waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr17.053333.15696@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes: >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? > >Leigh  Nope, I haven't seen the film, but Taylor's biography ("The Curve of  Binding Energy") contains a short section on Orion and this test flight. Apparently it was quite impressi, and got von Braun very excited.  In Real Life:Mike Williams     | Perpetual Grad Student e-mail      :mrw9e@virginia.edu|   - It's not just a job, it's an indenture
u1452@penelope.sdsc.edu (Jeff Bytof - SIO) writes:  >I propose that PepsiCo, Mcdonalds and other companies could put  >into orbit banners that have timely political messages, such as,  >     "Stop the slaughter in Bosnia!"  Or how about:     "End light pollution now!!"  Your banner would have no effect on its subject, but my banner would.
jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:  >ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote: >> >1.	Calculators >> >2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan) >> >3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988) >>  >> I don't think touting contributions is a good idea.  World War II produced >> many many beneficial spinoffs.  Eg. Radar, jet aeroplanes, rocket technology. >> I don't think anyone would argue that World War II was, in and of itself, >> a good thing. >>  >> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in >> and of itself.  >I disagree with what to tout, although I agree that the space program is >inherently a good thing.  Most people today only care about "what will it >cost me?" and "what's in it for me?" and could care less about whether >something is simply worthwhile in and of itself.  Our society has become >increasingly geared toward the short-term (which you could read as NOW!).  >They couldn't care less about next week, much less next century.  They want >something to show for the expenditure and they want it *now*.  I think to some extent this is a case of stooping to their level.  You assume that the general public "can't handle the truth" and then, based on this  assumption, go for the fluff arguments.  Then someone, who can understand a good argument, comes along and asks "why don't you just develop the spinoffs?" or "why can't we just get our spinoffs from some other program, like the military?"  There are some good arguments for space development without relying on its side effects.  I'm not ignoring the value of spinoffs.  I simply think that the general public deserves more credit than you give them.  >BTW: don't forget Velcro...  And if you're going to use spinoffs you better make darn sure you are right. Teflon has been around since before NASA.  As I understand it, Velcro was  conceptualized by a french doctor who went walking in the woods and took the trouble to wonder how burrs stick to your clothes.  Certainly velcro was  available on hiking equipment by the early to mid sixties.  I would need to  see some good evidence before I believe that either of these would not be here today without NASA.
In article <19930422.121236.246@almaden.ibm.com>, Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes: > 3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team. >    This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA.  Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes from? It sounds like the RISKS Digest  equivalent of Large, Extra Large, Jumbo... Or maybe it's like "Defcon 5..."  I gather it means that Shuttle software was developed with extreme care to have reliablility and safety, and almost everything else in the computing world is Level 1, or cheesy dime-store software.  Not surprising.  But who is it that invents this standard, and how come everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?
dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:  > Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are > there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)  Paul-- for the same reason that many other colonies are founded. Why not?
I am doing a political science paper on the funding of NASA and pork-barrel  politics.  I would be interested in information about funding practices and histories of some of the major programs (Apollo, STS, SSF, etc) and the funding of SSTO to contrast.  Could someone please recommend some sources that would be useful?  Thank you.
In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes: >... The only thing >that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and >a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision >of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the >complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of >it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction).  It doesn't make a whole lot of difference, actually, since they weren't building spares of the station hardware anyway.  (Dumb.)  At least this is only one launch to fail.
Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used to compute sunrise and sunset times.  I would appreciate any advice.
In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes: >It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear >shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate >as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?  The variance from perfect sphericity in a model of the earth small enough to fit into your home would probably be imperceptible.  Any globe you can buy will be close enough.     --
All of this talk about a COMMERCIAL space race (i.e. $1G to the first 1-year  moon base) is intriguing. Similar prizes have influenced aerospace  development before. The $25k Orteig prize helped Lindbergh sell his Spirit of  Saint Louis venture to his financial backers.  If memory serves, the $25k prize would not have been enough to totally  reimburse some of the more expensive transatlantic projects (such as  Fokker's, Nungesser and other multi-engine projects). However Lindbergh  ultimately kept his total costs below that amount.  But I strongly suspect that his Saint Louis backers had the foresight to  realize that much more was at stake than $25,000.  Could it work with the moon? Who are the far-sighted financial backers of  today?
> there is no such thing as a stable lunar orbit  Is it right??? That is new stuff for me. So it means that  you just can  not put a sattellite around around the Moon for too long because its  orbit will be unstable??? If so, what is the reason??? Is that because  the combined gravitacional atraction of the Sun,Moon and Earth  that does not provide a stable  orbit around the Moon???   C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV  C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov
In <1993Apr29.114622.1@arc.ug.eds.com> steveg@arc.ug.eds.com writes:  >In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:  >>> >>    Dandridge Cole and Isaac Asimov collaborated on a book titled, >> "Habitable Planets for Man" (I think) in 1964.  It should be available >> in most good libraries, or through inter-library loan. >>   >This is the high-school science version; the original Rand study by >Stephen H Dole "Planets for Man" gives the harder numbers & graphs & >such (but predates Michael Hart's (& later) work on continuously  >habitable zones)  Is this still in print or available (other than on loan)?  I remember reading this many years ago and it's still the best thing I remember in this vein.  --  "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 <1993Apr5.191011.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:  >Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way?? >Why do the Martian Landing thing..  Or am I missing something.. Don't know to >much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).  You missed something.  I think it takes off vertically and is intended to land the same way.  --  "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 <1993Apr6.125608.7506@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: |In <1993Apr2.150038.2521@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: |>> |>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on |>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple |>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end, |>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power.  Sounds almost like |>>perpetual motion, doesn't it? | |I will believe that this process comes even close to approaching |technological and economic feasibility (given the mixed nature of the |trash that will have to be run through it as opposed to the costs of |separating things first and having a different 'run' for each |actinide) when I see them dump a few tons in one end and pull |(relatively) clean material out the other.  Once the costs, |technological risks, etc., are taken into account I still class this |one with the idea of throwing waste into the sun.  Sure, it's possible |and the physics are well understood, but is it really a reasonable |approach?  |  How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't do it?  Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-)  Gee fred.  After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like this.  And does anyone who knows more Particle physics then me,  know if the IPNS could Prove this technology?  | |>The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being |>built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is |>still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks |>technically reasonable. |
In article <1rs8hlINN8he@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes... >   >You may want to put Hubble back in the payload bay for a reboost, >and you don't want to clip off the panels each time.  The "artist renderings" that I've seen of the HST reboost still have the arrays fully extended, with a cradle holding HST at a ~30 degree angle to the Shuttle.  I think the rendering was conceived before the array replacemnet was approved, so I'm not sure if the current reboost will occur with the arrays deployed or not.  However, it doesn't  appear that an array retraction was necessary for reboost. >  >For the Gamma-Ray Observatory, one of the design requirements was that >there be no stored-energy mecahnisms (springs, explosive squibs, gas shocks, >etc.) used for deployment.  This was partially so that everything could >be reeled back in to put it back in the payload bay, and partially for >safety considerations.  (I've heard that the wings on a cruise missile >would cut you in half if you were standing in their swath when they opened.) >   Thanks for the input on GRO's S/A design constraints.  That would  explain the similar design on UARS.  >Back when the shuttle would be going up every other day with a cost to >orbit of $3.95 per pound :-), everybody designed things for easy servicing. >   Heck, the MMS project used to design _missions_ with servicing in mind. The XTE spacecraft was originally designed as an on-orbit replacement for the instrument module on EUVE.  That way, you get two instruments for the price of one spacecraft bus (the Explorer Platform).  A  second on-orbit replacement was also considered, with the FUSE telescope.  >--  >		David M. Palmer		palmer@alumni.caltech.edu >					palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov
According to a Software engineering professor here, what was actually rated level five was an ibm unit which produced part of the software for the shuttle, by not means all of it.   Interesting note: 90% of the software development groups surveyed were at level 1. The ibm shuttle groups was the *only* one at level 5!
sichase@csa2.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes: >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...  > 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...    That's _Five Weeks In A Balloon_.  And if anyone can tell me where to get it, I sure would like a reply!  I've been looking for that book for TEN YEAR+, and never found it.  (Note that I am _not_ looking for a $200 collector's item; I'm hoping that *someone* has published it in modern times, either in paperback or hardcover.  I'm willing to spend $50 or so to get a copy.
In article <1993Apr21.150545.24058@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: |In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: | | |In spite of my great respect for the people you speak of, I think their |cost estimates are a bit over-optimistic. If nothing else, a working SSTO |is at least as complex as a large airliner and has a smaller experience |base. It therefore seems that SSTO development should cost at least as |much as a typical airliner development. That puts it in the $3G to $5G |range. >  Alan,  	don't forget,  a HUGE  cost for airliner developement is FAA certification.  the joke is when the paperwork  exceeds teh weight of the airplane,  it will fly.  The SR-71, and teh X-15  both highly ambitious  aero-space projects were done on very narrow engineering budgets.   Partly because they didn't spend much on paper  pushing.   There is some company in missouri  trying to get funding to build light commercial transporters  on a low cost basis, mostly by reducing FAA  certification costs.
In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes: >In article <1rgvjsINNbhq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >>  >>  >> How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on >> distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per >> megaparsec^2 is OK. >>  >different spheres: R=.25pc(Oort Cloud Radius), R=22.5pc(at the edge of the >galaxy), R=183.5pc or the edge of the galactic corona, and lastly at a >R=8800Mpc.   >        For a radius of .25 pc, we found an L around 10^32 erg/sec.  Pretty >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 > >  Supernovae put out 10^53 or 10^54 (i forget which, but it's only an order of magnitude...).  Not in gamma rays, though.  You'd hafta get all of that into gammas if they were at 9 Mpc, but if a decent fraction of the SN output was in gammas it could reasonably be extragalactic  (but closer than 9 Mpc).  I dunno SN theory so well, but I can't think of how to get many gammas out.  Maybe I should look it up.  Big radio galaxies can put out 10^46 erg/s *continually*.  That's just in the radio... there are a lot of gammas around them, too, but "bursts"? Nah.  Neither of these should be taken as explanations... just trying to show that those energies *are* produced by things we know about.
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes: : While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be : because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern,  : ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed : orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The : opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have : driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based : telescopes.  Hardly.  The Keck telescope in Hawaii has taken its first pictures; they're nearly as good as Hubble for a tiny fraction of the cost.  : In any case, a bright point of light passing through : the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the : thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets : might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned, : they are extremely bright.)  I believe that this orbiting space junk will be FAR brighter still; more like the full moon.  The moon upsets deep-sky observation all over the sky (and not just looking at it) because of scattered light.  This is a known problem, but of course two weeks out of every four are OK.  What happens when this billboard circles every 90 minutes?  What would be a good time then?  :                                              Frank Crary :                                              CU Boulder
In article <37147@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes: >+ >Pageos and two Echo balloons were inflated with a substance >which expanded in vacuum.   Called "gas".  >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.  The balloons were in sufficiently low orbit that they experienced some air resistance.  When they were finally punctured, this  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 that remained were easily visible for some time before reentry, though no longer useful as a passive transponder.
In article <1qju0bINN10l@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV (CLAUDIO OLIVEIRA EGALON) writes: > There was a Science fiction movie sometime ago (I do not remember its  > name) about a planet in the same orbit of Earth but hidden behind the  > Sun so it could never be visible from Earth.   This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K.  It was produced by the great team of Gerry and Sylvia Anderson (whose science was usually a bit better than this).  It may have been their first production using live actors-- they were better known for their technophilic puppet shows, such as *Supercar*, *Stingray*, and *Thunderbirds*.  Later, they went on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*.  The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to look at.
In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral >exploration. > >Basically get the eco-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth.  They aren't going to leave a loophole as glaring as space mining.  Quite a few of those people are, when you come right down to it, basically against industrial civilization.  They won't stop with shutting down the mines here; that is only a means to an end for them now.  The worst thing you can say to a true revolutionary is that his revolution is unnecessary, that the problems can be corrected without radical change. Telling people that paradise can be attained without the revolution is treason of the vilest kind.  Trying to harness these people to support spaceflight is like trying to harness a buffalo to pull your plough.  He's got plenty of muscle, all right, but the furrow will go where he wants, not where you want.
In article <C5sB3p.IB9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes: >    I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first > black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew > on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the > "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31. > It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting. >  > Doug Loss   Interesting is rigth.. I wonder if they will make a mention of her being an astronaut in the credits.. I think it might help people connect the future of space with the present.. And give them an idea that we must go into space..
In article <1993Apr15.072429.10206@sol.UVic.CA>, rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes: > In article <734850108.F00002@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes: >> >>One could go on and on and on here, but I wonder ... how >>many people read sci.space and of what power/influence are >>these individuals? >> > 	Quick!  Everyone who sees this, post a reply that says: >  > 			"Hey, I read sci.space!" >  > Then we can count them, and find out how many there are! :-) > (This will also help answer that nagging question: "Just what is > the maximum bandwidth of the Internet, anyways?")  A practical suggestion, to be sure, but one could *also* peek into news.lists, where Brian Reid has posted "USENET Readership report for Mar 93." Another posting called "USENET READERSHIP SUMMARY REPORT FOR MAR 93" gives the methodology and caveats of Reid's survey.  (These postings failed to appear for a while-- I wonder why?-- but they are now back.)  Reid, alas, gives us no measure of the "power/influence" of readers... Sorry, Mark.  I suspect Mark, dangling out there on Fidonet, may not get news.lists so I've mailed him copies of these reports.  The bottom line?          +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.         |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population         |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all         |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)         |     |     |      |      +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)         |     |     |      |      |      +-- Crossposting percentage         |     |     |      |      |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr         |     |     |      |      |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsrders         |     |     |      |      |      |    |      |   who read this group.         V     V     V      V      V      V    V      V   88  62000  1493   80%  1958  4283.9    19%  0.10   2.9%  sci.space   The first figure indicates that sci.space ranks 88th among most-read newsgroups.  I've been keeping track sporadically to watch the growth of traffic and readership.  You might be entertained to see this.  Oct 91   55  71000  1387   84%   718  1865.2    21%  0.04   4.2%  sci.space Mar 92   43  85000  1741   82%  1207  2727.2    13%  0.06   4.1%  sci.space Jul 92   48  94000  1550   80%  1044  2448.3    12%  0.04   3.8%  sci.space May 92   45  94000  2023   82%   834  1744.8    13%  0.04   4.1%  sci.space (some kind of glitch in estimating number of readers happens here) Sep 92   45  51000  1690   80%  1420  3541.2    16%  0.11   3.6%  sci.space  Nov 92   78  47000  1372   81%  1220  2633.2    17%  0.08   2.8%  sci.space  (revision in ranking groups happens here(?)) Mar 93   88  62000  1493   80%  1958  4283.9    19%  0.10   2.9%  sci.space   Possibly old Usenet hands could give me some more background on how to interpret these figures, glitches, or the history of Reid's reporting effort.  Take it to e-mail-- it doesn't belong in sci.space.