waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
>Marshall is investigating a small but odd pressure rise in one SRB >during the Jan 12 Endeavour launch.  It lasted only three seconds and >the thrust difference between the two SRBs was not enough to cause >nozzle gimballing.  The SRB casing shows no abnormalities.
In article <C5Ky9y.MKK@raistlin.udev.cdc.com> pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes: >I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in >the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe >science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention. >It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that. > >Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length >and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will >reach 50,000 feet. > >Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one >of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing >people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes. >Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down. > >And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy. > > >-Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas  Could it be Public Missile, Inc in Michigan?  From the description of ad here, it sounds like they're talking about "High Power Rocketry", an outgrowth of model rocketry.  This hobby uses non-metallic structural compoments and commerically manufactured engines ranging in impulse classification from G to P.  The hobby has been flourishing from early 1980s and is becoming increasing popular. Technically this is not consider amateur rocketry.  Any rocket with a liftoff weight greater than 3.3 pounds OR using a total impulse of G or greater, REQUIRES an FAA waiver to launch. Typically, a group of people get an FAA waiver for specified period of time (ie week, weekend, etc.) at a designated site and time, and all of the launches are then covered under this "blanket waiver". There is also a "High Power Safety Code" which designates more specific rules such as launch field size, etc.  Finally, in order to purchase any of the larger (Class B) rocket  motors you need to certified through either the National Association of Rocketry or Tripoli Rocketry Association. Certification procedures require a demonstarted handling and "safe" flight at a total impulse level.  For more information, watch rec.models.rockets newsgroup.
In article <1993May16.145159.3100@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:     In article <1t4pkc$ovf@almaak.usc.edu> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:    >If this idea goes through, it's the thin end of the wedge.  Soon    >companies will be doing larger, and more permanant, billboards in the    >sky.  I wouldn't want a world a few decades from now when the sky    >looks like Las Vegas.  That would _really_ make me sad.     Think for a moment about the technology required to do that.  By     the time they could make the Earth's sky look like Las Vegas,     the people could afford to go backpacking on the Moon. Round    trip costs for 500 kg to the Moon would be about the same as    5000 kg in a Low Earth "advertising" orbit: Very roughly the    same cost as a smallish billboard, therefore. If such ads were    to become common place, that would have to be a very low price...  This is nonsense.  Its like saying that by the time commercials on television become commonplace every citizen will have their own hour long nationally broadcast TV program.     There's always been a problem of having to get     away from civilization before you can really find "natural"    scenery. 100 years ago, this usually didn't take a trip    of over 5 miles. Today, most people would have to go 100 miles    or more. If we ever get to the point where we have billboards    on orbit, that essentially means that no place on Earth is still    "wild." While that may or may not be a good thing, the orbital    billboards aren't the problem: They are just a symptom of     growing, densely-populated civilization. Banning such ads will    not save your view of the night sky, because by the time     such ads could become widespread you will probably have trouble    finding a place without street lights, where you can _see_    the stars...  The rest of your post is strange mishmash of "its already really bad" and "it doesn't really matter if it gets worse."  You should try to figure out what you are really arguing for.  (Kneejerk anti-environ- mentalism?)  -david
In article <1993Apr15.170048.1@fnalf.fnal.gov>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:  >This was known as *Journey to the Far Side of the Sun* in the United >States and as *Doppelganger* in the U.K... Later, they went >on to do more live-action SF series: *UFO* and *Space: 1999*. > >The astronomy was lousy, but the lifting-body spacecraft, VTOL >airliners, and mighty Portugese launch complex were *wonderful* to >look at.  They recycled a lot of models and theme music for UFO.  Some of the concepts even showed up in SPACE: 1999.
From the "JPL Universe" April 23, 1993  SIRTF is still very much in business
Astronomy & Space magazine's UK telephone newsline carries the times to see the Russian Space Station Mir which will be visible every EVENING (some time between 9 o'clock and midnight) from April 27 to May 7. It's about as bright as Jupiter at its best. There are two cosmonuats on board.  For the time to watch, tel. 0891-88-19-50 (48p/min peak 36p/min all other times, but prediction is at start of the weekly message so it only costs a few pence).  E-mail reports of sightings would be appreciated: give lat/long and UT (a few seconds accuracy if possible) when it passes ABOVE or BELOW any bright star (say brighter than mag. 3), planet or Moon.  With Moon in evening sky also, note that from somewhere in U.K. Mir will pass in front of the Moon each night! Please alert local clubs to the telephone newsline, and general public as Mir can cause quite a stir!  -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).    (WORLD'S LARGEST ASTRO. SOC. per capita - unless you know better? 0.033%) Tel: 0891-88-1950 (UK/N.Ireland) 1550-111-442 (Eire). Cost up to 48p per min
Suppose the Soviets had managed to get their moon rocket working and had made it first.  They could have beaten us if either:  * Their rocket hadn't blown up on the pad thus setting them back,  and/or  * A Saturn V went boom.  If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone head and done some landings, but we also would have been more determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would have concentrated on the moon.
Sorry for asking a question that's not entirely based on the technical aspects of space, but I couldn't find the answer on the FAQs !  I'm currently in the UK, which makes seeing a Space Shuttle launch a little difficult.....  However, I have been selected to be an exchange student at Louisiana State Uni. from August, and I am absolutely determined to get to see a Space Shuttle launch sometime during the year at which I will be in America.  I hear there's a bit of a long mailing list, so if someone can tell me how to get tickets and where to get them from, then please E-mail me !  Thanks very much for your patience....  (And if anyone else wants to know, tell me and I'll summarize for you - just to save all those poor people who have to pay for their links !)
In <23APR199317452695@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov> dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes:  >Option "A" - Low Cost Modular Approach >  -  Human tended capability (as opposed to the old SSF sexist term >     of man-tended capability)   >Option "B" - Space Station Freedom Derived >  -  Man-Tended Capability (Griffin has not yet adopted non-sexist >     language)   >Option C - Single Core Launch Station.  I'll vote for anything where they don't feel constrained to use stupid and ugly PC phrases to replace words like 'manned'.  If they think they need to do that, they're more than likely engaging in 'politics and public relations as usual' rather than seriously wanting to actually get into space.  So that eliminates Option "A" from the running.  What do they call a manned station in Option "C"?  [I'm actually about half serious about that.  People should be more concerned with grammatical correctness and actually getting a working station than they are with 'Political Correctness' of terminology.]   --  "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 <1rrjsjINNop7@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, sdd@larc.nasa.gov (Steve Derry) writes: > Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote: > : THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS) > : and Orbiter Duration.    >  ..  >  > I haven't seen any specifics on the HST repair mission, but I can't see why > the mass margins are tight.  What are they carrying up?  Replacement components > (WFPC II, COSTAR, gyros, solar panels, and probably a few others), all sorts of > tools, EVA equipment, and as much OMS fuel and consumables as they can.  This > should be lighter than the original HST deployment mission, which achieved the > highest altitude for a shuttle mission to date.  And HST is now in a lower  > orbit.   >  > Seems like the limiting factors would be crew fatigue and mission complexity. >  > -- > Steve Derry > <s.d.derry@larc.nasa.gov>   One thing to recall.  Putting a satellite as high as possible is one thing.  Coming back to not only that altitude, but matching the position of it in  its orbit on a subsequent mission is another thing.  Any misalignment of the  plane of the orbit during launch or being ahead or behind the target will  require more fuel to adjust.  This was considered in the original deployment.   I agree though that the demands on the crew and complexity are stupendous.   One has to admire how much they are trying to do.
In article <1993Apr19.144427.17399@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: > Gene Wright (gene@theporch.raider.net) wrote: > : 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.  > : Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin  > : to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then! >  > I'm an advocate of this idea for funding Space Station work, and I > throw around the $1 billion figure for that "reward."  I suggest that > you increase the Lunar reward to about $3 billion. >  > This would encourage private industry to invest in space, which  > should be one of NASA's primary goals. >  > -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office >       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368 >  >      "Better.  Faster.  Cheaper." -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator   Also would maybe get the Russians Involved. After all they do have the resources to do it in part.. But they need the capital and the goal..  I wonder if renting the russians resources would be a disqualification?
>  SPACE CLIPPERS LAUNCHED SUCCESSFULLY  When I first saw this, I thought for a second that it was a headline from The Star about the pliers found in the SRB recently.  Y'know, sometimes they have wire-cutters built in :-)  -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.
The AIAA San Gabriel Valley Section is sponsoring the following lecture on Mars exploration at the Jet Propulsion Lab.  Admission is free and open to the public.                             The Next Frontier:                     The Challenge of Mars Exploration                        DATE:     May 6, 1993                       TIME:     6:00PM - 8:30 PM                       LOCATION: Von Karman Auditorium                                 Jet Propulsion Lab                                 4800 Oak Grove Drive                                 Pasadena, California       The following five speakers will be featured:                A Science Fiction Perspective               Tom McDonaugh               Science Fiction Writer                 Mars Observer                Dr. Arden Albee                Project Scientist, Mars Observer - JPL                 Mars '94                Dr. Arthur L. Lane                Instrument Manager, Mars '94 - JPL                 Mars Environmental Survey (MESUR)                Richard Cook                Mission Designer - JPL                 Manned Mission to Mars                Dr. Robert Zubrin                Senior Engineer, Martin Marietta Astronautics
In article <1993Apr21.162800.168967@locus.com> todd@phad.la.locus.com (Todd Johnson) writes:     As for advertising -- sure, why not?  A NASA friend and I spent one    drunken night figuring out just exactly how much gold mylar we'd need    to put the golden arches of a certain American fast food organization    on the face of the Moon.  Fortunately, we sobered up in the morning.  Hmmm. It actually isn't all that much, is it? Like about 2 million km^2 (if you think that sounds like a lot, it's only a few tens of m^2 per burger that said organization sold last year). You'd be best off with a reflective substance that could be sprayed thinly by an unmanned craft in lunar orbit (or, rather, a large set of such craft). If you can get a reasonable albedo it would be visible even at new moon (since the moon itself is quite dark), and _bright_ at full moon. You might have to abandon the colour, though.  Buy a cheap launch system, design reusable moon -> lunar orbit unmanned spraying craft, build 50 said craft, establish a lunar base to extract TiO2 (say: for colour you'd be better off with a sulphur compound, I suppose) and some sort of propellant, and Bob's your uncle.  I'll do it for, say, 20 billion dollars (plus changes of identity for me and all my loved ones). Delivery date 2010.  Can we get the fast-food chain bidding against the fizzy-drink vendors? Who else might be interested?  Would they buy it, given that it's a _lot_ more expensive, and not much more impressive, than putting a large set of several-km inflatable billboards in LEO (or in GEO, visible 24 hours from your key growth market). I'll do _that_ for only $5bn (and the changes of identity).
In article <1993Apr16.151729.8610@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:  >Josh Hopkins (jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) replied: >: Double wow.  Can you land a shuttle with a 5cm hole in the wall? >Personnally, I don't know, but I'd like to try it sometime.  Are you volunteering? :)  > But a >hole in the pressure vessel would cause us to immediately de-orbit >to the next available landing site.  Will NASA have "available landing sites" in the Russian Republic, now that they are Our Friends and Comrades?
In article <1raee7$b8s@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >In article <23APR199317325771@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >> In answer >>to a question from Hawking, Chahine described a proposed >>drag-free satellite, but confirmed that at this point, "it's only >>a concept."  > >SO what's a drag free satellite?   coated with WD-40?  	I am puzzled by the term "concept." Drag free may already have been flown. It was the idea behind putting up a spacecraft that would more accurately respond to motions from the Earth's gravity field and ignore drag. It was proposed many years ago and involved a ball floating between sensors whose job it was to signal to little adjustment jets to keep the ball away from them. The ball itself would then be in a drag free condition and respond only to gravity anisotropies, whereas the spacecraft itself would be continuously adjusting its position to compensate for drag.
In article <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca>, agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes... >In article <22APR199323003578@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: >|> 3.  On April 19, a NO-OP command was sent to reset the command loss timer to >|> 264 hours, its planned value during this mission phase. >  >This activity is regularly reported in Ron's interesting posts. Could >someone explain what the Command Loss Timer is? >
(Henry Spencer) writes: > 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.     Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'), what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient radiation field?"     If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and  molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures can range from 40K to 150K.  You might look in a conference proceedings "Interstellar Processes", ed. D. J. Hollenbach and H. A. Thronson, Jr., published in 1987.  Try the articles by Tielens et al., Seab, and  Black.     Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit from place to place (how close are you to the nearest OB association, I would guess).  Outside the galaxy, of course, things aren't so  varied.     I hope this is what you were looking for....
In article <3HgF3B3w165w@shakala.com> dante@shakala.com (Charlie Prael) writes: >Doug-- Actually, if memory serves, the Atlas is an outgrowth of the old  >Titan ICBM...  Nope, you're confusing separate programs.  Atlas was the first-generation US ICBM; Titan I was the second-generation one; Titan II, which all the Titan launchers are based on, was the third-generation heavy ICBM.  There was essentially nothing in common between these three programs.  (Yes, *three* programs.  Despite the similarity of names, Titan I and Titan II were completely different missiles.  They didn't even use the same fuels, never mind the same launch facilities.)  >If so, there's probably quite a few old pads, albeit in need  >of some serious reconditioning.  Still, Being able to buy the turf and  >pad (and bunkers, including prep facility) at Midwest farmland prices  >strikes me as pretty damned cheap.
In <1993Apr20.041300.21721@ncsu.edu> jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes:  >    I'm trying to get mailing addresses for the following >companies.  Specifically, I need addresses for their personnel >offices or like bureau.  The companies are:  >	- Space Industries, Inc.  (Somewhere in Houston)           101 Courageous Dr.            Leage City, TX  77573           Phone: (713) 538-6000               Good Luck! Doug
> In <1993Apr3.233154.7045@Princeton.EDU> lije@cognito.Princeton.EDU (Elijah   Millgram) writes: >  >  > A friend of mine and I were wondering where the expression "pushing > the envelope" comes from.  Anyone out there know? >  Everbody has been defining envelope. Why was the world "envelope" chosen, rather than say "shell",  or "boundary".  In analogy with the envelopes of airships perhaps?  Actually, "shell" might be good.  Push the shell too hard and it (the aircraft?) breaks.
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. > >Jonathan  Jonathan, interesting questions.  Some wonder whether or not the moon could have ever supported an atmosphere.  I'd be interested in knowing what our geology/environmental sciences friends think.  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 was accomplished by a team of mountaineers who trained at high altitudes for quite awhile (I think a few months) and then were flown by helicopter from that training altitude to the equivalent altitude on Mount Everest, where they began the ascent of our planet's highest peak without oxygen tanks.  This is quite a feat of physiological endurance, because if you or I tried to go to 20,000 feet and exert ourselves, we would probably pass out, get altitude sick, and could even die from cerebral edema. So this is the limit of low pressure.  High pressure situations would be limited by the duration of time which it takes to slowly acclimate to a higher pressure.  Skin divers would know alot about high pressure situations and could tell you about how they safely make deep dives without getting the bends.  Some military experiments have put people under several atmospheres of pressure (not sure what the high limit was because the papers aren't in front of me).  Usually at a certain point, the nitrogen in the air becomes toxic to the body and you start acting idiotic.  Divers call this nitrogen narcosis.  Those afflicted can do very dangerous and irrational things, like taking off a diving mask and oxygen tank in order to talk to fish at 100 feet under water.  (Hope any diving folk can elaborate on this matter, as I am not a diving expert).  Mars cannot support human life without pressurization because the atmosphere is too thin (1/100 th  our Earth's atmospheric density).  In addition, the Mars atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide.  Basically, you would need a  pressure suit there, or you'd die from the low pressure.  Interesting huh?
The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.  Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.  STS 55      1 22640U 93 27  A 93117.24999999  .00043819  00000-0  13174-3 0    47 2 22640  28.4694 264.3224 0004988 261.3916 194.3250 15.90699957   104