waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
I need as much information about Cosmos 2238 and its rocket fragment (1993- 018B) as possible. Both its purpose, launch date, location, in short, EVERYTHING! Can you help?  -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:               Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
In article <1rlrpv$5ta@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... >   >Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics? >just a little speculative thinking folks. >  >pat   Well pat for once I agree with you and I like your first idea that you had. IT probably is the gamma ray signature of the warp transitions of interstellar spacecraft! :)  Well it makes as much sense as some things. I was at the first Gamma Ray Burst conference here at UAH and had great fun watching the discomfiture of many of the Gamma Ray scientists. Much scruitiny was given to the data reductions. I remember one person in particular who passionately declared that the data was completely wrong as there were no explanation for the phenomena of the smooth sky distribution. (heck it even shoots down the warp transition theory :(. The next conference is soon and I will endeavour to keep in touch with this fun subject.
prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:  >Given that what i described for the HST  seemed to be the SMT,   and given >the mass amrgins on the discovery mission  is tight enough that  spacewalking >has to be carefully constrained.....  No EDO pallets,  no spare Suits, >no extra MMU's.     Has someone actually verified that mass is the predominant constraint on this mission?  You seem to be assuming it without giving supporting evidence.    >WHy not do this?  >	Quick Test  Goldins philosophjy  of faster cheaper, better.  >Build a real fast Space TUg,  to handle the re-boost  of the HST  using >clean Cryo fuels,  and get it ready before the  HST mission.  Pat, this would be slower, more expensive and worse.    Slower:  The shuttle mission is scheduled to go up in December.  That's less than eight months away.  There is no way you could build new hardware, retrain and reschedule the EVA's in that time.  More Expensive:  Your proposal still requires the shuttle to do everything it was going to do execpt fire the OMS.  In addition, you've added significant extra cost for a new piece of complex hardware.   According to a GAO report on the OMV I have before me, there are only two currently planned missions that could use such a vehicle -- HST and AXAF.  Since AXAF has since been scaled back and HST can rely on the shuttle, there doesn't seem to be any need for your vehicle.
In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes: >I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans. >I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range >of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects >simply disallow earth like conditions. > >eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist >     from the sun and the suns temperature..) >   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance >   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much >     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect >     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the >     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well. > >Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above >three factors and how they relate to one another. >    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.     It answered the questions you ask (speculatively, of course), along with many more that need to be considered in habitability studies: length of day (for day/night temperature variation, and agricultural concerns), partial pressures of certain unexpected gasses (ever hear of xenon narcosis?  neither did I), density of particulates in the atm, and their composition (ever hear of silicosis?  not much fun), etc.     Climate isn't a global phenomenon and probably needn't concern you, but axial tilt ought to.  It plays a large part in determining the severity of seasonal differences, and a lesser but still significant part in determining the speed of prevailing winds.
Wm Hathaway comments; >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.  Many readers may >never have known a time where the heavens were pristine - sacred - >unsullied by the actions of humans.  The space between the stars >as profoundly black as an abyss can be.  With full horizons and >a pure sky one could look out upon half of all creation at a time >- none of which had any connection with the petty matters of man. >Any lights were supplied solely by nature; uncorruptable by men. >Whole religions were based on mortal man somehow getting up there >and becoming immortal as the stars, whether by apotheosis or a belief >in an afterlife.  >The Space Age changed all that.  [more on man's effect on the environment]  >But there is still this desire to see a place that man hasn't >fouled in some way. >.... I think my point about a desire for beauty is valid, >even if it can't ever be perfectly achieved.  I agree that the desire for beauty is valid, but I think your desire to impose your vision of beauty is not.  You mention the age-old desire to somehow get up there, but ignore the beauty of the actual achievment of that vision.  You mention the beauty of a very dark sky, not impeded by the effects of humans, but ignore the beauty of the as-dark-as-can-be sky that is only visible from space, a vision that we, or at least, our descendents, may one day be able to see, in part, because of efforts that others call ugly.  One day, I hope, humans will be able to look out, not upon half the heavens, with only nature-creted lights, but upon all of the heavens, with no lights.  If advertising in space can help us reach that goal, it is no less beautiful for the way we reach it, than the 'pristine' sky of yesteryear (or yester-century), which is totally unreachable.  One of the original conceptions of beauty in wetsern sculpture was a human form, in the effort of striving to reach a goal. I don't think there's any reason to believe that modernity has changed that, just because it has changed the way we strive.  BTW, there are places that people haven't fouled.  Sometimes they make it better.  -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
You have missed something.  There is a big difference between being in the SAME PLANE and in exactly the same state (positions and velocities equal).  IN addition to this, there has always been redundancies proposed.  Bob --
In article <1993May15.014554.2850@aie.nl> hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) writes: >My god!  You dare posting!  I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer  >some time ago by email.  Unfortunately I never received any response.  Apologies...  Your mail is probably in the pile that arrived just before I got sick about a month ago...  A reply will appear eventually...  >Now, what I really would like to see is an interview with Mr Spencer. A >magazine (photograph!), or even better a tv program. (No! I want both!)  So far, there have been none (unless you count an interview in The Amateur Computerist about the history of netnews, which may be disqualified because TAC's budget doesn't run to reproducing photos...).
Are breathable liquids possible?  I remember seeing an old Nova or The Nature of Things where this idea was touched upon (it might have been some other TV show).  If nothing else, I know such liquids ARE possible because...  They showed a large glass full of this liquid, and put a white mouse (rat?) in it.  Since the liquid was not dense, the mouse would float, so it was held down by tongs clutching its tail.  The thing struggled quite a bit, but it was certainly held down long enough so that it was breathing the liquid.  It never did slow down in its frantic attempts to swim to the top.  Now, this may not have been the most humane of demonstrations, but it certainly shows breathable liquids can be made.
>> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own >> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the >> (night) sky as seen from space? >> >> Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background >> Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm >> after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see, >> disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects. > > I'm not sure if this will help you, but the (local) interstellar radiation field has been measured and modeled by various groups.  If I remember things correctly, the models involved contributions from three different BB sources, so there's no obvious "temperature" of background radiation in our local area.  However, the following references give the interstellar radiation density as a function of wavelength, and you can integrate and average in an appropriate manner to get an "effective" temperature if you like:  Witt and Johnson (1973) Astrophys. J. 181, 363 - 368 Henry et al. (1980) Astrophys. J. 239, 859 - 866 Mathis et al. (1983) Astron. Astrophys. 128, 212 - 229  As you can see, the references are out of date, but they might get you started.  Hope this helps,
In article <C6zyuE.CGC@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >(However, I do agree with Richard that if you're planning short missions, >it may not be worth the trouble of providing anything more than a urine- >disposal rig and a few baggies.)  I don't know about C-5's,  but on C-130's  which are regularly used for Medium  haul  Personnel transport by the Army,  only have a funnel and a garden hose  in the aft.  The female personnel hate long trips in the box cars.
In <1993May15.014554.2850@aie.nl> hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) writes:  >In article <1993May12.220831.8619@leland.Stanford.EDU> etoyoc@leland.Stanford.EDU (aaron thode) writes: >>Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions >>about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything >>going on in the space community, he seems to know it.  >>	The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek: >>	1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you? >>	1) Do you ever eat or sleep? >>	3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research?  >>	Or do you just use an account there? >>Just curious.  >My god!  You dare posting!  I posed these very questions to Mr Spencer  >some time ago by email.  Unfortunately I never received any response.  well, IMHO (and i am just a nobody net.user) henry spencer is to sci.* as kibo is to alt.* and rec.*....  ....but i could be wrong...(did anybody mention the illuminati)  kitten --
In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:   >   >   > SOmebody mentioned  a re-boost of HST during this mission,  meaning  > that Weight is a very tight  margin on this  mission.  >    I haven't heard any hint of a re-boost, or that any is needed.   >   > why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled  > thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost.  it has to be  > cheaper on mass then usingthe shuttle as a tug.     Nasty, dirty combustion products!  People have gone to monumental efforts to keep HST clean.  We certainly aren't going to bolt any thrusters to it.
In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes:  >I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers >have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.  And from whence does this right stem, that it overrides the 'rights' of the rest of us?  >Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay >for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like >it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a >floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same  >reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.  And if you want to view that television station, you have to watch the commercials.  You can't turn them off and still be viewing the television station.  In other words, if you don't like what you see, don't look.  There is no 'right' I can think of that you have to force other people to conform to your idea of aesthetic behaviour.  What's next, laws regulating how people must dress and look so as to appeal to your fashion sense, since you have this 'right' of an aesthetic view?   > Pat writes: >George.  >	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry. >If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include >a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government >here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental >civil rights.  >I say:  >	Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show >	you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice, >	discrimination, and violence against others of different >	races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.  Which has what to do with the topic of discussion?  >Pat says: >If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation >to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected >in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you >know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia, >they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent >you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums. >In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.  >I say: >What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably, >would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating >at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and >would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and >aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild >and unspoiled things, including the night sky.  Oh, I see.  You don't want any legislation that might impinge on you; you just want everyone else on the planet to do what you want.  --  "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 <C65LJ5.5Az@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes: >    I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I > just wanted to add a point. >  ..  > then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution > provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are > considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have  These seem hardly like the groups to discuss this in, but HUH???  All legitimate power to enforce these rights derives from the consent  of the governed, not from no steenkin' piece of paper.  Civilized gov'mnt  is not an autonomous computer program, it's interactive.  The Constitution  was made by the people and can be trashed by us - it ain't no sacred  scripture from which rights flow.  Our 'rights' come from our souls.  And I sure didn't see any request to vote on trashing the sky.   Again - my opinion only - we keep our rights by using them, not going to  some court.    > comparable documents.  If you can persuade a court that you have a right > to a dark sky derived in some manner from the Bill of Rights (in the > U.S.), you can prevent (maybe) these billboards from being launched.  To > keep anyone in the world from launching then gets into international law > and the International Court of Justice (correct name?) in the Hague, > something I know little about. >  > Doug Loss > loss@husky.bloomu.edu
Jeffrey L. Cook sez; >>This object would not interfere with anyone's enjoyment of the night sky >>(it would be invisible at night), nor would it have any significant >>impact on astronomical observations.  I suspect there must be some kind >>of underlying agenda coming to the surface when, in spite of this, people >>are so quick to shrilly denounce and condemn something that would so >>vividly demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism.  Lazlo Nibble sez; >Buying Lichtenstein and paving it over with ground glass would also >"demonstrate the strength of Western capitalism", but that doesn't make it >a particularly attractive idea.  Is that what this country has been reduced >to?  The planetary equivalent of a guy who gets his penis out at parties?  Actually, paving ground glass over Lichtenstein wouldn't demonstrate the strength of Western Capitalism, since it's strength depends on use of the mind and materials in the fulfillment of needs and desires.  Mind you, I'm not saying *no-one* would benefit from glassed-over land, but I don't think anyone would actually pay for it, unlike the (potential) billsats.  I don't quite follow you on the part about someone exposing their genitals at parties, but I got a chuckle from it anyway.  And I thought I had some strange friends :-)  -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
Picture our universe floating like a log in a river.  As the log floats down the river, it occasionally strikes rocks, the bank, the bottom, other logs.  When this collission occurs, kinetic energy is translated into heat, the log degrades, gets scraped up, and other energy  translaions occur.  The distribution of damage to the log depends on the shape of the log.  However, to a very small virus in a mite on the head of a termite in the center of the log, the shock waves from the collissions would appear uniformly random in direction.  This is my theory for GRB.  They are evidence of our universe interacting with other universes!  Why not!  Makes just as much sense as the GRB coming from the Oort cloud!  The log theory of universes can't be ruled out!  Of course, I'm a layman in the physics world.  You  physicists out there, Tell me about this !!!!
I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans. I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects simply disallow earth like conditions.  eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist      from the sun and the suns temperature..)    Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance    Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much      can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect      atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the      earth.  I suppose density should be important as well.  Climate etc does not concern me, nor does axial tilt etc etc.  Just the above three factors and how they relate to one another.  Jonathan --
Hello out there, If your familiar with the COMET program then this concerns you. COMET is scheduled to be launched from Wallops Island sometime in June. Does anyone know if an official launch date has been set?
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.
In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca>, jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes... >Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had >assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I >always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something. >If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not >a "NO-OP" command. >  I know its semantics, but the "no-op" _doesn't_ do anything.  The Command Loss Timer is simply looking for a command, any command.  A "no-op" is simply a spacecraft command that drops bits into the big bit bucket in the sky.  "No-op" also get used as timekeepers to provide millisecond delays between command sequences (used on the thruster preps on GRO, er, Compton) and to verify command links at the beginning of TDRS events.  All in all, a rather useful command.  And, an intelligent FDC test on Galileo (the Command Loss Timer).
In article <1993Apr20.001757.7543@bby.com.au>, gnb@leo.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: > In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net> gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes: >  >>    Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation  >>    who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a >>    year.  >  > And with $1B on offer, the problem of "keeping them alive" is highly > likely to involve more than just the lunar environment!  >  > "Oh Dear, my freighter just landed on the roof of ACME's base and they > all died.  How sad.  Gosh, that leaves us as the oldest residents." >  > "Quick Boss, the slime from YoyoDyne are back, and this time they've > got a tank!  Man the guns!" >  > One could imagine all sorts of technologies being developed in that > sort of environment..... >  > Greg. >  > (I'm kidding, BTW, although the problem of winner-takes-all prizes is > that it encourages all sorts of undesirable behaviour - witness > military procurement programs.  And $1b is probably far too small a > reward to encourage what would be a very expensive and high risk > proposition.) > - > Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia  Hey!  My dad has an old hangar and Judy has some old rockets in her attic, let's put on a Lunar program! . . .  Sounds good, but . . . Let's play a game - What would be a reasonable reward?  What companies would have a reasonable shot at pulling off such a feat?  Just where in the budget would the reward come from?  Should there be a time limit?  Would a straight cash money award be enough or should we throw in say . . .  exclusive mining rights for the first fifty years? You get the idea.  I'd like to play but I don't have a clue to the answers.
I know people hate it when someone says somethings like "there was an article  about that somewhere a while ago" but I'm going to say it anyway.  I read an article on this subject, almost certainly in Space News, and something like six months ago.  If anyone is really interested in the subject I can probably hunt it down given enough motivation.
on Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1993 12:38:50 GMT, Paul Dietz <dietz@cs.rochester.edu> writes:  /in essence, holding a match under the nozzle, is just *nuts*.  One /thing you absolutely must do in such an engine is to guarantee that /the propellants ignite as soon as they mix, within milliseconds.  To /do otherwise is to fill your engine with a high explosive mixture /which, when it finally does ignite, blows everything to hell.  Definitely! In one of the reports of an early test conducted by Rocketdyne at  their Santa Susanna Field Lab ("the Hill" above the San Fernando and Simi  Valleys), the result of a hung start was described as "structural failure" of  the combustion chamber.  The inspection picture showed pumps with nothing below , the CC had vaporized!  This was described in a class I took as a "typical engineering understatement" :-)