech 
included the comment that the transmitters could be turned back on if desired.
Has anyone taken the tour more recently?

-Was it a plutonium-238 RTG?  238Pu has a half-life of 86 years, but
-available power from RTGs seems to drop off at a faster rate than
-that, for reasons that aren't clear to me. 

I've noticed that too. Maybe there's a fourth power of something in the
equation, having to do with heat flow.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov

Newsgroups: sci.space,misc.invest,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.libertarian
From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Toutatis impact in 2000 AD? (was Re: Help !)
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:32:38 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

In article <1992Sep25.141957.9814@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes:
> In article <Bv4Kry.12o.1@cs.cmu.edu>, PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes...
>>They say that, on September 28, 2000, the Toutatis asteroid
>>(diameter 1 kilometer) may hit the earth. They say that
>>normally the distance would be the same as the Earth-Moon
>>distance, but that there is a rather big uncertainty. 
> 
> The comet will pass .074 AU from Earth in the year 2000, which is 3 times 
> farther than its closest approach coming up on December 8 (.025 AU).

Not responsive to the question.  How big are the error bars?  That is,
Toutatis will miss the Earth by .074 AU, plus or minus how much?

Just beecause the 2000 encounter figure is larger doesn't mean its
uncertainty is the same.  Conceivably it could be fuzzier than the
1992 encounter-- maybe enough for a significant chance of collision.
I have to say that this seems unlikely, though.

There are other interesting questions, like "Which side of the Earth
is facing Toutatis at the time of the 2000 encounter?"  or "According
to the best guesses, how big a SPLAT! would it make?"  (I recall that
there are crater-size formulae in the sci.space FAQ, but I can't at
the moment access my records about the estimated size of Toutatis.)

Oh, by the way, Donald Yeomans of JPL mentioned at the World Space
Congress that Hubble was scheduled to take a look at Toutatis this
winter, but couldn't provide any more information when I questioned
him on this.

I am sure that by the time the Decmber 1992 encounter has happened,
the uncertainties in Totatis's future position will shrink
considerably.  Then we will know whether we should start panicking or
forget about the whole thing.

     O~~*           /_) ' / /   /_/ '  ,   ,  ' ,_  _           \|/
   - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / /   / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap!
 /       \                          (_) (_)                    / | \
 |       |     Bill Higgins   Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
 \       /     Bitnet:     HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET
   -   -       Internet:  HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV
     ~         SPAN/Hepnet:      43011::HIGGINS
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NEAR asteroid mission (but wait! There's more!)
Date: 27 Sep 92 02:49:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester

In article <1992Sep27.004212.23425@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.081212.1@fnala.fnal.gov> higgins@fnala.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>>
>>Let's talk about the New, Improved NASA, with Secret Ingredient FCB!
>>Prime target is a 1998 launch to 4660 Nereus, an asteroid with an
>>orbit similar to Earth's, requiring a delta-V of 1.165 km/sec.
>
>Nice delta-v.  Significantly less than landing on the moon.  Does
>anybody have the original designation of this asteroid (it was
>renamed after _Asteroids II_ came out)?  Has it been given a
>type (C,S,M, etc.)?  Anything else known about its composition?


4660 Nereus is none other than our old friend 1982 DB.  The name,
while mythologically meaningful, was chosen because its orbits makes
the asteroid one of the ones that (velocity-wise) is "near us" (I am
not making this up).

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
From: bafta@cats.ucsc.edu (Shari L Brooks)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Date: 5 Oct 1992 01:06:04 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu


In article <4OCT199219005821@judy.uh.edu> 
wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes (in response to Mary Schafer's
post decrying the WWII actions leading up to the creation/manufacture of the
V-2):

>You totally missed the point of my post Mary. What I was referring to is
>the other things that when put in context make anything that Von Braun did
>look like Zero which it was.

>What about Truman's bullying of Joe Stalin at The last conference at the 
>end of the war that from Soviet documents recently opened up, was the
>thing that started the cold war.

>What about all of the British and American Multinational corporations that
>retained their ties with their German counterpart throughout the war. If
>you are truly curious look up the role in IG Farbin and their partners in
>the Gas Chambers and slave labor camps.

>What about the role of the British Crown at the end of WWII to keep the 
>Dutch concentration camp prisioners in the camps for EIGHT months after WWII
>in order to cemet their own control over trade in indonesia? I have an
>eye witness for that one.

>What about the Japanese and the using of human guinea pigs, both Soviet and
>American for cold weather studies? These studies helped the Japanese 
>medical industry gain a great advantage after the war. The commandant of
>the camps that did this was the president of the firm till he died.

>The Russians, what about all that they did in the name of the motherland.

I fail to see how the actions of these others have any bearing whatsoever
on the actions Van Braun did or did not do whilst still in Nazi Germany.
If people, corporations or governments managed to get away with what some
would consider inexcusable crimes, that does not *excuse* the crimes of
those who were caught.  Good grief, this is a lesson we all learned in
elementary school.

-- 
If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes.
      Big & Growly Dragon-monster        |       bafta@cats.ucsc.edu
     ------> shari brooks <-------       |       bafta@ucscb.ucsc.edu
                             All opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: palmer@sfu.ca (Leigh Palmer)
Subject: Re: Easter
Organization: Simon Fraser University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:19:59 GMT

In article <8f4.ANN@saxon.UUCP> fletcher@saxon.UUCP (Edward F Eaglehouse)
writes:

>I don't have any actual code to calculate Easter, but if I remember
>correctly Easter falls on the first Sunday following the first full moon
>after the Vernal Equinox.

That is true, but which moon one uses (and for which time zone one reckons
Sunday) is a matter of religious choice. The Roman rite uses a fictitious moon
which is readily reduced to a numerical algorithm since it is numerological to
start with. Rome, of course, is the determining venue for Sunday, presumably on
whatever time zone Italian politicians choose. The Orthodox rite uses the
physical moon to determine Easter and reckons Sunday on the longitude of
Jerusalem, though I do not know whether apparent or mean solar time is used.
The two Easters can be on different dates, though I don't know how often this
occurs.

The "Explanatory Supplement ..." to everything has a most readable chapter on
calendars which gives (almost) all of the necessary information for calculating
Easter. It makes very amusing reading for your liesure hours during the high
holidays. I find it especially amusing that, after many pages of tortuous and
tabular description of how Easter is reckoned, the editors have seen fit to
include a *table* of dates for Easter! It is by far the easiest way to
calculate that date.
I find that the public is readily amused by declamation on this topic, by the
way, 
and I have used it often.

Leigh
From: amon@elegabalus.cs.qub.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Mariner Mark II vs smaller missions
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:54:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvAo7I.90t.1
Distribution: sci
Organization: [via International Space University]
X-Added: Forwarded by Space Digest
Original-Sender: isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU

> scientist greed and there are some elements of that.  But
> big missions are expensive.  There is no real way around that.
> 


Since there can by the very definition of "big missions" be only a  
couple in the pipeline in any given decade, they are risky  
propositions.

But if you instead do what you can afford, and do a lot of them, you  
will get science now, you will increase the ability to do risky and  
innovative missions (if the price tag is low and there are a lot of  
them, congress will find more newsworthy fish to fry ... I mean  
oversee...)

Big mission is a relative term. If we fly mass produced small probes,  
we improve our ability to do missions quickly. And at the rate of  
technological advance (still accelerating with no sign of abating  
before we get to nanotechnology), "large" will become "small" in a  
matter of a decade.

If instead of immediately doing another Cassini class mission we do a  
number of smaller, faster, cheaper missions PLUS propulsion (and  
other) technology demonstration projects, we would find that in a  
decade those "big" missions have magically become small, affordable  
and SUSTAINABLE (EXCUSE the use of CAPS. I don't WANT to OVERUSE  
them!!!) programs.
Xref: sparky sci.space:13612 sci.astro:10158 talk.politics.space:1288 alt.politics.bush:6777 alt.politics.clinton:7323