waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:       In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes:    > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:     > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?     > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are    > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?     > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?        . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic,    'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or    part of the Oort cloud.     Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge    of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there    isn't a mechanism for the others either.  What on Earth is the "gravisphere"? Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they  detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances. In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin.  _The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to "conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at least it was a good try...
Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes: >the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid >rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle >main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch >and jettisoned after ET separation.  Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle  bring them down to use as spares?
In article <1993Apr21.204941.15055@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: > >>So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the >>U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida?  > >Why would you want to do that? The goal is to do it cheaper (remember, >this isn't government). Instead of leasing an expensive launch pad, >just use a SSTO and launch from a much cheaper facility.  Allen, sometimes I think you're OK.  And sometimes you tend to rashly leap into making statement without thinking them out.   Wanna guess which today?  You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know  of a private Titan pad?
wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes:  >I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone >on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination.  Well, we already suffer from street hoardings.  If you don't watch TV, you are free of commercials there, but if you want to go from A to B you cannot escape beer ads.  >us loathe it. I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred >by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious >to an astronomer like Sagan.  I think the right time to stop this proposal is now.  If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.  Coca Cola company will want to paint the moon red and white.  (Well, if not this moon, then a moon of Jupiter).  Microscum will want to name a galaxy `Microscum Galaxy'.  Where do we draw the line? Historically mankind is not very good at drawing fine lines.  I'm normally extremely enthusiastic about all forms of resource allocation for space research; I think it's the most important investment possible for mankind in the long run.  But this is not the way to get the money.          -ans.
In article <1pfkf5$7ab@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:  >Only one problem with sending a corp of Small astronauts. >THey may want to start a galactic empire:-)   Napoleon >complex you know.  Genghis Khan was a little guy too.  I'd bet >Julius caesar never broke 5'1".  I think you would lose your money. Julius was actually rather tall for a Roman. He did go on record as favouring small soldiers though. Thought they were tougher and had more guts. He was probably right if you think about it. As for Napoleon remember that the French avergae was just about 5 feet and that height is relative! Did he really have a complex?  ObSpace :  We have all seen the burning candle from High School that goes out and relights. If there is a large hot body placed in space but in an atmosphere, exactly how does it heat the surroundings? Diffusion only?  Joseph Askew
In article <1993Apr5.160550.7592@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: | |I think this would be a great way to build it, but unfortunately |current spending rules don't permit it to be workable.  For this to |work it would be necessary for the government to guarantee a certain |minimum amount of business in order to sufficiently reduce the risk |enough to make this attractive to a private firm.  Since they |generally can't allocate money except one year at a time, the |government can't provide such a tenant guarantee.   Fred.  	Try reading a bit.  THe government does lots of multi year contracts with Penalty for cancellation clauses.  They just like to be damn sure they know what they are doing before they sign a multi year contract.   THe reason they aren't cutting defense spending as much as they would like is the Reagan administration signed enough Multi year contracts,  that it's now cheaper to just finish them out.  Look at SSF.  THis years funding is 2.2 Billion,  1.8 of which will cover penalty clauses, due to the re-design.
In article <C532v3.Ftn.1@cs.cmu.edu> buenneke@monty.rand.org (Richard Buenneke) writes:     McDonnell Douglas rolls out DC-X   ...      SSTO research remains cloudy.  The SDI Organization -- which paid $60    million for the DC-X -- can't itself afford to fund full development of a    follow-on vehicle.  To get the necessary hundreds of millions required for  This is a little peculiar way of putting it, SDIO's budget this year was, what, $3-4 billion? They _could_ fund all of the DC development out of one years budget - of course they do have other irons in the fire ;-) and launcher development is not their primary purpose, but the DC development could as easily be paid for by diverting that money as by diverting the comparable STS ops budget...  - oh, and before the flames start. I applaud the SDIO for funding DC-X devlopment and I hope it works, and, no, launcher development is not NASAs primary goal either, IMHO they are supposed to provide the enabling technology research for others to do launcher development, and secondarily operate such launchers as they require - but that's just me.
sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:  >In article <pgf.735606045@srl02.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes... >>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes: >>.... >>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up >>>and see a can of Budweiser flying across the sky... :-D >>  >>Seen that movie already. Or one just like it. >>Come to think of it, they might send someone on >>a quest to get rid of the dang thing...  >Actually, the idea, like most good ideas, comes from Jules Verne, not  ("like most good ideas,..." please, people!)  >_The Gods Must Be Crazy._  In one of his lesser known books (I can't >remember which one right now), the protagonists are in a balloon gondola, >travelling over Africa on their way around the world in the balloon,   _Five Weeks in a Balloon_. Not a good idea unless you have helium. Verne's protagonists didn't. They just got increadibly lucky.  And yes, I knew the title of the movie too, just didn't want to start talking about it. Except to bring up the image of a team of S. African Bushmen showing up at a launch site with spears and flint knives to stop the launch (anyone want to bet on their success in doing so? especially since they could probably stop a shuttle launch by sneezing too hard within a couple miles of the launch site).
In article <1rrhlo$ajb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:  >  > After all the space walking,  they are going to  re-boost the HST's > orbit.  I think right now  it's sitting  at 180 miles up, > they would like  220.    Where did that idea come from?  It's news to me.
lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes: (in answer to Amruth Laxman >are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are >blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human >tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.  >lan  Apart from the fact that you get G in the pull-out, not the dive, that figure is about right for sustained G, no protection. The duration of G, it's rate of onset, body position and support aids are all critical parts of the equation. I remember one note about instrumented gridiron players recording peaks about 200G. Stapp, the aviation doctor, either by accident or design, took a short-period 80G in a rocket-sled decelleration, eye-balls-out against a standard (1950's) harness. It had to be short, calculate the stopping time, even from 500 - 600mph at that G. A bang-seat can get up to about 60 G, and you'd better be sitting straight. Find the book by Martin-Bakers human guinea pig to hear how bad it can get if the rate of onset is too high. A reclining position and a good G-suit can keep a pilot functioning at around 12G.  A flotation tank should be a good bet, since you can treat the body as a fluid, and high-pressure situations are not new. Anyone have any figures?
I haven't seen any mention of this in a while, so here goes...  When the Hubble Telescope was first deployed, one of its high gain antennas was not able to be moved across its full range of motion.  It was suspected that it had been snagged on a cable or something.  Operational procedures were modified to work around the problem, and later problems have overshadowed the HGA problem.  Is there any plan to look at the affected HGA during the HST repair mission, to determine the cause of its limited range of motion?  Is the affected HGA still limited, or is it now capable of full range of motion?
In article <15APR199316461058@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >Here are some recent observations taken by the Hubble Space Telescope: > >     o Observations were made using the High Speed Photometer of the Planet >       Uranus during an occultation by a faint star in Capricornus.                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Wow! I knew Uranus is a long way off, but I didn't think it was THAT far away!
In article <1993Apr15.051746.29848@news.duc.auburn.edu>, snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes: >  > I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar >  Sails. I understand that the JPL did an extensive study on the subject >  back in the late 70's but I am having trouble gathering such information. >  > Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ? >  > 					Frank Snyder > 					Auburn University >  > 					snydefj@eng.auburn.edu   I know someone had long talks about Solar Sails early this year and late last year..Also about Solar Sailing. Not sure who captured it if possible..  I think it was one of the regulars who had most or all the data?  I think I started the latest round or the late last year round.. But the topic has been around here, off and on for a year or two..
I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.
In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> James P. Goltz, goltz@mimi.UU.NET writes: >  Background: The Orion spacedrive was a theoretical concept.  It was more than a theoretical concept; it was seriously pursued by Freeman Dyson et al many years ago. I don't know how well-known this is, but a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San Diego back in 1957 or 1958. I was working at General Atomic at the time, but I didn't learn about the experiment until almost thirty years later, when  Ted Taylor visited us and revealed that it had been done. 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?
prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:  >In article <1rou8gINN7s4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: >|prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >| >|>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes: >|>|energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec. >|>|And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call >|>|moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that >|>|much energy in one second?  >|>>                                                -jeremy >| >|>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor. >| >|It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds >|in the interstellar medium.) >|   >How big of a lightning rod, would you need for protection? >and  would you need jupiter as a ground plane.  >pat  Sounds to me like you'd want a star for the ground plane.
Getting wierd again?  Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large and to expensive..  Okay what about launching one probe with multiple parts.. Kind of liek the old MIRV principle of old Cold War Days.  Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for the probes.  Also the mother ship would be powered (if not the Mars Mission) by a normal propulsion, but also a solar sail (main reason for solar sail race is to see what can be done and autmoated?) the sail would get the probes to were they needed.. I know the asteroid/meteor clouds (and such) might get in the way of a  Sail??  Main reasonf ro mother ship idea is to make it more economoical to send multiple probes/mission/satellites/exploreres to different places and cut costs.. The probes could do fly bys or ?? we shall see...
In article <1993Apr20.204335.157595@zeus.calpoly.edu>, jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes... >Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For >example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe" >mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if >maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy >gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.
Come on, this is sci.space.  An orbital billboard won't do any permanent damage; in a few years it will reenter and probably hit Los Angles anyway :-)  The boost to space commerce orbital advertising might provide might speed the day it is possible for those with a  yen for dark skies to get some really dark skies beyond the dust producing the zodiacal light.   Now, if they wanted to paint the CocaCola symbol on the moon in lampblack, that would give me pause.  It would be very difficult to reverse such a widespread application of pigments.
In article <1993Apr06.020021.186145@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: >Suppose the Soviets had managed to get their moon rocket working >and had made it first.  They could have beaten us if either: >* Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back, >and/or >* A Saturn V went boom.  The Apollo fire was harsh, A Saturn V explosion would have been hurtful but The Soviets winning would have been crushing. That could have been *the* technological turning point for the US turning us from Today's "We can do anything, we're *the* Super Power" to a much more reserved attitude like the Soviet Program today.  Kennedy was gone by 68\69, the war was still on is the east, I think the program would have stalled badly and the goal of the moon by 70 would have been dead with Nasa trying to figure were they went wrong.   >If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone >head and done some landings, but we also would have been more >determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the >Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend >upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base >would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think >that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value >of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would >have concentrated on the moon.  I speulate that: +The Saturn program would have been pushed into the 70s with cost over runs that would just be too evil.  Nixon still wins. +The Shuttle was never proposed and Skylab never built. +By 73 the program stalled yet again under the fuel crisis. +A string of small launches mark the mid seventies. +By 76 the goal of a US man on the moon is dead and the US space program drifts till the present day.
In article <C69C9K.9FA.1@cs.cmu.edu> STK1203@VAX003.STOCKTON.EDU writes: >I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet". >For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources  >dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was  >wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet >that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.  Robert McElwaine is the authoritative source of scientific data on Internet. He can be reached alt.fan.mc-elwaine...  Spiros
In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes: >It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the >wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be.  Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about here ..
In article <1psgs1$so4@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >| >|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. >| > >What do you mean?  Overstress the wings,  and they fail at teh joints? > >You'll have to enlighten us in the hinterlands.  No, they fold on the dotted line.  Look at pictures of carriers with loads of a/c on the deck, wings all neatly folded.
In article <1993Apr18.171148.6367@abo.fi> MLINDROOS@FINABO.ABO.FI (Marcus  Lindroos INF) writes:  >Later on, the Andersons tried to shed their reputation as creators of some >of the worst pseudo-scientific shows in TV history by flying "Into Infinity." >This was a one-off thing done as part of BBC's "educational SF" series "The >Day After Tomorrow." The Anderson episode dealt with a spaceship capable of >reaching the speed of light ("lightship Altares"), the four-man crew  >eventually journeyed into a black hole and ended up on the far side of the  >galaxy (I think). I saw this as a 9-year-old back in 1976 and liked it very  >much, but then again I was a fan of SPACE:1999 so I guess I was easily  >satisfied in those days:-)  Wow.  I was beginning to think that I had made that up.  I remember that movie (it was about 1.5 hours long).  I don't think they ended up anywhere in the known universe.    I remember they got a message halfway out to Proxima Centauri, that Earth transmitted a day after they launched, timed to catch up with them at the halfway point.  I thought it was neat, I think I was all of 10 at the time.  >Does anyone know if "Into Infinity" has been released on video? I have some >SPACE:1999 shows on VHS and know that Thunderbirds etc. also are available in >England.   Space:1999 has just come out with 4 episodes released in American stores. I will look for the Into Infinity show, I never did know that was the name of it, I thought the show was called "the day after tomorrow", and that was it.
In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au>, enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes:  <<<most of message deleted>>>  > What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that > it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night).  > Really, really depressed. >  >              Enzo
Alan Carter writes:  >> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to >> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase.  > This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could > someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is?  The name is rather descriptive.  It's a command to the spacecraft that tells it "If you don't hear from Earth after 264 hours, assume something is wrong with your (the spacecraft) attitude, and go into a preprogrammed search mode in an attempt to reacquire the signal from Earth."
In article <1r46o9INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu>, sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes: > In article <C5tEIK.7z9@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >  >>Apollo was done the hard way, in a big hurry, from a very limited >>technology base... and on government contracts.  Just doing it privately, >>rather than as a government project, cuts costs by a factor of several. >  > So how much would it cost as a private venture, assuming you could talk the > U.S. government into leasing you a couple of pads in Florida?  >  >  >  >     Software engineering? That's like military intelligence, isn't it? >   -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --   Why must it be a US Government Space Launch Pad? Directly I mean.. I know of a few that could launch a small package into space. Not including Ariadne, and the Russian Sites.. I know "Poker Flats" here in Alaska, thou used to be only sounding rockets for Auroral Borealous(sp and other northern atmospheric items, is at last I heard being upgraded to be able to put sattelites into orbit.   Why must people in the US be fixed on using NASAs direct resources (Poker Flats is runin part by NASA, but also by the Univesity of Alaska, and the Geophysical Institute). Sounds like typical US cultural centralism and protectionism.. And people wonder why we have the multi-trillion dollar deficite(sp). Yes, I am working on a spell checker..
In article <1993Mar31.191658.9836@mksol.dseg.ti.com: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: :Just a bit off, Phil.  We don't reprocess nuclear fuel because what :you get from the reprocessing plant is bomb-grade plutonium.  It is :also cheaper, given current prices of things, to simply fabricate new :fuel rods rather than reprocess the old ones, creating potentially :dangerous materials (from a national security point of view) and then :fabricate that back into fuel rods.  Fabricating with reprocessed plutonium may result in something that may go kind of boom, but its hardly decent bomb grade plutonium.  If you want bomb grade plutonium use a research reactor, not a power reactor.  But if you want a bomb, don't use plutonium, use uranium.
I have received my copies of Cosmonautics 1990 and Cosmonautics 1991, as well as Soviet Space 1990 and Space Station [MIR] Handbook from Aerospace Ambassadors with no problem.      I'm getting ready to FAX them some material in Huntsville, and I'll include a printout of your inquiry.  ____________________________________________________________ | George Hastings		ghasting@vdoe386.vak12ed.edu |   | Space Science Teacher		72407.22@compuserve.com      |  If it's not | Mathematics & Science Center 	STAREACH BBS: 804-343-6533   |   FUN, it's | 2304 Hartman Street		OFFICE:       804-343-6525   |  probably not | Richmond, VA 23223		FAX:          804-343-6529   |    SCIENCE!