waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           Contact:  OASIS (310) 364-2290     15 April 1993                                Los Angeles, CA       LOCAL NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY CHAPTERS SPONSOR TALK BY L.A.   ADVOCATE OF LUNAR POWER SYSTEM AS ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE WORLD     On April 21, the OASIS and Ventura County chapters of the National  Space Society will sponsor a talk by Lunar Power System (LPS) co- inventor and vice-president of the LPS Coalition, Dr. Robert D. Waldron.  It will be held at 7:30 p.m. at the Rockwell Science Center in Thousand Oaks, CA.     Dr. Waldron is currently a Technical Specialist in Space Materials Processing with the Space Systems Division of Rockwell International in Downey, California.  He is a recognized world authority on lunar materials refinement.  He has written or coauthored more than 15 articles or reports on nonterrestrial materials processing or utilization.  Along with Dr. David Criswell, Waldron invented the lunar/solar power system concept.     Momentum is building for a coalition of entrepreneurs, legal experts, and Soviet and U.S. scientists and engineers to build the Lunar Power System, a pollution-free, energy source with a potential to power the globe.     For the past three years members of the coalition, nearly half from California, have rejuvenated the commercial and scientific concept of a solar power system based on the Moon.     The LPS concept entails collecting solar energy on the lunar surface and beaming the power to Earth as microwaves transmitted through orbiting antennae.  A mature LPS offers an enormous source of clean, sustainable power to meet the Earth's ever increasing demand using proven, basic technology.     OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization) is the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the National Space Society, which is an international non-profit organization that promotes development of the space frontier. The Ventura County chapter is based in Oxnard, CA.         WHERE:  Rockwell Science Center Auditorium, 1049 Camino                Dos Rios, Thousand Oaks, CA.
nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:  >Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such.. >Why not?? If you can put them on "safe" "pause" mode.. why not have them be >activated by a signal from a space craft (manned?) to act as a naviagtion >beacon, to take a directional plot on??  >Wierd or what? >== >Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked  There is a whole constellation of custom built navigation beacon satellites in the process of being phased out right now. The TRANSIT/OSCAR satellites are being replaced by GPS. Or were you thinking of deep space navigation, which is best done with doppler/VLBI/ stellar measurements. I do not think additional radio beacons would help much.
Pennicillin if i have everything correct,  was a highly valuable Myco-toxin,  discovered during WW2.  It proved to have an amazing Bacterio-cidal effect without human toxicity.   It's immediate administration  showed immediate dramatic results  solving problems  that previously were fatal.  Although initially enormously expensive to culture,  within 3 years, the price had fallen at least two orders of magnitude, and within 10 years,  was  not much more expensive then aspirin.  Penicillin was also usable for an amazingly wide class of infections.  Centoxin is a drug that is not passing FDA approval.  It promised amazing results for Toxic shock, a rapidly fatal disease. It consumed enormous amounts of funding  in testing and developement,  However it works  less then 1 in 5 times of administration  and costs $2,000 per administration with no promise of any reduction in manufacturing cost. The drug thus costs $10,000 per useful case,  and is implicated in a slight increase in mortality for some patients.  I would not dare to compare the shuttle to Pennicillin, but to centoxin.
In article <1993Apr28.200843.83413@embl-heidelberg.de>, tuparev@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE (Georg Tuparev) writes... >  >  >ANNOUNCEMENT:	The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP >  >Motivation >  >We are a heterogeneous group of scientists and students who feel that our   >work is continuously hindered by computer environments dominated by   >incompatible scientific tools and monstrous software packages (too often   >claiming to do everything).    >What we need is an object-oriented scientific environment where the tools   >we choose to use are integrated without being parts of a closed system,   >highly interactive, and extendable (both by the addition of our own   >specialized objects and by combining the available tools - graphically).    >The use of such an environment should be a natural extension of our work,   >requiring a very short learning phase and practically no   >user-documentation.     I know this is kinda off the subject of sci.space, but not really, I want to answer this for their, as well as everyone else's information.  What these people are proposing, by and large already exists and can be purchased today.  It is called labview by National Instruments.  IT is a wonderful object oriented graphical programming language.  IT has been implemented on both Mac's PC's and VME unix boxes.  IT is fare superior to any programming approach that I have ever seen and allowed us to decrease the software development time for our shuttle payloads by 90 percent.  This program is not dependendant on specific hardware and already has exensive analysis  capability.  Why re-invent the wheel on a platform that may not exist? It is a great idea but look out there at what is available today.  The Hydrogen leak on the Shuttle was found using this software. All SSME control and simulation studies, along with the real testing at MSFC is handled with LabVIEW.  There are tons of applications, with the ability to create "virtual" instruments that can accomplish any specific custom task the maker desires.  With the addition of IEEE-488 support, the computer becomes a virtual control station, allowing the graphic representation of remote instrumentation. With serial I/O support that instrument can be anywhere.  The ground control software for the main control of SEDSAT 1 will utilize this approach.
ethanb@ptolemy.astro.washington.edu (Ethan Bradford) writes:  >u9263012@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au (Walker Andrew John) writes: >	   Also,if they did come from the Oort cloud we would expect to >   see the same from other stars Oort Clouds.  >That's a very good point.  Perhaps none of the nearby stars have Oort >clouds?  Alpha-centauri is a multiple-star system; you wouldn't expect >an Oort cloud in it.  Sure about that? Maybe Proxima might cause problems, but at Oort Cloud distances AC a and AC b together look like a point source.  Besides, even the solar system's Oort cloud is unstable over geologic time, right, and needs to be replentished from somewhere else, like the short period comets of the Kupier Belt?  (Or maybe I'm misremembering something I read or heard somewhere...)  >  What's the nearest single-star that is likely to >have a planetary system?  Until we're able to perform a broad-band survey of nearby stars to detect planets, we won't know enough to say whether or not a single star has planets. And we're likely to find out about the close ones first.  Heck, if neutron stars can have planets, anything can have planets. (Or was that discovery disconfirmed?)
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.  I don't know what you mean by 'edged', but surely there are two other possibilities for an isotropic distribution: near interstellar (up to ~100 pc, i.e. within the disc), or the Galaxy's corona?  >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.
As for SF and advertising in space. There is a romantic episode in Mead's "The Big Ball of Wax" where the lovers are watching  the constellation Pepsi Cola rising over the horizon and noting the some 'stars' had slipped cause the Teamsters were on strike.  This was the inspiration for my article on orbiting a formation of space mirrors published in Spaceflight in 1986. As the reviews said: this seems technically feasible, and could be commercially viable but is it aesthetically desirable?  These days the only aesthetics that count are the ones you can count!
In article <1r46j3INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney) writes:     In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:     >Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)     Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!  Hell, yes. I'm not going to let a bunch of seven suits tell me what the right way to estimate cost effectiveness is, at least not until they can make their mind up long enough to leave their scheme stable for a fiscal year or two.   Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-)
"Space Station Redesign Leader Says Cost Goal May Be Impossible"  Today (4/6) the Washington Post ran an article with the headline shown above. The article starts with "A leader of the NASA team in charge of redesigning the planned space station said yesterday the job is tough and may be impossible." O'Connor is quoted saying whether it is possible to cut costs that much and still provide for meaningful research "is a real question for me." O'Connor said "everything is fair game," including "dropping or curtailing existing contracts with the aerospace industry, chopping management of the space station program at some NASA facilities around the country, working closely with the Russian space station Mir, and using unmanned Titan rockets to supplement the manned space shuttle fleet."  O'Connor says his team has reviewed 30 design options so far, and they are sorting the serious candidates into three categories based on cost.  The Post says O'Connor described the design derived from the current SSF as a high cost option (I believe Kathy Sawyer, the Post writer, got confused here. I listened in on part of O'Connor's briefing to the press on Monday, and in one part of the briefing O'Connor talked about how the White House wants three options, sorted by cost [low, medium, and high]. In another part of the briefing, he discussed the three teams he has formed to look at three options [SSF derivative @ LaRC, modular buildup with Bus-1 @ MSFC, and Single Launch Core ["wingless Orbiter"] @ JSC. Later, in response to a reporters question, I thought I heard O'Connor say the option based on a SSF redesign was a "moderate" cost option, in between low & high cost options. Not the "high cost" option as Sawyer wrote).  The article goes on to describe the other two options as "one features modules that could gradually be fitted together in orbit, similar to the Russian Mir. The other is a core facility that could be deposited in orbit in a single launch, like Skylab. That option would use existing hardware from the space shuttle - the fuselage, for example, in its basic structure."
rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes:  >In article <C69AGI.MJu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >>I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My >>dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of  >>public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I >>would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.  >It's public because it belongs to everybody.   No, the sky does not, at this time, belong to anyone.  Ownership is necessary to the definition because someone has to have the authority to decide if the action was good or bad.  If neither you or I own a brick wall, then I can't unilaterally declare that spraypainting my name on it is right, and you don't have the authority to declare that it is wrong.  The owner may find it artistic or she may be call the police.  (this applies to the argument on bright satellites more than street lights)  It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light.   "maliciously" implies evil intent.  The lighting companies aren't going out of their way to spoil the sky.  They just don't care.  >If they can sell you >or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent >of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted.  It is the responsibility of the customer to choose the most efficient hardware. If that's what your city will buy, that's what the lighting company will sell. Write a letter to city hall.  Please note that I'm not defending light pollution.  The orignial focus of  this thread was space based light sources.
In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes: |> If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it, |> then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done |> here? |>   Reboost may not be a problem, if they have enough fuel.  If they don't do a  reboost this time, they will definitely have to do one on the next servicing mission.  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the  back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land  with that much weight in the payload.  |> Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy |> horrendous expense? |>   of course that is a concern too, and the loss of science during the time that it is on the ground.  plus a fear that if it comes down, some big-wig might not allow it to go back up.  but the main concern, I believe is the danger of the landing.  Just to add another bad vibe, they also increase the risk of damaging an instrument.  Finally,  this is a chance for NASA astronanuts to prove they could build and service a space station.  Hubble was designed for in flight servicing.  bringing the telescope down, to my understanding, was considered even very recently, but all these factors contribute to the  decision to do it the way it was planned in the beginning.  |> Gruss, |> Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is |> Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent |> bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson  ROB --  =========================================================================== | Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     | | AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA | | Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     | | Internet: rdouglas@stsci.edu    | INSTITUTE | Fax:   (410) 338-1592     | ===========================================================================  Disclaimer-type-thingie>>>>>  These opinions are mine!  Unless of course  	they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines.  	But with my intellect, I doubt it.  Besides, if it was useful 	intellectual property, do you think I would type it in here?
I doubt there are good prospects for  a self armoring system for venus surface conditions (several hundred degrees, very high pressure of CO2, possibly sulfuric and nitric acids or oxides but it is a notion to consider for outer planets rs where you might pick up ices under less extream upper atmosphere conditions buying deeper penetration.  A nice creative idea, unlikly but worthy of thinking about.
How hard or easy would it be to have a combo mission such as a solar sail on the way out to the outer planets, but once in near to orbit to use more normal means.. Seems that everyone talks about using one system and one system only per mission, why not have more than one propulsion system? Or did I miss something.. ?? or did it die in committee? == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked
In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes: >... Also, as implied by other posters, why  >do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway? ...  You don't *need* to, but it's desirable.  HST, like all satellites in low Earth orbit, is gradually losing altitude due to air drag.  It was deployed in the highest orbit the shuttle could reach, for that reason. It needs occasional reboosting or it will eventually reenter.  (It has no propulsion system of its own.)  This is an excellent opportunity, given that there may not be another visit for several years.
In article <C6479K.6BA.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes: | |Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and |they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise |than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say >"Tubes sound better, dude." :-) >  Of course,  they then  turn up the REverb, the Gain,  add in the analog delay line  and the Fuzz box.  I'd think they wouldn't notice the distortion.   Oh I forgot the phase shifters.  >Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use, >mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.   Ah,  but how do they compare to Mechanical systems :-)
In article <1993May13.212559.19618@julian.uwo.ca> jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >In article <C6z8Ax.KCx.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:  >	What evidence is there that there is a trend towards greater >species diversity over time? What I see going on right now is a major >extinction event, and  it isn't clear to me that the diversity 10K years >ago was necessarily greater than 600 million years ago.  Well, there are several bursts in species diversity I can think of. The Cambrian and Ordovician explosions resulted in a vast increase in animal diversity. Likewise, after the one-two punch of the Permian and Triassic extinctions, the number of marine animals rose steadily (**) to an all-time high (*) just prior to the spread  of humans.  (**) biggest exception being the K/T (bye bye dinos) extinction  (*) about 800 families  Also, plants arose from green algae and colonized the land in succesive sweeps. Mosses colonized very wet environments first, ferns (who had evolved vascular tissues) took over more territory when they evolved (1). These were eventually (mostly) replaced by gymnosperms (pines and the like) (2) and then (mostly) displaced by angiosperms (flowering plants -- now the dominant plant group on the planet(3). Fungi also radiated greatly with the invasion of the land.   (1) around the carboniferous (up to about 200 families) (2) around the triassic (up to maybe 250 families) (3) starting in the cretaceous (rising to about 600 families currently)  It's unclear (to me at least) what the max equilibrium number of species the earth can hold (***) and if it has ever hit this in the past. It could be (warning: speculation alert) that diversity has never reached a peak because mass extinctions happen often enough to keep the total number down.  (***) This would depend a great deal on how fragmented specific ecosystems were.   See Cowen's book "History of Life" for a not-too-technical run-down on, well, like the title sez, the history of life. Or see, Wilson's "Diversity of Life" for a view centered more on current ecology -- this is (IMHO) the best popular biology book of (what the hell, I'll say it) all time.   >							James Nicoll  Follow-ups to t.o.
In article <1993Apr19.230236.18227@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis) writes: > In article <1quule$5re@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > |>  > |> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce > |> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA. > |>  > |> Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend???? > Here are some selected excerpts of the invitation/registration form they > sent me. Retyped without permission, all typo's are mine.  Thanks for typing that in, Steven.  Sounds like a "fall back and regroup" strategy session.  I wanted to add that my copy of the brochure arrived with a flattering cover letter:  "Invitations are being extended to those who have demonstrated a strong committment to space program development and have been influential in its advancement.  We sincerely hope you will be able to attend."  Wow! I wonder which of my contributions to the conquest of space convinced them to send me this letter?  I hope you decide to go, Pat.  The Net can use some eyes and ears there...
Re: Space billboards  Even easier to implement than writing messages on the Moon, once upon a time a group of space activists I belonged to in Seattle considered a "Goodyear Blimp in orbit".  The idea was to use a large structure that could carry an array of lights like the Goodyear Blimp has. Placed in a low Earth orbit of high inclination, it could eventually be seen by almost everyone on Earth.  Only our collective disapproval of cluttering up space with such a thing stopped us from pursuing it.  It had quite feasible economics, which I will not post here because I don't want to encourage the idea (if you want to do such a thing, go figure it out for yourself).  Dani Eder