waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes: >>cook@varmit.mdc.com (Layne Cook) writes: >>> 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.     Of course; sorry for the misunderstanding.  I was referring to the fact that far more aeronautical development took place in the '30's.  For much of the '20's, the super-abundance of Jennies and OX-5 engines held down the industry.  By 1926, many of the obsolete WWI aircraft had been retired and Whirlwind had their power/weight ratio and reliability up to the point where long-distance flights became practical.  It's important to note that the Atlantic was flown not once but THREE times in 1927:  Lindbergh, Chamberlin and Levine, and Byrd's _America_.  "When it's time to railroad, you railroad."  >>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?    Not off the top of my head; I'll have to dig out my reference books again. However, I will say that the most common arrangement in Prince Henry the Navigator's Portugal was for the prince to put up part of the money and merchants to put up the rest.  They profits from the voyage would then be shared.  >>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. >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.    The problem is that the amount of prize money required to inspire a Moon Base is much larger than any but a handful of individuals or corporations can even consider putting up.  The Kremer Prizes (human powered aircraft), Orteig's prize, Lord Northcliffe's prize for crossing the Atlantic (won in 1919 by Alcock and Brown) were MUCH smaller.  The technologies required were within the reach of individual inventors, and the prize amounts were well within the reach of a large number of wealthy individuals.  I think that only a gov't could afford to set up a $1B+ prize for any purpose whatsoever.   Note that Burt Rutan suggested that NASP could be built most cheaply by taking out an ad in AvWeek stating that the first company to build a plane that could take off and fly the profile would be handed $3B, no questions asked.
> = From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>  > If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone > looked into possible problems with the detectors?  > That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that > could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these > things?  > Graydon  That would not explain why widely separated detectors, such as on Ulysses and PVO and Ginga et al., would see a burst at the same time(*).  In fact, be- fore BATSE, having this widely separated "Interplanetary Network" was the only sure way to locate a random burst.  With only one detector, one cannot locate a burst (except to say "It's somewhere in the field of view.").  With two detectors, one can use the time that the burst is seen in each detector to narrow the location to a thin annulus on the sky.  With three detectors, one gets intersecting annuli, giving two possible locations.  If one of these locations is impossible (because, say, the Earth blocked that part of the  sky), voila, you have an error box.  BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination, but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde- pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty.  You did touch on something that you didn't mean to, though.  Some believe (in a reference that I have somewhere) that absorption-like features seen in a fraction of GRBs can actually be caused by the detector.  It would be a mean, nasty God, though, that would have a NaI crystal act like a 10^12 Gauss neutron star...but this is getting too far afield.
Yesterday, I went to the Boeing shareholders meeting.  It was a bit shorter than I expected.  Last year (when the stock was first down), they made a big presentation on the 777, and other programs.  This year, it was much more bare-bones.  In any case, I wanted to ask a question that the board of directors would hear, and so I got there early, and figured that If I didn't get to the mike, maybe they would read mine off of a card, and so I wrote it down, and handed it in.  After the meeting started, Mr. Shrontz said that he would only answer written questions, in order to be fair to the people in the overflow room that only had monitors downstairs.  Naturally, I was crushed.  So, when question and answer time came, I was suprised to find my question being read and answered.  Admittedly near the end of the ones that he took. Presumably getting there early, and getting the question in early made all the difference.  So, on to the substance. The question was   Is Boeing looking at anything BEYOND the high speed Civil Transport, such as a commercial space launch system, and if not, how will Boeing compete with the reusable single stage to orbit technology presently being developed by Mcdonnell Douglass?  Well, he read it without a hitch, and without editing, with impressed me, then he answered it very quickly treating it as a two part question, last part first.  This is to the best of my recollection what he said.  As far as single stage to orbit technology, we think that we have a better answer in a two stage approach, and we are talking to some of our customers  about that.  As far as commercialization, that is a long ways off.  The High speed Civil Transport is about as far out as our commercial planning goes at this point.  So, this tells me that Boeing still considers space to be a non-commercial arena, and for the most part this is true, however it also tells me that  they consider there to be enough money in building space launchers for them to persue work on their own.  Now, I do have a friend on the spacelifter program at boeing.  Actually, this is a mis-nomer, as there is no spacelifter contract for the work that this guy is doing, however, he is doing work in preparation of a proposal for space lifter contracts.  He won't tell me what he is doing, but maybe this is where the TSTO action is taking place at boeing.  At the very minimum, the chairman of the board of boeing said that they have an approach in mind, and they are trying to do something with it.    Anybody know anything further? Is this really news? Does this threaten further work on DC-? ?
An excellent reference for non-technical readers on the ORION system is "The Starflight Handbook", by Eugene Mallove and Gregory Matloff, ISBN 0-471-61912-4. The relevant chapter is 4: Nuclear Pulse Propulsion.  The book also contains lots of technical references for the more academically inclined.   Enjoy!
In article <1993Apr22.213815.12288@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <1993Apr22.130923.115397@zeus.calpoly.edu> dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes: > >> ETHER IMPLODES 2 EARTH CORE, IS GRAVITY!!! > >If not for the lack of extraneously capitalized words, I'd swear that >McElwaine had changed his name and moved to Cal Poly.  I also find the >choice of newsgroups 'interesting'.  Perhaps someone should tell this >guy that 'sci.astro' doesn't stand for 'astrology'? > >It's truly frightening that posts like this are originating at what >are ostensibly centers of higher learning in this country.  Small >wonder that the rest of the world thinks we're all nuts and that we >have the problems that we do. > >[In case you haven't gotten it yet, David, I don't think this was >quite appropriate for a posting to 'sci' groups.]  Was that post for real? I thought it was a late April Fool joke. Some of it seemed a bit over the top even by McElwaine/Abian/etc standards :-)
rborden@ugly.UVic.CA (Ross  Borden) writes:  >	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?")  Don't you think it would be better to E-mail back to you that we read sci.space so that you can count them and every server in the world does not have to get BW'd to death.  Or instead you could possible cut and past all the senders into a single post and save on header bandwidth....  Not meaning to be taken as a  flame  it's late and we have to work toward a demo .... little punchy --
In article <6APR199314571378@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: |Comet Gehrels 3, which was discovered in 1977, was determined to have |been in a temporary Jovian orbit from 1970 to 1973.  Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e |may remain in orbit around Jupiter long enough to allow Galileo to |make some closeup observations.  The orbital trajectory for Comet |Shoemaker-Levy is still being determined. a  What about positional uncertainties in S-L 1993e?   I assume we know where and what Galileo is doing within a few meters.   But without the HGA,  don't we have to have some pretty good ideas, of where to look before imaging?  If the HGA was working,  they could slew around in near real time (Less speed of light delay).  But when they were imaging toutatis????  didn't someone have to get lucky on a guess to find the first images?     Also, I imagine S-L 1993e will be mostly a visual image.  so how will that affect the other imaging missions.  with the LGA,  there is a real tight allocation of bandwidth.   It may be premature to hope for answers, but I thought i'd throw it on the floor.
Sounds liek what the FED has to do is sign a 50 or more year lease to use certain parts of a space station that is built and designed and such by a commerical company or consortium of companies (such as like Alyeska) for a small amount of rent in return for certain incentives and such.. Such as tax and other right off and also a monopoly on certain products.. The commerical builders would have certain perks given to them to make there end easier (taxes , contracts, regulatory concesions and such..)  Is it workable, just might work..  After all, if China can lease out Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong can make money, this could work..
In article <schumach.736269085@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:  >In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about >reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like >to fool around with exotic airplanes.  This presupposes that no supersonic ramjet aircraft/spacecraft can be reliable or low-cost.  This is unproven.
In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes: >rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes: >>[...]  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 HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???  HST is about 25,500 lbs (11,600 kg).  That doesn't include the cradle that would have been in the cargo bay when it was deployed.  Spacelab-J on STS-47 was 21,861 lbs (according to the press-kit).   As someone else pointed out if they had been unable to deploy it for some reason that would have had to land with it still in the cargo bay and this was a planned for contingency.  This is not a problem for the shuttle, though it would eliminate KSC as a landing site, they still have to go to Edwards when landing with something like Spacelab in the cargo bay.   --GaryM
In article <1993Apr26.141114.19777@midway.uchicago.edu>, pef1@quads.uchicago.edu (it's enrico palazzo!) writes: >> = From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> >  >> If all of these things have been detected in space, has anyone >> looked into possible problems with the detectors? >  >> That is, is there some mechanism (cosmic rays, whatever) that >> could cause the dector to _think_ it was seeing one of these >> things? >  >> Graydon >  > That would not explain why widely separated detectors, such as on Ulysses > and PVO and Ginga et al., would see a burst at the same time(*).  In fact, be- > fore BATSE, having this widely separated "Interplanetary Network" was the > only sure way to locate a random burst.  With only one detector, one cannot > locate a burst (except to say "It's somewhere in the field of view.").  With > two detectors, one can use the time that the burst is seen in each detector > to narrow the location to a thin annulus on the sky.  With three detectors, > one gets intersecting annuli, giving two possible locations.  If one of these > locations is impossible (because, say, the Earth blocked that part of the  > sky), voila, you have an error box. >  > BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination, > but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like > to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde- > pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty. >  > You did touch on something that you didn't mean to, though.  Some believe > (in a reference that I have somewhere) that absorption-like features seen > in a fraction of GRBs can actually be caused by the detector.  It would be > a mean, nasty God, though, that would have a NaI crystal act like a 10^12 Gauss > neutron star...but this is getting too far afield. >  > Peter > peterf@oddjob.uchicago.edu >
From another space forum >  NOW WHERE DID I LEAVE THOSE PLIERS?     When workers at the Kennedy Space Center disassembled the STS-56  solid rocket boosters they were surprised to find a pair of pliers  lodged into the outside base of the right hand SRB.  The tool survived  the trip from the launch pad up to approximately a 250,000 foot  altitude, then down to splashdown and towing back to KSC.      NASA spokesperson Lisa Malone told the media,      "It's been a long time since something like this happened.  We've  lost washers and bolts (before) but never a tool like this."      The initial investigation into the incident has shown that a  Thiokol Corp. technician noticed and reported his pliers as missing on  April 2nd.  Unfortunately, the worker's supervisor did not act on the  report and Discovery was launched with its "extra payload".  NASA  officials were never told of the missing tool before the April 8th  launch date.      The free-flying pliers were supposed to be tethered to the SRB  technician.  When the tool was found in an aft section of the booster,  its 18-inch long rope was still attached.  The pliers were found in a  part of the booster which is not easily visible from the launch pad. |(Ron's ed. note:  naaahhh,  just too easy)      A spokesperson for the Lockheed Space Operations Company said that  the Shuttle processor will take "appropriate action".  Thiokol is a  subcontractor to LSOC for work to prepare Shuttle hardware for launch.  _________________________________________________________  Karl Anderson	 DEV/2000: Configuration Management/Version Control  Dept 53K/006-2		Rochester, Minnesota 55901 253-8044		Tie 8-453-8044 INTERNET: karl@vnet.ibm.com PRODIGY: CMMG96A
I've been following discussions about the Delta Clipper program, and I have one small question.  As I understand it, the DC-X derived orbital vehicle (DC-Y & 1) is to reenter the atmosphere sort of sideways, not completely nose-first.  So why is the DC-Y look symmetric in every drawing I've seen?  I would think that an asymmetric design, sort of like  wingless Orbiter, may work better, since less shielding is required on the top side.  Can anybody explain?    - Ken Kobayashi kkobayas@husc.harvard.edu  --
In article <fairfiel.735866229@helios>, fairfiel@helios.usq.EDU.AU (raymond fairfield) writes: > lpham@eis.calstate.edu (Lan Pham) writes: > (in answer to Amruth Laxman >>are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are >>blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human >>tolerance. would anybody clarify this please. >  >>lan >  > Apart from the fact that you get G in the pull-out, not the dive, that > figure is about right for sustained G, no protection. > The duration of G, it's rate of onset, body position and support aids are > all critical parts of the equation. I remember one note about instrumented > gridiron players recording peaks about 200G. Stapp, the aviation doctor, > either by accident or design, took a short-period 80G in a rocket-sled > decelleration, eye-balls-out against a standard (1950's) harness. It had > to be short, calculate the stopping time, even from 500 - 600mph at that > G. A bang-seat can get up to about 60 G, and you'd better be sitting > straight. Find the book by Martin-Bakers human guinea pig to hear how bad > it can get if the rate of onset is too high. A reclining position and a > good G-suit can keep a pilot functioning at around 12G. >  > A flotation tank should be a good bet, since you can treat the body as a > fluid, and high-pressure situations are not new. Anyone have any figures? >  > Ray Fairfield > fairfiel@zeus.usq.edu.au >    Yes a flotation tank, combined with floride breathing water(REF: the Abyss breathing solution I think).. also the right position of the astronaut and strapping you can probably get much more than 45gs in an accesloration.. More like near 100g (or somewhat less)..  Saw I book called the "Time Master" (I thjink that was the title) that had some ideas on how fast and all you could go..
John Elson (jelson@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote: : Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?"   I remember those awful things.  They were dry and crumbly, and I recall asking my third-grade teacher, Miss G'Francisco, how they kept the crumbs from floating around in zero-G.  She had no clue. I have not seen anything like them in today's space program.  Some Apollo technology is best forgotten.  -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:  >enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes: >>WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC  >>1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED? >>In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The >>Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of >>rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this >>hideous vision of the future.  Observers were >>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the >>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the >>side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged >>for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie.  >Well, if you're going to get upset with this, you might as well direct >some of this moral outrage towards Glavcosmos as well.  They pioneered >this capitalist application of booster adverts long before NASA.  In fact, you can all direct your ire at the proper target by ingoring NASA  altogether.  The rocket is a commercial launch vechicle - a Conestoga flying  a COMET payload.  NASA is simply the primary customer.  I believe SDIO has a small payload as well.  The advertising space was sold by the owners of the rocket, who can do whatever they darn well please with it.  In addition, these anonymous "observers" had no reason to be startled.  The deal made Space News at least twice.   >>Now, Space Marketing >>is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on >>a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth >>orbit. >>NASA would provide contractual launch services. However, >>since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates >>(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense.   >>Is NASA really supporting this junk?  >And does anyone have any more details other than what was in the WN >news blip?  How serious is this project?  Is this just in the "wild >idea" stage or does it have real funding?  I think its only fair to find that out before everyone starts having a hissy fit.  The fact that they bothered to use the conditional tense suggests that it has not yet been approved.
In article <1993Apr30.164327.8663@hemlock.cray.com> bobo@thejester.cray.com (Bob Kierski) writes: >...Over the years we have decided that certain >cultures need improvements.  The native americans is a good example.  Prior >to our attempt to civilize them, the native american culture had very >little crime, no homelessnes, no poverty...  This is, shall we say, an overly-broad statement.  In particular, are you referring to the native American culture that existed in 1400, or the one that existed in 1800?  (Simplify things by assuming we're talking about the eastern US rather than the whole continent.)  Given that those were *radically* different cultures, which one are you referring to?  >...If we encounter life elsewhere, do we tell them they have to live in >houses, farm the land and go to church on sunday?  Note that the pre-Columbian native Americans, east of the Mississippi, did all of these things.  (Well, maybe not "on Sunday", but they did have organized religions, not to mention cities and governments.)  If you are judging the native Americans by the tribal culture that existed in 1800, you might want to read an account of the De Soto expedition to find out what pre-Columbian native American culture, at least in the more civilized parts of the continent, was like.
In article <C6Az8z.pD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1rpt1v$q5h@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >>As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms >>of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure) >>is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance... >>... This is quite a feat of physiological endurance... > >Indeed so; it's at the extreme limit of what is humanly possible.  It is >possible only because Mount Everest is at a fairly low latitude:  there >is a slight equatorial bulge in the atmosphere -- beyond what is induced >by the Earth's rotation -- thanks to the overall circulation pattern of >the atmosphere (air cools at poles and descends, flowing back to equator >where it is warmed and rises), and this helps just enough to make Everest- >without-oxygen feasible.  Only just feasible, mind you:  the guys who did >it reported hallucinations and other indications of oxygen starvation, >and probably incurred some permanent brain damage.  Climbers regard 8000 metres and up as "The Death Zone".  Even on 100% Oxygen, you are slowly dying.  At 8848m (Everest), most climbers spend only a short period of time before descending.  I've been above 8000 once.  Descending as little as 300m feels like walking into a jungle, the air is so thick.  Everest in winter without oxygen, no support party (Alpine style).  That is the "ultimate challenge" (or is it solo?)