waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <1993Apr29.192623.11760@cc.ic.ac.uk> atae@spva.ph.ic.ac.uk (Ata Etemadi) writes:  >"The Forever War", one of my favorite SciFi books, had a passage devoted to  >breathing fluids. The idea was to protect people from the high accelerations  >required for interstellar travel by emersing the passengers in dry-cleaning  >fluid saturated with oxygen. Plenty of very imaginative ideas is this book. >I would certainly recommend it (won the Hugo and the Nebula awards).  And most definitely read it in conjunction with Heinlein's _Starship Trooper_.  The two books are radically different viewpoints of the same basic premises.  I've even heard tell of English classes built around this.  --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
In article <1993Apr22.164801.7530@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >	Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record- >players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower >per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems. >   I don't think so at first,  but solid state offered  better reliabity, id bet,  and any lower costs would be only after the processes really scaled up.
In article <C5w5un.Bpq@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) wrote: >  > The major component of any realistic plan to go to the Moon cheaply (for > more than a brief visit, at least) is low-cost transport to Earth orbit. > For what it costs to launch one Shuttle or two Titan IVs, you can develop > a new launch system that will be considerably cheaper.  (Delta Clipper > might be a bit more expensive than this, perhaps, but there are less > ambitious ways of bringing costs down quite a bit.)    Ah, there's the rub.  And a catch-22 to boot.  For the purposes of a contest, you'll probably not compete if'n you can't afford the ride to get there.  And although lower priced delivery systems might be doable, without demand its doubtful that anyone will develop a new system.  Course, if a low priced system existed, there might be demand...    I wonder if there might be some way of structuring a contest to encourage low cost payload delivery systems.  The accounting methods would probably be the hardest to work out.  For example, would you allow Rockwell to 'loan' you the engines?  And so forth...  > Any plan for doing > sustained lunar exploration using existing launch systems is wasting > money in a big way. >   This depends on the how soon the new launch system comes on line.  In other words, perhaps a great deal of worthwhile technology (life support, navigation, etc.) could be developed prior to a low cost launch system.  You wouldn't want to use the expensive stuff forever, but I'd hate to see folks waiting to do anything until a low cost Mac, oops, I mean launch system comes on line.  I guess I'd simplify this to say that 'waste' is a slippery concept.  If your goal is manned lunar exploration in the next 5 years, then perhaps its not 'wasted' money.  If your goal is to explore the moon for under $500 million, then you should put of this exploration for a decade or so.  Craig
A related question (which I haven't given that much serious thought  to): at what lattitude is the average length of the day (averaged  over the whole year) maximized? Is this function a constant= 12 hours? Is it truly symmetric about the equator? Or is there some discrepancy due to the fact that the orbit is elliptic (or maybe the difference is enough to change the temperature and make the seasons in the southern hemisphere more bitter, but is far too small to make a sizeable difference in daylight hours)?  I want to know where to move.
victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes:  >Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan? >  >All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at  >drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's  >orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info.  >Does anyone know anything more specific?  >(Yes, this happened LONG before Star Trek and is apparently where they  >got the reference for the "guy with the ears".)  Yes, long before Star Trek.  Before Einstein, in fact.  Vulcan as a planet inside Mercury was hypothesized to explain a perturbation of Mercury's orbit that could not be explained by the known planets.  But Einstein's theory of relativity explained Mercury's motion, and analysis of Mercury's motion now shows there are _not_ any planets inside its orbit.
gnb@baby.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes:  >In article <C5v9Lr.KxF@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:  >   [re: voyages of discovery...] >   Could you give examples of privately funded ones?  >If you believe 1492 (the film), Columbus had substantial private >funds.  When Columbus asked the merchant why he put the money in, the >guy said (slightly paraphrased) , "There is Faith, Hope and Charity. >But greater than these is Banking." >--  Heck, some of his ships were loaners. One was owned by a Basque... (you know, one of those groups that probably crossed the Atlantic _before_ Columbus came along).  >Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia >   Knox's 386 is slick.            Fox in Sox, on Knox's Box >   Knox's box is very quick.       Plays lots of LSL. He's sick! >(Apologies to John "Iron Bar" Mackin.)
In article <C5Ky9y.MKK@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes: >Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length >and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will >reach 50,000 feet. > >Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one >of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing >people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes.  The situation in this regard has changed considerably in recent years. See the discussion of "high-power rocketry" in the rec.models.rockets frequently-asked-questions list.  This is not hardware you can walk in off the street and buy; you need proper certification.  That can be had, mostly through Tripoli (the high- power analog of the NAR), although the NAR is cautiously moving to extend the upper boundaries of what it considers proper too.  You need special FAA authorization, but provided you aren't doing it under one of the LAX runway approaches or something stupid like that, it's not especially hard to arrange.  As with model rocketry, this sort of hardware is reasonably safe if handled properly.  Proper handling takes more care, and you need a lot more empty air to fly in, but it's basically just model rocketry scaled up.  As with model rocketry, the high-power people use factory-built engines, which eliminates the major safety hazard of do-it-yourself rocketry.
In article <1rtghr$j9v@techbook.techbook.com> dant@techbook.techbook.com (Dan Tilque) writes: > |The material was useful for seals, but it had a major problem for, say |the linings of vessels: it wouldn't stick to metal.  What the space |program did was to find a way to get it to stick.  Thus we had no-stick |frypans on the market in the late '60s.   Ejon Matejevic who was a full professor at Clarkson University, last I heard,  developed the process for sticking Teflon to metals.  I don't think it was a NASA project, cuz i heard he held the patent on it, and had made quite a bundle off it.  Anyone from Clarkson know the Exact story.  I never wanted to ask him myself.
In Space Digest V16 #487, hathaway@stsci.edu writes:  ...about the protests over proposals to put a giant billboard into orbit,  >I'd like to add that some of the "protests" do not come from a strictly >practical consideration of what pollution levels are acceptable for research >activities by professional astronomers.  Some of what I would complain about >is rooted in aesthetics.   >Regards,  >Wm. Hathaway  >Baltimore MD   Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short, an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.  Regular orbiting spacecraft are not the same in this respect, since they are more like abstract entities, but a billboard in space would be like a beer can somebody had thrown on the side of the road: just trash.
In article <C760Dv.K75@agora.rain.com> jhart@agora.rain.com (Jim Hart) writes: > >If anybody has a strong claim to control of the  the night sky, it is  >astronomers.  Check out the common law.  In the days when wild lands >weren't scarce, pioneers laid claim to the land by putting it to >use, eg clearing and growing a crop.  Even trespassers can lay claim to  >the right of passage if if they've done it for long enough and the >owners have not complained or taken steps to stop them.  Usage >begets property rights. > >Astronomers have been using the night sky for thousands of years -- >they own it.  >(eg light polluters), they will lose their common-law right of ownership. > >Another consequence of their ownership is that they are free to sell >it.  Now, astronomers need money for their work.  If light >polluting billboards and mirrors go up, they will need even >more money to buy extra image processing equipment, filters, >space telescopes etc. to get around the problem. > >So, as long as we can define who "astronomers" are (eg do >"they" include amateur astronomers?  Nature lovers?) >we can set up a system of voluntary consensus to solve this >dispute, instead invoking bans, regulations, etc. enforced >by bribed politicians at the point of a gun (why do folks always >think of that sordid solution, "we ought to pass a law", to >solve problems first instead of as a last resort when other >methods have failed?) > [Stuff deleted] >  This proposal certainly needs work, but how about working on  >these kind of ideas first before writing "there ought to be a law"  >letters to our Congresscritters: let's give noncoercive consensus, via  >the free market, a chance to solve this problem. > >Jim Hart >jhart@agora.rain.com  Would Mr. Hart please explain how one could get every nation on earth and every corporation to agree that astronomers own the night sky without `coercion'.   Remember that not every nation follows the English common law.   In most countries, for most of history, it was probably true that the rulers `owned' everything not explicitly owned by individuals.   Even in North America, where by the principle enunciated, the aboriginal inhabitants should have owned everything, when new arrivals wanted to use land and resources, they just took it over.  In case Mr. Hart hasn't noticed, there is currently a brutal war going on in Bosnia about who owns what. Of course, if some friendly super power were to give an international astronomy organization some anti-satelite missiles and also agree to defend it if attacked, such a proposal might work, but it would hardly be non-coercive.  Some of us nutty environmentalists think it might make sense first to try to mobilize public opinion against advertising in space and also to use governmental actions (like taxing power, for example) to discourage them.   This of course would be too coercive for Mr. Hart.
WHile we are on the subject of the shuttle software.  what ever happened to the hypothesis  that the shuttle flight software was a major factor in the loss of 51-L.  to wit,  that during the wind shear event,  the Flight control software  indicated a series of very violent engine movements that shocked and set upa harmonic resonance  leading to an overstress of the struts.
The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.  Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.  STS 56      1 22621U 93 23  A 93105.58333333  .00090711  00000-0  25599-3 0   249 2 22621  57.0029 144.8669 0004136 304.2989 134.3206 15.92851555  1179 1993 023B   1 22623U 93 23  B 93103.37312705  .00041032  00000-0  11888-3 0    86 2 22623  57.0000 155.1150 0004422 293.4650  66.5967 15.92653917   803
In article <pgf.737329707@srl03.cacs.usl.edu> pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes: >>In article <C6z3sw.1As@rice.edu> conor@owlnet.rice.edu (Conor Frederick Prischmann) writes: >>>In article <1srfii$79k@suntan.eng.usf.edu> mccolm@darwin.math.usf.edu. (Gregory McColm) writes:  >>>Huh?  Please state your criteria for selecting the "greatest philosopher" >>>title.  P.S. Ever read any Nietzsche?  >>Greatest = most likely to be remembered five hundred years hence. >>I must admit that that makes many of my personal favorites not  >>that great.  I make no comment on Nietzche except to remark that  >>he was no Immanuel Kant.  Interpret that cryptic remark as you  >>please.  >Some people have appended that remark, that Nietzche was no Kant, >with "thankfully." I haven't read enough of either to comment, although >everyone tells me I should read Nietzche.  I would have to say that the "greatest philosopher" title would have to go to Plato since the whole enterprise of philosophy was essentially defined by him.  Although he got most of his answers wrong, he did  definitively identify what the important questions are.  I think it was Descartes who said that "All philosophy is just a footnote to Plato."  If I were to choose which philosopher made the most important advances in human knowledge over his lifetime, that's simple...it is Aristotle. This is so much the case that many simply refer to him as "the philosopher".  Regarding Nietzsche, he's one of the most entertaining, although since his ideas were so fragmented (and since his life was cut short) it is doubtful that his influence as a philosopher is likely to be very extensive 500 years from now.  They'll probably still be reading him in 500 years though.  As for "modern" philosophers, I would have to say that Kant was the most influential since he had such a strong influence on almost everyone who came after him (and unfortunately, they maintained his errors and  amplified them over time).  I would say that the most influential "american" philosopher would have to be Dewey.  But as to the question of what philosopher will be most highly regarded in 500 years, it may very well be Ayn Rand (who in every important respect was "American", but was born in Russia).  But I guess that remains to be seen.
I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of  public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.  I personally prefer natural skies, far from city lights and sans aircraft.   However, there is also something to be said for being able to look up into the sky and see a satellite.  Many people get a real kick out of it, especially if they haven't seen one before.
In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:     In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:     >This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought not    >to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would    >think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic.    >    >Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much    >larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually,    >they will simply be able to afford more stuff.     If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger    economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a    lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,    but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing    military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than    just a "we have the money, why not?" approach.  Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European cooperation.  Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at the size of that multiplier :->).
Henry,  didn't the Little Joe  and Big Joe  get built in under a year? 6 months for little Joe,  and 12 Months for Big Joe?  i thought i saw something on that for  a old mercury film.
Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes: > I feel sure >that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to >see it. Has anyone out there seen it?  I've seen a film of it, my memory may be faulty, but as I remember it the vehicle was slightly over a meter long, with a thick baseplate 30-40 cm in diameter. I think the narrative said it was propelled by dynamite sticks. There were four detonations within about 2 s, the second coming after about 2 m of flight in. Max altitude seemed to be on the order of 50 m, but that is hard  to judge.
In article <1993Apr21.024423.29182@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> wdwells@nyx.cs.du.edu (David "Fuzzy" Wells) writes:  >I hear <insert favorite rumor here> that it will supposedly coincide >with the Atlanta Olympics.   Even worse, the city of Atlanta has a proposal before it to rent space on this orbiting billboard.  Considering the caliber of people running this city,  there's no telling what we're going to have leering down at us from orbit.
Hi guys, 	I've been hearing lots of talk on the net about DC-X and DC-Y, but none of the many posts actually explain what they are !!! Sorry if this is a FAQ, but would somebody please explain to me what they are. Reply by Email please . . . thanks.  	Andy  ajjb@adam4.bnsc.rl.ac.uk --
The European Space Agency has involvement with remote earth  observation, and I presume this includes surveillance (optical etc.). So it's not just the US/USSR(ex) who are in the game.  But what *is* the game? What can be done with space observation? The military functions of missile spotting, troop spotting etc. are well documented, but what about anything else?  The biggest eg I can think of is to get a  metal sensing sat over a paying country and scan their territory for  precious metals.  More importantly, if radar can spot water vapour (clouds), presumably a radar based sat will be capable of spotting rivers,open water and  *underground water* from space. This would be a positive life saver for African or other drought affected countries. Implementing a clean water and irrigation program would be of imense benifit to such countries and should cut down mortalities considerably.  So how about it? Is there a charity or government agency that would pay for a third world country to have their minerals and water deposits mapped?  Or is this still sci-fi?  Mail replies would be great.  Thought for the day: Thermal energy needs water to make steam so sstick it in the ocean!
tfv0@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Theodore F. Vaida ][) writes:  >In article <C74tLs.2sG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes: >[deleted] >>To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is  >>pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't >>matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic >>are the dying fields. >>--  >[deleted] >Ok, so those scientists can get around the atmosphere with fancy >computer algorythims, but have you looked ad the Hubble results, the >defects of the mirror are partially correctable with software (see >those jupiter pictures for results), but is the effects are completely >reversable, why is there going to be a shuttle mission to fix it? >[deleted]  The main effect of the spherical aberration problems with the primary mirror was to drive the computer engineers to develop the image processing software that much faster. When they use the _same_ deconvolution  software on the images from the fixed Hubble, be ready for some  incredible results!  There is every reason to believe that the results will  _exceed_ the original specs by a fair margin.    Adaptive optics is a combination of hardware and software.  It works  realtime, not after the fact, as is the case with Hubble.  You might be interested to know this technology has made it to the amateur market, in the form of the AO-2 Adaptive Optics System.  Starting on page 52 of the  April, 1993 Sky & Telescope is a three page review of this new product. It lists for $1,290.  The article states: "The AO-2 Adaptive Optics System  comes in a handy soft-plastic case that a three-year-old could carry  around."  Even though this device is really only good for the brightest objects, "it could cope with image movements of up to 0.8 millimeter in the telescope's focal plane."  Now just imagine how well this infant  technology will do in a few years, especially in a dedicated system that  has hundreds of thousands of dollars, and many man-hours invested in its development.  George Krumins
In article <1993Apr14.231654.14060@stsci.edu> rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:  >This question is probably mostly for Allen Sherzer, but anyone who KNOWS >would be welcome to answer.  I was just wondering if we could have some kind >of update on DC-X.  Well it rolled out two weeks ago. As we speak it is at White Sands getting ready. I would have called my sources for the latest but they are all out of town (in NM).  As for the future, there is at least $5M in next years budget for work on SSRT. They (SDIO) have been looking for more funds and do seem to have some. However, SDIO is not (I repeat, is not) going to fund an orbital prototype. The best we can hope from them is to 1) keep it alive for another year, and 2) fund a suborbital vehicle which MIGHT (with major modifications) just make orbit. There is also some money for a set of prototype tanks and projects to answer a few more open questions.  Better news comes from the new Spacelifter effort. The USAF managers of this program are very open to SSTO and will have about $50M next year for studies. This would be enough to bring DC-Y to PDR.  Now not all of this money will go to DC but a good case could be made for spending half on DC.  Public support is STILL critical. Meet with your Congressperson (I'll help you do it) and get his/her support. Also call your local media ans get them to cover the flight tests.     Allen