waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr19.020359.26996@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >> > Can these questions be answered for a previous >> > instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting? >  >> Orbital Elements of Comet 1977VII (from Dance files) >> p(au)          3.424346 >> e              0.151899 >> i              1.0988 >> cap_omega(0) 243.5652 >> W(0)         231.1607 >> epoch       1977.04110 >  >  >> Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were: >>  >> April  1973     83 jupiter radii >> August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii >  > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU.  So the > 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove. > Is that the case for the 1973 figure as well? > --  Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.
In article <C73u77.84x@world.std.com> vis@world.std.com (Tom R Courtney) writes: >I got incensed when I read that Carl Sagan called this idea an "abomination."  >I don't think that word means what he thinks it does. Children starving in the >richest country in the world is an abomination; an ad agency is at worst just >in poor taste. > >Tom Courtney  I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination. (abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of us loathe it. I'd rather not have the beauty of the night sky always marred by a giant billboard, and I'll bet the idea is virtually sacrilegious to an astronomer like Sagan.
The Apollo program cost something like $25 billion at a time when the value of a dollar was worth more than it is now. No one would  take the offer.
<1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:  >So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but so was Wilbur and >Orville Wright, and quite a few others.. Sorry if I do not have the big degrees >and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something >that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without >dreams all the knowledge is worthless..   Oh, and us with the big degrees don't got imagination, huh?  The alleged dichotomy between imagination and knowledge is one of the most pernicious fallacys of the New Age.  Michael, thanks for the generous offer, but we have quite enough dreams of our own, thank you.  You, on the other hand, are letting your own dreams go to waste by failing to get the maths/thermodynamics/chemistry/(your choices here) which would give your imagination wings.  Just to show this isn't a flame, I leave you with a quote from _Invasion of  the Body Snatchers_:  "Become one of us; it's not so bad, you know"
Is the film from the "putt-putt" test vehicle which used conventional explosives as a proof-of-concept test, or another one?
jbreed@doink.b23b.ingr.com (James B. Reed) writes:  >In article <C5ros0.uy@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about >|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent >|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible.  It's my understanding that the freezing will start to occur because of the growing distance of Pluto and Charon from the Sun, due to it's elliptical orbit. It is not due to shadowing effects.   >Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block >sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block >our view of them either.  What am I missing?  Pluto can shadow Charon, and vice-versa.  George Krumins --
Todays New York TImes just wrote about a pact being negotiated  between us and the Russians  to develope  High Temperature Gas Cooled Fission Reactors using Re-Cycled Weapons Grade plutonium from Warhead stockpiles.   THe fuel will be pelletized in ceramic for safety,  and then after depletion will be sufficiently contaminated with by-products to make extraction of the remaining plutonium hazardous enough to deter re-use.  Apparently the project will be led by General Atomics of San Diego with funding from the US GOvernment.  THe pilot plant will be built and operated by the russians.
There is a guy in NASA Johnson Space Center  that might answer  your question. I do not have his name right now but if you follow  up I can dig that out for you.  C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov
In article <511151978@ofa123.fidonet.org> David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: >The most revealing comparison between Shuttle and Soyuz is cost. All >other comparisons are apples and oranges. > >--- Maximus 2.01wb  I like this statement, though for my own reasons.  Cost comparisons depend a lot on whether the two options are similar, and *then* it becomes very revealing to consider what their differences are.  Can Soyuz launch the Long Exposure Facility?  Course not.  Will the Shuttle take my television  relay to LEO by year's end?  Almost certainly not, but the Russians are pretty good about making space accessible on a tight schedule.  Comparing S and SS points up that there are TWO active space launcher-and-work-platform resources, with similarities and differences. Where they are in direct competition, we may get to see some market economics come into play.  tombaker
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?        TRIAD, the first drag-free satellite, was designed and built by the  Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and launched 2 Sept 1972.  The  satellite was in three sections separated by two booms.  The central section  housed the DISCOS Disturbance Compensation System, which consisted of a proof  mass of special non-magnetic alloy housed within a spherical cavity.  The  proof mass flew a true gravitational orbit, free from drag and radiation  pressure.  Teflon microthrusters kept the body of the satellite centered  around the proof mass, thereby flying the entire satellite drag free.       TRIAD was one of the APL-designed Navy Navigation Satellites.  The  2nd-generation operational navigation satellites flying today (NOVA) use a  single-axis version of DISCOS.  TRIAD was also the sixth APL satellite to be  powered by an RTG (APL flew the first nuclear power supply in space, in 1961).       Further info on TRIAD, DISCOS, etc. can be found in "Spacecraft Design  Innovations in the APL Space Department," Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest,  Vol. 13, No. 1 (1992).
belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:  >        Actually, my advisor, another classmate of mine, and me were >talking the other day about putting just one detector on one of the >Pluto satellites.  THen we realized that the satellite alone is only >carrying something like 200 pounds of eq.  Well, a BATSE detector >needs lead shielding to protect it, and 1 alone weighs about 200 >pounds itself.  >        We decided against it.                                                         -jeremy Are you talking about a single BATSE component, or the whole thing?  You *could* propose a BATSE probe; launch two or three with ion drive on various planetary trajectories... your resolution increaces the more they're spaced apart. You could probably cheaply eject them from the solar system with enough flybys and patience.  Things would start out slow, then slowly get better and better resolution...
: In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: : >Why not build a inflatable space dock.  Henry Spencer (henry@zoo.toronto.edu) wrote: : If you're doing large-scale satellite servicing, being able to do it in : a pressurized hangar makes considerable sense.  The question is whether : anyone is going to be doing large-scale satellite servicing in the near : future, to the point of justifying development of such a thing.  That's a mighty fine idea.  But since you asked "Why not," I'll respond.  Putting aside the application of such a space dock, there are other factors to consider than just pressurized volume.  Temperature control is difficult in space, and your inflatable hangar will have to  incorporate thermal insulation (maybe a double-walled inflatable). Micrometeoroid protection and radiation protection are also required. Don't think this will be a clear plastic bubble; it's more likely to look like a big white ball made out of the same kind of multi-layer fabric that soft-torso space suits are made out of today.  Because almost all manned space vessels (Skylab, Mir, Salyut) used their pressurization for increased structural rigidity, even though they had (have) metal skins, they still kind of qualify as inflatable.  The inflation process would have to be carefully controlled.  The space environment reduces ductility in exposed materials (due to temperature extremes, monotomic Oxygen impingement, and radiation effects on materials), so your "fabric" may not retain any flexibility for long.  (This may not matter.)  Even after inflation, pressure changes in the hangar may cause flexing in the fabric, which could lead to holes and tears as ductility decreases.  These are some of the technical difficulties which the LLNL proposal for an inflatable space station dealt with to varying degrees of success.  -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
In article <1r6b7v$ec5@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >  Besides this was the same line of horse puckey the mining companies claimed > when they were told to pay for  restoring land  after strip mining. >  > they still mine coal in the midwest,  but now it doesn't look like > the moon when theyare done. >  > pat === I aint talking the large or even the "mining companies" I am talking the small miners, the people who have themselves and a few employees (if at all).The people who go out every year and set up thier sluice box, and such and do mining the semi-old fashion way.. (okay they use modern methods toa point).  I am talking the guy who coem to Nome evry year, sets up his tent on the beach (the beach was washed away last year) and sets up his/her sluice box and goes at it "mining". I know the large corps, such as Alaska Gold Company, might complain to..  My opinions are what I learn at the local BS table..  My original thing/idea was that the way to get space mining was to allow the eco-freaks thier way.. As they have done with other mineral development. You can't in many places can't go to the bathroom in the woods without some form of regulation covering it..
In article <843@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:  >> The real reason why accelerator breeders or incinerators are not being >> built is that there isn't any reason to do so.  Natural uranium is >> still too cheap, and geological disposal of actinides looks >> technically reasonable. >> > >	November/December, 1987 page 21 - "Science and Technology in Japan". >			Seawater Uranium Recovery Experiment >	"The ground uranium reserves are estimated at about 3.6 million tons, > and it is anticipated that the demand and supply balance will collapse by the > end of the 20th century.  In Japan, a resources poor country, technological > development are now under way to economically collect uranium dissolved in > seawater.  The total quanity of uranium dissolved in seawater is estimated > to be about 4.6 billion tons, a huge amount when compared with ground uranium > reserves......."   I hate to pour cold water on this, but currently seawater extracted uranium, even using the new, improved fiber absorbers from Japan, is about 20 times more expensive than uranium on the spot market. Uranium is *very* cheap right now, around $10/lb.  Right now, there are mines closing because they can't compete with places like Cigar Lake in Canada (where the ore is so rich they present safety hazards to the mines, who work in shielded vehicles).  Plenty of other sources (for example, uranium from phosphate processing) would come on line before uranium reached $200/lb.  "Demand and supply balance will collapse" is nonsense.  Supply and demand always balance; what changes is the price.  Is uranium going to increase in price by a factor of 20 by the end of the century? Not bloody likely.  New nuclear reactors are not being built at a sufficient rate.  Uranium from seawater is interesting, but it's a long term project, or a project that the Japanese might justify on grounds of self-sufficiency.
In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) says: >In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon ><SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes: >>This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought >>not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would >>think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic. >>Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much >>larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually, >>they will simply be able to afford more stuff. > >If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger >economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* >on a lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo, >but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing military, >scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than just a "we have >the money, why not?" approach.  I was assuming that there won't be a moon base unless it makes a profit, actually.  If it does, well, that gives a larger GNP which leads to being able to spend more money on your military, including gosh-wow space stuff.  (assuming it's profitable, rather than paying for itself.) > >It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible >that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that >Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred >years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding >levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you >put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you >use grad students?  You might be able to _run_ one for that; put it there, hardly.  Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will be significant commerical activity on the Moon?
In article <geoffmC7508L.F1K@netcom.com>, geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) writes: |> In article <C74rGL.4u7@ucdavis.edu> ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin) |> writes: |>  |> >Is it not also an abomination that somebody would spend money on "space  |> >advertising" when those children are starving? Perhaps some redistribution |> >of wealth would help them ... |>  |>  |> This is specious emotionalism.  Commercial enterprises typically don't |> spend money on starving children (or other world problems) anyway, at |> least not in excess of whatever minimum amount is required for lip- |> service and PR purposes.  Precisely where would you place the threshold |> beyond which advertising spending is deemed "abominable," and why?  Yes!  Just take money from the profitable commercial enterprises and give it to the government to "redistribute."  Government is so much more efficient, trustworthy, and noble than self-serving businesses. :)  Let's nip this redistributionist ignorance in the bud.  If it were not for commercial enterprises, the whole world would be starving.
In article cnp@morrow.stanford.edu, ME.DMG@forsythe.stanford.edu (David Gaba M.D.) writes: >Two and a half years ago I purchased a set of CD ROMs from the >University of Colorado Lab for Atmos. and Space Physics.  They >were Space Sciences Sampler and Voyagers to the Outer Planets. >... >With Pixel Pusher we could never get past messages something like >This file has no PDS label, please fill in the following info >(a bunch of slots with most zeros).  Yet, we could open the >image file in Word and see the label file at the beginning.  The compressed image format used for the Voyager disks is not (yet) supported by any Macintosh display software that I know of. However, there does exist a program that can convert the images to a format that is recognized by recent versions of both Pixel Pusher and NIH/Image. It is called "PDS Decompress" and is available via anonymous ftp from the "pub" directory on "delcano.mit.edu" [18.75.0.80]. This is a Binhex/ Stuffit archive and contains the application itself, Think-C source, and a very brief description.  The most recent version of NIH/Image (1.48) may be down-loaded from "starhawk.jpl.nasa.gov", where it is located in "image148.hqx" in the "pub" directory. This archive also contains source code, but not the documentation, which is located in the "image1455.hqx" archive in the same directory.
It should be noted that the US benefitted not only from German science and technology after WW2 but also from British science and technology. From the discovery and manufacture of penicillin to jet engines, swing wing aircraft, the hovercraft etc etc. all were shipped lock-stick-and-barel across the Atlantic. We still are suffering from this sort of thing because of some of the more parochial aspects of US procurement policy. Meiko, a British  parallel computer company, for example, has now moved most of its facilities to the US since that was the only way it could sell stuff over there.
[Also posted in misc.forsale.wanted,misc.wanted,ne.wanted,ny.wanted,nj.wanted]  WANTED:  Optical Shaft Encoders  Quantity 2 Single-ended Incremental  Needed to encode the movements of a 16" Cassegrain telescope.  The telescope is in the observatory of the Univ. of Mass. at Boston.  The project is being managed by Mr. George Tucker, a graduate student at UMB.  Please call him, or email/call me, if you have one or two of the specified type of encoder.  Of course, due to our low funding level we are looking for a price that is sufficiently lower than that given for new encoders.  :)  George Tucker 617-965-3408  ME:
COMET (Commercial Experiment Transport) is to launch from Wallops Island Virginia and orbit Earth for about 30 days. It is scheduled to come down in the Utah Test & Training Range, west of Salt Lake City, Utah. I saw a message in this group toward the end of March that it was to launch  on March 27. Does anyone know if it launched on that day, or if not,  when it is scheduled to launch and/or when it will come down.  I would also be interested in what kind(s) of payload(s) are onboard.  Thanks for your help.
>>>>> On 26 Apr 1993 15:37:32 GMT, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) said:  jfc> If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the jfc> galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma jfc> rays?  and later... >>>>> Jim Batka ( JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU ) said  JB> So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume JB> some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation), JB> could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic JB> events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could JB> be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays  JB> being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.    0.   Well, maybe not zero, but very little.  At the typical energies for   gamma rays, the Galaxy is effectively transparent.    Hans Bloemen had a review article in Ann. Rev. Astr. Astrophys. a few   years back in which he discusses this in more depth.
I assume that can only be guessed at by the assumed energy of the event and the 1/r^2 law.  So, if the 1/r^2 law is incorrect (assume some unknown material [dark matter??] inhibits Gamma Ray propagation), could it be possible that we are actually seeing much less energetic events happening much closer to us?  The even distribution could be caused by the characteristic propagation distance of gamma rays  being shorter then 1/2 the thickness of the disk of the galaxy.  Just some idle babbling, --      Jim Batka  | Work Email:  BATKAJ@CCMAIL.DAYTON.SAIC.COM | Elvis is               | Home Email:  JBATKA@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU      |   DEAD!
nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson) writes: >jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes: >>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the >>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of >>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case. >I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred >to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also >said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind >during assembly of one SRB.  I assume, then, that someone at Thiokol put on their "manager's hat" and said that pissing off the customer by delaying shipment of the SRB to look inside it was a bad idea, regardless of where that tool might have ended up.
> 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.  This is a good question.  There are major blind spots in our understanding of what makes the earth habitable.  For example, why does the earth's atmosphere have the concentration of oxygen it does?  The naive answer is "photosynthesis", but this is clearly incomplete.  Photosynthesis by itself can't make the atmosphere oxygenated, as the oxygen produced is consumed when the plants decay or are eaten.  What is needed is photosynthesis plus some mechanism to sequester some fraction of the resulting reduced material.  On earth, this mechanism is burial in seafloor sediments of organic matter, mostly from oceanic sources.  However, this burial requires continental sediments (in the deep ocean, the burial rate is so slow that most material is consumed before it can be sequestered).  This suggests that a planet without large oceans, or a planet without continents undergoing weathering, will have a hard time accumulating an oxygen atmosphere.  In particular, an all-ocean planet may have a hard time supporting an oxygen atmosphere.  There is also the problem of why the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has been relatively stable over geological time, for a period at least 2 orders of magnitude longer than the decay time of atmospheric O2 to weathering in the absence of replenishment.  No convincing feedback mechanism has been identified.  Perhaps the reason is the weak anthropic principle: if during the last 500 MYr or so, the oxygen level had dropped too low, we wouldn't be here to be wondering about it.
> There is this buy at NASA Langley...     YES! Give me his name I would greatly appreciate it.    Rich
In article <1r2aii$ivs@access.digex.net>, prb@access (Pat) writes: >In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: >>Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo? > >I don't know a whole lot on Proton, but given that it is a multi stage >rocket,  up to 4 stages, it may not really need the Centaur,  plus >it may end up seriously beating on said centaur.     The Proton has been used in 2, 3, and 4 stage versions.  The two stage version was used for the first 3 launches, while the 3 and 4 stage versions are used today.  The four stage version is used mostly for escape (and geosynchronous?) orbits, while the 3 stage version is used for low earth orbits.  Since this is the version that launched Mir and the Salyuts (and the add-on modules for Mir), as long as Centaur is smaller than Mir (which I believe it is), it should fit under the shroud.  I vaguely recall that the Russians are developing a LH2/LOX upper stage for the Proton.
If available please send to Glen Moore Director Science Centre Wollongong, Australia fax: 61 42 213151   email: gkm@cc.uow.edu.au