waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In <1993Apr20.101044.2291@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:  >Depends. If you assume the existance of a working SSTO like DC, on billion >$$ would be enough to put about a quarter million pounds of stuff on the >moon. If some of that mass went to send equipment to make LOX for the >transfer vehicle, you could send a lot more. Either way, its a lot >more than needed.  >This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is >enough to do it if the vehicle exists.  But Allen, if you can assume the existence of an SSTO there is no need to have the contest in the first place.  I would think that what we want to get out of the contest is the development of some of these 'cheaper' ways of doing things; if they already exist, why flush $1G just to get someone to go to the Moon for a year?  --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >According the IAU Circular #5744, Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e, may be >temporarily in orbit around Jupiter.  The comet had apparently made a >close flyby of Jupiter sometime in 1992 resulting in the breakup of the >comet.
Another fish to check out is Richard Rast -- he works for Lockheed Missiles, but is on-site at NASA Johnson.  Nick Johnson at Kaman Sciences in Colo. Spgs and his friend, Darren McKnight at Kaman in Alexandria, VA.  Good luck.  R. Landis
Mark Prado    >Please go just one step further: >How has the word "Clementine" been associated with mining?    Old pioneer song from the 1850's or so goes as follows:      "In a cavern, in a canyon,    Excavating for a mine,    Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,    And his daughter, CLEMENTINE"    Chorus:   "Oh my darling, Oh my darling,    Oh my darling Clementine.    You are lost and gone forever,    Oh my darling Clementine."     I've also had it explained (but not confirmed from a reliable data source) that CLEMENTINE is an acronym.  Something like Combined Lunar Elemental Mapper Experiment on Extended Non Terrestrial Intercept Near Earth.  Personally, I think that acronym was made up to fit the name (if it really is an acronym).  ------------------------------------------------------------------  Wales Larrison                           Space Technology Investor
u920496@daimi.aau.dk (Hans Erik Martino Hansen) writes  > How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of > people.  Arthur C. Clarke was way ahead of you on this one... he wrote a short story (title?) in the 1950s describing exactly your proposal!
Okay, the earth has a magnetic field (unless someone missed something?)  Okay if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..  Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power it?? Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the electrical field?  After all the dragless satellite is (I might be wrong), a suspended between to pilons, the the pilons compensate for drag.. I think I know what I want to say, just not sure how to say it..  A dragless satellite sounds interestingly enough liek a generator.  == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
In article <Cohen-270493073219@q5022531.mdc.com> Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com (Andy Cohen) writes: >The following is what they feed to us..... most has been posted already, >but there are a number of items not seen here yet..... > > >The Design Teams then presented the three options under study: > >¥ Option A - Modular Buildup -- Pete Priest presented the A option. Priest >  I don't think this will work.  Still the same in space integration problems,  small modules, especially the Bus-1 modules. the MOL would be bigger.     Also,  budget problems  may end up stalling developemnt.   A small undersized station wont have the science community support.  >¥ Option B - Freedom Derived -- Mike Griffin presented the status of Option >  Program effeciencies may cut costs,  but the basic problems with freedom remain.  in space integration,  too many flights too build.  not enough science retrurn.    >¥ Option C - Singe Launch Core Station -- Chet Vaughn presented Option C, >the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid >  Essentialy  $5 billion to build MIR.  I think had NASA  locked onto this design, back in 1984,  with scarring to support a TRUSS for real expandability,  we'd be looking at a flying space station.  This looks the most realistic, to me,  IMHO,  but,  i dont know if there is enough will power  to toss the CDR'd  existing hardware and then  take a 1/3rd  power cut  and do it this way.  the core  launch station has a lot of positive ideas.  You could stick in more hatches for  experimental  concept modules.  Like the ET derived workshops.  Or inflatable modules.  pat >(Oct. 31-cancellation .....just my opinion...AC)   Sad but true.  epitaph.  Killed by mis-management.
In article <1r6mcgINNe87@gap.caltech.edu+ kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes: +In article <37147@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM+ wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes: +++ ++Once inflated the substance was no longer ++needed since there is nothing to cause the balloon to collapse. ++This inflatable structure could suffer multiple holes with no  ++disastrous deflation. + +preasure (and the internal preasure that was needed to maintain +a spherical shape against this resistance) caused them to +catastrophically deflated.  The large silvered shards + +The billboard should pop like a dime store balloon.  No, you're wrong about this. Give me some time to get my references.
In article <C63vvG.4J9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:  >Only if he doesn't spend more than a billion dollars doing it, since the >prize is not going to be scaled up to match the level of effort.  You can >spend a billion pretty quickly buying Titan launches.  Fine. I'll buy from George. GEORGEEE!!!!  That assumes I can't weasel out a cooperative venture of some sort (cut me a break on the launcher, I'll cut you in on the proceeds if it works).  Only the government pays higher-than-list price.   >What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on >investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and >the prize is just the icing on the cake.  Unless you're Martin Marietta, since (as I recall) they bought out the GD line of aerospace products.   If MM/GD does it as an in-house project, their costs would look much better than buying at "list price."  Does anyone REALLY know the profit margins built in to the Titan?  C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this or that...   >I doubt very much that a billion-dollar prize is going to show enough >return to justify the investment if you are constrained to use current >US launchers.    Oh please.  How much of a profit do you want?  Pulling $100-150 million after all is said and done wouldn't be too shabby.  Not to mention the other goodies I'll collect in:  	a)  Movie & TV rights (say $100-150 million conservatively) 	b)  Advertising       ("Look Mommie, they're drinking Coke!") 	c)  Intangibles	      (Name recognization, experience & data  				acculumated)  >You're going to *have* to invest your front money in building a new launch >system rather than pissing it away on existing ones.  Being there first is >of no importance if you go bankrupt doing it.  If you want lean, fine.  A $500 million prize would be more than adequate for a prize.  Maybe Wales would be kind enough to define what a company would consider a decent profit.  If you want R&D done, you'll have to write in R&D clauses.  I suppose you could make it a SBIR set-aside :)
In article <C5133A.Gzx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >>>Titan IV launches ain't cheap  >>Granted. But that's because titan IV's are bought by the governemnt. Titan >>III is actually the cheapest way to put a pound in space of all US expendable >>launchers. > >In that case it's rather ironic that they are doing so poorly on the commercial >market.  Is there a single Titan III on order?  The problem with Commercial Titan is that MM has made little or no attempt to market it.  They're basically happy with their government business and don't want to have to learn how to sell commercially.  A secondary problem is that it is a bit big.  They'd need to go after multi-satellite launches, a la Ariane, and that complicates the marketing task quite significantly.  They also had some problems with launch facilities at just the wrong time to get them started properly.  If memory serves, the pad used for the Mars Observer launch had just come out of heavy refurbishment work that had prevented launches from it for a year or so.  There have been a few CT launches.  Mars Observer was one of them.  So was that stranded Intelsat, and at least one of its brothers that reached orbit properly.
In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >     Using a model of Mars Observer, Albee spent several minutes >describing the project and the spacecraft's features. In answer >to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed >drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only >a concept." Chahine, who had met Hawking at Caltech about five   Too bad they didn't  give him a tour of the CGRO data?  I think he'd be fascinated by the Gamma ray bursters.  The mind of hawking might even propose a mechanism.   SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?  carries an aluminum-gold  set of grateful dead albums?   inquiring minds want to know?  And why would MO  carry any features for being drag free?  I thought aero-braking was a possible MO  experimental activity?
Hello,    I am new to this news group, but I need some info.  I am  currently doing a project for a class on the Internet.  I am looking for good sources of information on space and astronomy, more notably, our own solar system.  If anyone knows any good sites where I can get information about this kinda stuff, please  e-mail me at STK1663@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU.  Thanx.                                   ----Steve   (my newsreader doesn't have a .sig yet, sorry.)
In article <1rmh4eINN95h@gap.caltech.edu>, kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes: > In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes: >  >>Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge >>of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can >>determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge >>of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments >>give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's  >>any help. >  > But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x > three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form > an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the  > resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different > beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of  > the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the  > differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors. > Positional error would be predominantly determined by timing errors > and errors in craft attitude. Since none of the 8 BASTE detectors have > any independant angular resolution whatsoever, they can not be used to > determine parallax.  Indeed, parallax would just add a very small  > component to the positional error.   >  > Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would  > require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort  > cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together  > now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object  > that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line). > If the 3 degree accuracy reported above is true, we're going to  > have to add a BASTE to the pluto fast flyby to get enough baseline. >  > The beauty of BASTE is that it both gives positional information and > watches the entire sky simultaneously, a realy handy combination > when you have no idea where the next burst is coming from. >  > -Kevin         Batse alone isn't always used to determine position.  WHen a particularly bright burst occurs, There are a couple of other detectors that catch it going off.  Pioneer 10 or 11 is the one I'm getting at here.  This puppy is far enough away, that if a bright burst happens nearby, the huge annulus created by it will hopefully intersect the line or general circle given by BATSE, and we can get a moderately accurate position. Say oh, 2 or 3 degrees. That is the closest anyone has ever gotten with it.           Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were talking the other day about putting just one detector on one of the Pluto satellites.  THen we realized that the satellite alone is only carrying something like 200 pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector needs lead shielding to protect it, and 1 alone weighs about 200 pounds itself.
In article <19930423.010821.639@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes: >>Since we don't have the money to keep them going now, how will >>changing them to a seperate agency help anything? >> >How about transferring control to a non-profit organisation that is >able to accept donations to keep craft operational.  The problem is, you can't raise adequate amounts of money that way. The Viking Fund tried.  They did succeed, in a way, but only because of the political impact of their fundraising.  The actual amount of money they raised was fairly inconsequential; it would not have kept the Viking lander going by itself.
Regarding the feasability of retrieving the HST for repair and relaunching it:  (Caution: speculation mode engaged) There is another consideration that hasn't been mentioned yet. I expect that retrieving HST would involve 'damaging' it considerably in order to return it to its cradle in the cargo bay.  Most of the deployed items (antennas and, especially, the solar arays) probably are not retractable into their fully stowed position, even by hand.  They would have to be removed by the astronauts.  (The only advantage that this might yield is that we could put new panels on that don't 'ring' due to thermal cycle stresses...)  I also expect that, as has been discussed, the landing loads on the HST optics structure is a big issue (but that the reentry loads are much less so.)  Can the moveable optical components even be re-caged (I assume that they were caged for launch)?  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Corvin 	      				zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com GN&C R&D					Martin Marietta Astronautics ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
In article <C73u77.84x@world.std.com> vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes: >In some sense, I think that the folks who think the idea is wonderful, and the >I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination."  >I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the >richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just >in poor taste.  Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space  advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution of wealth would help them ...
On 6 Apr 1993 14:06:57 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:  Pat> In article <SHAFER.93Apr6094402@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> Pat> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:  >successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both >fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.) >  Pat> Gee, I thought the X-15 was Cable controlled.  Didn't one of them Pat> have a total electrical failure in flight?  Was there machanical Pat> backup systems?  All reaction-controlled aircraft are fly-by-wire, at least the RCS part is.  On the X-15 the aerodynamic control surfaces (elevator, rudder, etc) were conventionally controlled (pushrods and cables) but the RCS jets were fly-by-wire.  |The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using |them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other |hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance |to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base |can't do.    Pat> What do you mean?  Overstress the wings, and they fail at teh Pat> joints?  Navy aircraft have folding or sweeping wings, in order to save space on the hangar deck.  The F-14 wings sweep, all the rest fold the wingtips up at a joint.  Air Force planes don't have folding wings, since the Air Force has lots of room.
rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:  >That's fine idea, but it only works if the lighting/power company even bothers to supply good light fixtures.  For instance, a power company in Virginia  >recently asked a state commission for permission to sell more lights of various >type.  Yet, all of the different fixture that they sold and wanted to sell  Uh, why do they have to ask a state commision? Unless the state's buying...  Such a process will only increace the overhead to the power company of selling different types of light, and will decreace the likleihood that they will do so. And any efficient lights they might have been planning in the future, go down the drain.....  >were bad designs - one that wasted the light.  Thus, you couldn't even buy >a good light from them.  In most places, to get a good light, you have to >either order it special at high cost or call a store in Arizona.  You could order it special. If enough people did so, it would be  low cost. Last I checked, you could use UPS to buy stuff in Arizona before going there.  Finally, I'm sure your state has things like small factories and machine shops. You could go into business making lights that are cheaper to use (thanks to their higher efficiency and the fact that they aren't wasting energy on broadcasting to space) and therefore _better_ than the old style...  >  At some >point, society starts to make rules.  Cars have to pass safety tests.  Five year plans have to be enacted or the planning for the economy will fall apart.    >Companies have to meet pollution standards, etc..  As if the clean air act really cleaned up the air...  >  There are two ways to achieve this:  educate the public so that they demand good lighting or force code >down the lighting companies backs.  History seems to suggest that the latter >is more likely to work.  _MY_ *experience* seems to suggest that you're trying too hard to *educate* them (with the same methods used in American schools to make any subject whatsoever as relevant and boring as Proto-Ugric) instead of *selling* them on the idea.  ... >Agreed, so I won't respond again.  It's important for all you spacers out  >there to realize that some people will object to various wild ideas that  >have been presented.  Just like Congress, it would be best to consult >the astronomers/lovers of the night sky before you try some PR stunt >to boost public knowledge about space.  Well, wake up. Space is becoming a field of human endeavor instead of just something we can look at from a long long way away. There are practical space projects that could conceivably (although probably not) cause lots of light pollution, and  have been argued against on those grounds, even though they might open up such possibilities, that people could vacation on Mars if they wanted really dark skies...   >Bob Bunge >rbunge@access.digex.com
In article <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes: >|> ... a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer ... > >This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could >someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?  If I'm not mistaken, this is the usual sort of precaution against loss of communications.  That timer is counting down continuously; if it ever hits zero, that means Galileo hasn't heard from Earth in a suspiciously long time and it may be Galileo's fault... so it's time to go into a fallback mode that minimizes chances of spacecraft damage and maximizes chances of restoring contact.  I don't know exactly what-all Galileo does in such a situation, but a common example is to switch receivers, on the theory that maybe the one you're listening with has died.
In article <C50z77.EE6@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (John Elson) writes: >Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?" This >was apparently created/marketed around the time of the lunar expeditions, along >with "Tang" and other dehydrated foods. I have spoken with several people >who have eaten these before, and they described them as a dehydrated candy.  >Any information would be greatly appreciated.   A freeze dried Tootsie Roll (tm).  The actual taste sensation was like nothing you will ever willingly experience.  The amazing thing was that we ate a second one, and a third and ....  I doubt that they actually flew on missions, as I'm certain they did "bad things" to the gastrointestinal tract.  Compared to Space Food Sticks, Tang was a gastronomic contribution to mankind. -- 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)     |God gave us weather so we wouldn't complain pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com          |about other things. PADI DM-54909                     |
In article <1qkmkiINNep3@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: >In article <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes: >> >>There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah, >>this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby. > >Damn!  So it was YOU who was drinking beer with ROBERT McELWANE in the PARKING >LOT of the K-MART! >    Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it? >  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --  They just tore down the Kmart near my house (putting in a new suptermarket).  I heard that there is a beer drinking ghost who still haunts the place!  8-{)  Tom  I liked this one I read a while ago...
In article <1993May13.184233.6060@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: > >Hmmm.  Not sure what's required for ships.  Probably not much, since >if a ship goes down it doesn't hurt too many people other than those >on the ship and those who invested in it.  If a plane or spacecraft >goes down, it can make quite a nasty mess on the ground, should it >land in an inappropriate place.   Considering the magnitude of loss of life in both the Moro Castle and Titanic disasters,  I can't believe you can be so blithe there fred.  Besides if a LNG tanker breaks up in a close harbor, you can kiss off quite a lot of population.  same thing for any chemical tankers.  I know the coast guard makes  mandatory safety equipment checks on all watercraft.  they use this as an excuse to make narcotics  searches, without warrants.  I suspect, that  commercial craft need a certificate at least similiar in scope to an air worthiness certificate from the DOT.