waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Forwarded from John Spencer (spencer@lowell.edu):  There will be two eclipses of Iapetus by Saturn and its rings, in May and July.  Please spread the word!  Here's some information about the events, and then a couple of messages from Jay Goguen of JPL appealing for thermal observations of the eclipse to learn more about the thermal properties of Iapetus.  He might also have some money available...  John Spencer, 1993/04/21  Iapetus will be eclipsed by the shadows of Saturn's rings and Saturn itself on 1993/05/01-02 (18:27-13:43 UT) and again on 1993/07/20-21, (21:16-09:38 UT).  Timing is as follows;       1993 May 1-2          A-ring ingress  18:27                egress   19:30         B-ring ingress  19:51                egress   21:42         C-ring egress   23:00         Saturn ingress  23:59                egress   10:02         B-ring ingress  10:28                egress   12:19         A-ring ingress  12:40                egress   13:43       1993 July 20-21          Saturn ingress  21:16                egress   05:08         A-ring ingress  05:13  (grazing)                egress   09:38  Times could be 30 minutes later according to an alternate ephemeris, and photometric observations are important for refining Iapetus' orbit.  Because the Sun's size projected on the rings as seen from Iapetus is 3100 km it's unlikely that we will learn anything new about the rings themselves from the observations.  See Soma (1992), Astronomy and Astrophysics 265, L21-L24 for more details.  Thanks to Andy Odell of Northern Arizona University for bringing the events to my attention.  THERMAL OBSERVATIONS?  Jay Goguen (jdg@scn5.Jpl.Nasa.Gov) writes:    To me, the interesting thing to do would be thermal IR of the 20 July   disappearance into the shadow of the planet to measure thermal inertia,   etc.  Unfortunately, the 21:30 UT of this event renders it inaccessible,   except from Russia.  Even from Calar Alto, Saturn is rising through 3   airmasses at 23:00 UT.  Do you know anyone in Russia or Ukraine with   a big telescope and 10 um instrumentation that's looking for something   to do?  I'd be willing to make a personal grant of >$100 for the data.    Jay  and again:    please try to encourage anyone that can observe the iapetus planet   disappearance to do so at thermal wavelengths.  My impression would   be that it's not an easy observation.  Iapetus will be faint and   getting fainter in eclipse, so you'll need a big telescope that's a   good IR telescope and reasonable 10 - 20 um instrumentation.  I don't   think that combination is widely available at the longitudes that are   well placed for observation.  We need SOFIA for this one.  One   possibility would be the IR telescope in India, but it's only a 1.2 m.  jay
In article <C4KvJF.4qo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes: >crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: >> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes: >>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in >>> physics. >> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of >> string theory? > >     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other >unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list, >including the omni-present "black holes." > >     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory >alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature >can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied: >"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in >physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about." >At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the >existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|-  "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties." "Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla  ----  ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes."
In article <C5r2I1.793@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes: >A brief political/cultural item. > >Radio station WGMS in Washington is a classical music station with >a large audience among high officials (elected and otherwise).   >Imagine a radio station that advertises Mercedes Benzes, diamond >jewelry, expensive resorts and (truthfully) Trident submarines. > >This morning I heard a commercial for the space station project. >Didn't catch the advertiser. > >Guess they're pulling out all the stops.  In the Air Force world at least, the crisis escalates when scale models of the plane in question (i.e. about to be sacrificed) begin to arrive in key Senators and Congresspersons' offices.  Of course it is assumed that coffee mugs and other decorative junk has been tried earlier.  Spiros
In article <C5L2xt.IqD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <C5Kys1.C6r@panix.com> dannyb@panix.com (Daniel Burstein) writes: >>A short story in the newspaper a few days ago made some sort of mention >>about how the Japanese, using what sounded like a gravity assist, had just >>managed to crash (or crash-land) a package on the moon. > >Their Hiten engineering-test mission spent a while in a highly eccentric >Earth orbit doing lunar flybys, and then was inserted into lunar orbit >using some very tricky gravity-assist-like maneuvering.  This meant that >it would crash on the Moon eventually, since there is no such thing as >a stable lunar orbit (as far as anyone knows), and I believe I recall >hearing recently that it was about to happen.   The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for deceleration.  	This from an issue of 'Science News' or 'The Planetary Report' I believe, about 2 months ago(?).
mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:  >cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes: >> 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. >> 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?  >  The commercial uses of a transportation system between already-settled- >and-civilized areas are obvious.  Spaceflight is NOT in this position. >The correct analogy is not with aviation of the '30's, but the long >transocean voyages of the Age of Discovery.  Lindbergh's flight took place in '27, not the thirties.  >It didn't require gov't to >fund these as long as something was known about the potential for profit >at the destination.  In practice, some were gov't funded, some were private.  Could you give examples of privately funded ones?  >But there was no way that any wise investor would spend a large amount >of money on a very risky investment with no idea of the possible payoff.  Your logic certainly applies to standard investment strategies.  However, the concept of a prize for a difficult goal is done for different reasons, I  suspect.  I'm not aware that Mr Orteig received any significant economic  benefit from Lindbergh's flight.  Modern analogies, such as the prize for a human powered helicopter face similar arguments.  There is little economic benefit in such a thing.  The advantage comes in the new approaches developed and the fact that a prize will frequently generate far more work than the  equivalent amount of direct investment would.  A person who puts up $ X billion for a moon base is much more likely to do it because they want to see it done than because they expect to make money off the deal.
>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 1993 05:48:59 GMT, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) said:  fc> In article <1993May17.021717.26111@olaf.wellesley.edu> lhawkins@annie.wellesley.edu (R. Lee Hawkins) writes: >>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  >Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter >ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones.  fc> Exactly what fraction of current research is done on the big,  fc> visable light telescopes? From what I've seen, 10% or less  fc> (down from amlost 100% 25 years ago.) That sounds like "dying" fc> to me...   That doesn't seem like a fair comparison.  Infrared astronomy   didn't really get started until something like 25 yrs. ago; it  didn't explode until IRAS in 1983.  Gamma-ray (and I think   X-ray) observations didn't really get started until the '70s.  I believe the same is true of ultraviolet observations in   general, and I know that extreme UV (short of 1000 Angstroms)  observations, until the EUVE (launched last year) had almost   no history except a few observations on Skylab in the '70s.   Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of astronomers only   had access to optical or radio instruments.  Now, with far more  instruments available, growth in some of these new fields has  resulted in optical work representing a smaller fraction of   total astronomical work.   >Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit >as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics >and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit >anyway.  fc> That would be true, if adaptive optics worked well in the visable. fc> But take a look at the papers on the subject: They refer to anything fc> up to 100 microns as "visable". I don't know about you, but most fc> people have trouble seeing beyond 7 microns or so... There are fc> reasons to think adaptive optics will not work at shorter  fc> wavelengths without truely radical improvements in technology.   Hmm, some of the folks in this department planning on using   adaptive optics at the 5 m at Palomar for near-infrared   observations (1 and 2 microns) might be surprised to hear this.   And isn't the NTT already pushing toward 0.1 arcsecond resolution,   from a ground-based site (remember 0.1 arcseconds was one of the   selling points of HST).
In article <C64t8E.6HB@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu  (Josh Hopkins) writes:     Could someone explain where these names come from?   I'm sure there's a     perfectly good reason to name a planetoid "Smiley," but I'm equally sure     that I don't know what that reason is.  Read John le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", "The Honorable Schoolboy" or "Smiley's People".
In article <1993Apr23.000021.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >In article <1993Apr22.162501.747@indyvax.iupui.edu>, tffreeba@indyvax.iupui.edu writes: >> [...]  Somebody pointed out, quite correctly, that such rights are >> not anybody's to grant (although I imagine it would be a fait accompli >> situation for the winner.)  So how about this?  Give the winning group >> (I can't see one company or corp doing it) a 10, 20, or 50 year >> moratorium on taxes. >>  >> Tom Freebairn  > > >Who says there is no mineral rights to be given? Who says? The UN or the US >Government?   Tom's right about this.  It's only a grantable right if the granter has the will and the ability to stop anyone from taking it away from you. Never mind the legal status.  >Major question is if you decide to mine the moon or Mars, who will stop you? >The UN can't other than legal tom foolerie.. Can the truly inforce it?  Nick's right about this.  It's always easier to obtain forgiveness than permission.  Not many people remember that Britain's King George III expressly forbid his american subjects to cross the alleghany/appalachian mountains.  Said subjects basically said, "Stop us if you can."  He couldn't.  >If you go to the moon as declare that you are now a soverign nation, who will >stop you from doing it. Maybe not acknowledge you?   That's how the USA started.  Of course, that's also how the Bolivarian Republic started (ca. 1800-1820) in central america.  It didn't have quite the staying power of the USA.  I'm sure there are more examples of going far away and then ignoring authority, but none jump to mind right now.  >What can happen is to find a nation which is acknowledged, and offer your >services as a space miner and then go mine the asteroids/mars/moon or what >ever.. As long as yur sponsor does not get in trouble..  Or do as some whaling nations do: define whatever activities you want to carry out as "scientific research" which just coincidentally requires the recovery of megatonnes of minerals (or whatever), then go at it.  >Basically find a country who wants to go into space, but can't for soem reason >or another, but who will give you a "home".. Such as Saudia Arabia or >whatever..  Lute Keyser had just this sort of arrangement with Libya (I think) in the late '70's for his commercial space launch project (one of the very earliest).  It was killed by Soviet propaganda about NATO cruise missiles in Africa, which made Libya renege on the arrangement.
All consipiracy theories aside, (they are watching though :-)), will NASA  try to image the Cydonia region of Mars where the "Face " is? If they can image it with the High resolution camera, it would  settle the FACE question once and for all. I mean, with a camera that  will have a pixel resolution of about 6 feet, we'd know whether all this  stuff is real or imagination.   Come on JPL and NASA folks, try to image it and settle this thing.
In <1993Apr23.165459.3323@coe.montana.edu> uphrrmk@gemini.oscs.montana.edu (Jack Coyote) writes:  >In sci.astro, dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes:  >[ a nearly perfect parody  -- needed more random CAPS]   >Thanks for the chuckle.  (I loved the bit about relevance to people starving >in Somalia!)  >To those who've taken this seriously, READ THE NAME! (aloud)  Well, I thought it must have been a joke, but I don't get the  joke in the name. Read it aloud? David MACaloon. David MacALLoon. David macalOON. I don't geddit.
: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:  : >There is an emergency oxygen system that is capable of maintaining a : >breathable atmosphere in the cabin for long enough to come down, even : >if there is something like a 5cm hole in the wall that nobody tries : >to plug.  Josh Hopkins (jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) replied: : Wow.  : Double wow.  Can you land a shuttle with a 5cm hole in the wall?  Personnally, I don't know, but I'd like to try it sometime.  Programmatically, yes, we can land an Orbiter with a 5 cm hole in the wall -- provided that the thing which caused 5 cm hole didn't cause a Crit 1 failure on some of the internal systems.  There are a few places where a 5 cm hole would cause a Bad Day -- especially if the 5 cm hole went all the way through the Orbiter and out the other side, as could easily happen with a meteor strike.  But a hole in the pressure vessel would cause us to immediately de-orbit to the next available landing site.  -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
You should have been following the discussion of GRBs going on in sci.astro. It's been discussed in some detail, with references even.
In article <15657.2bd7de55@cpva.saic.com>, thomsonal@cpva.saic.com writes: [ stuff deleted ] |>  |>  |>     This leads to the more general question: do yet other people than  |> the US, Russia, and Japan do space surveillance, and if so, how and  |> why?  |>  |> Allen Thomson              SAIC                        McLean, VA, USA  The French SPOT is an example that comes to mind.  Although the company (name escapes me at the moment) sells images world-wide, you can bet your last dollar (franc??) that the French gov't gets first dibs.  I remember a few years ago (about the time SPOT was launched), I was speaking to my Dad (an USAF officer) about this and that, and I happend to mention SPOT (I think we were talking about technology utilization).  He just about went ballistic.  He wanted to know how I knew about SPOT and just what I knew.  I guess that space surveillance is such a sensitive topic in the Air Force that he couldn't believe that I would read about such a system in the popular press (ie. AV week).  mark,
In article <C5sJDp.F23@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:  >>This prize isn't big enough to warrent developing a SSTO, but it is >>enough to do it if the vehicle exists.  >Actually, there are people who will tell you that it *would* be enough >to do SSTO development, if done privately as a cut-rate operation.  Of >course, they may be over-optimistic.  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.  >You can also assume that a working SSTO would have other applications >that would help pay for its development costs.  True it and the contest would result in a much larger market. But I don't think it would be enough to attract the investors given the risks involved.  If you could gurantee the SSTO costs and gurantee that it captures 100% of the available launch market, then I think you could do it.    Allen
In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes: >dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes: > >...text of options "A" and "B" deleted... > >>Option C - Single Core Launch Station. >>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter >>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on >>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a  >>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket >>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are: >>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout >>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels >>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against >>    micrometeroid & orbital debris) >>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end) >>  - 7 berthing ports >>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet >>    (twice the volume of skylab). >>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors >>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power > >Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in >a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  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).  I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!
In article <1993Apr20.204838.13217@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:     In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:      > be the site of major commercial activity. As far as we know it has no     > materials we can't get cheaper right here on Earth or from asteroids     > and comets, aside from the semi-mythic He3 that *might* be useful in low     > grade fusion reactors.     problem with 3He (aside from the difficulty in making any fusion    reactor work) is that its concentration in lunar regolith is just so    small -- on the order of 5 ppb or so, on average (more in some     This thread reminds me of Wingo's claims some time ago about the moon    as a source of titanium for use on earth.  As I recall, Wingo wasn't  ...    even 1% of the basalts are 5% TiO2, this is trillions of tons of TiO2    at concentrations only a factor of 2-3 less than in lunar high-Ti    basalts.  It is difficult to see how the disadvantages of the moon    could be overcome by such a small increase the concentration of the    ore (never mind the richer, but less common, terrestrial ores being    mined today).  Why Paul, it's obvious. Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth, as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will sharply increase (we are of course not allowed to assume any developments in Ti processing). Lunar Ti will then be eminently competitive for the trendy jewelry market and certain applications of National Importance   :-) :-) :-)    (oops, this is sci.space... wrong rules of debate ;-)   Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local use... as to why Lunar natives are cost effective,  analysis has shown they will be critical in providing a sheltered manufacturing base, technological innovation, critical materials and manpower in the war between the Allies and Central Powers in about two hundred years...  ;-)
In <1rs0au$an6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:  >How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug >be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines??????  The aperture door will be shut during reboost. Using the shuttle means that there will be someone nearby to pry the door open again  if it should stick.    >I just figured, if GOldin wants to really,  prove out faster, cheaper >better,   have some of the whiz kids  slap together an expendable >space manuevering tug  out of a BUs1,  and use that for the re-boost.
In <1q1kia$gg8@access.digex.net> Pat writes: >In article <19930408.043740.516@almaden.ibm.com> nicho@vnet.ibm.com writes: >>In <1q09ud$ji0@access.digex.net> Pat writes: >>>Why is everyone being so critical of B2? >> Because it's bogus science, promoted as 'real' science. >It seems to me, that it's sorta a large engineering project more >then a science project.   Bingo. >B2 is not bench science,  but rather a large scale attempt to >re-create a series of micro-ecologies.   what's so eveil about this?  Nothing evil at all. There's no actual harm in what they're doing, only how they represent it.   -----------------------------------------------------------------  .sig files are like strings ... every yo-yo's got one.
Hello netters,     I'm new to this board and I thought this might be the best place for my post.  I have a question regarding satellite technology seen in the movie Patriot Games.  In the movies, the CIA utilizes its orbitting sats to pinpoint a specific terrorist camp in N Africa. The photos taken by the sats are stunning!  I know that sats are capable of photographing the license plates of vehicles.  My question is this:  The camp in question was taken out by the British SAS.  And while the SAS was in action, the CIA team was watching in the warroom back in Langley, VA.  The action of the SAS was clear and appeared to be relayed via a sat.  The action was at night and the photography appeared to be an x-ray type.  That is, one could see the action within the tents/structures of the camp. Does such techology exist and what is it's nature?  i.e., UV, IR, x-ray, etc.  PS  Who wrote the book Patriot Games?