waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C4t3K3.498@cck.coventry.ac.uk> enf021@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Achurist) writes: | |I believe the reason is that the lung diaphram gets too tired to pump |the liquid in and out and simply stops breathing after 2-3 minutes. |So if your in the vehicle ready to go they better not put you on  |hold, or else!! That's about it. Remember a liquid is several more times |as dense as a gas by its very nature. ~10 I think, depending on the gas |and liquid comparision of course!   Could you use some sort of mechanical chest compression as an aid. Sorta like the portable Iron Lung?   Put some sort of flex tubing around the 'aquanauts' chest.  Cyclically compress it  and it will push enough on the chest wall to support breathing?????  You'd have to trust your breather,  but in space, you have to trust your suit anyway.
From: Gene Wright <gene@theporch.raider.net>  >With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints >by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about >that might just work.  >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'll say!  Imagine that there were a couple groups up there, maybe landing a few weeks apart.  The year-mark starts coming on for the first group. Isn't a billion pretty good incentive to take a shot at a potential winner?  "Yeah, that's a shame that Team A's life support gave out so close to the deadline.  Thanks for the billion."  On the other hand, if Apollo cost ~25billion, for a few days or weeks in space, in 1970 dollars, then won't the reward have to be a lot more than only 1 billion to get any takers?  -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.
In article <C6A2At.E9z@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > >No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this >dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be >retractable as well as extendable, and may thus have indirectly contributed >to the array-flapping problems.   Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays.  just fit them with a quick release.  one  space walk,  or use the second canadarm to remove the arrays.
In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net> gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes:     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.   And with $1B on offer, the problem of "keeping them alive" is highly likely to involve more than just the lunar environment!   "Oh Dear, my freighter just landed on the roof of ACME's base and they all died.  How sad.  Gosh, that leaves us as the oldest residents."  "Quick Boss, the slime from YoyoDyne are back, and this time they've got a tank!  Man the guns!"  One could imagine all sorts of technologies being developed in that sort of environment.....  Greg.  (I'm kidding, BTW, although the problem of winner-takes-all prizes is that it encourages all sorts of undesirable behaviour - witness military procurement programs.  And $1b is probably far too small a reward to encourage what would be a very expensive and high risk proposition.)
prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:  >Galileo's HGA  is stuck.     >The HGA was left closed,  because galileo  had a venus flyby.  >If the HGA were pointed att he sun,  near venus,  it would >cook the foci elements.  >question:  WHy couldn't Galileo's  course manuevers have been >designed such that the HGA  did not ever do a sun point.?  The HGA isn't all that reflective in the wavelengths that might "cook the focal elements", nor is its figure good on those scales--the problem is that the antenna _itself_ could not be exposed to Venus-level sunlight, lest like Icarus' wings it melt.  (I think it was glues and such, as well as electronics, that they were worried about.)  Thus it had to remain furled and the axis _always_ pointed near the sun, so that the small sunshade at the tip of the antenna mast would shadow the folded HGA. (A larger sunshade beneath the antenna shielded the spacecraft bus.)
What would all of you out there in net land think of the big 6 (Martin Mariatta, Boeing, Mcdonell Douglas, General Dynamics, Lockheed, Rockwell) getting together, and forming a consortium to study exactly what the market price pints are for building reusable launch vehicles, and spending say $3million to do that.  Recognizing that most of the military requirements for launch vehicles are pulled out of a hat somewhere (say, has the shuttle  ever really used that 1200mi crossrange capability?  You get the idea, figure out how many, how often, where to, etc...)  Then taking this data, and forming a sematech type company (bad example, I know... but at least its an example...)  To develop between 3 and 5 craft designs.  Then to take all of those designs, and figure out EXACTLY what the technologies are, and demonstrate those technologies, in order to  eliminate designs that can't be built today.  And lets say that this portion again funded by the GOV cost about $20 million.  And from here all of these companies went their separate ways, with the intention of taking all of the market data and the design data to wall street, and saying "I want to build this vehicle, and here are the numbers that show %20 ROI, fund me...)   Now many of you think that this is a joke, but I have it on good authority that just this project is shaping up in the background. It seems that the aerospace companies have learned that everyone yelling similar but different things ends up in many programs that do nothing much and get canceled (NASP, NLS, ALS, DCY?, etc...)  They need to work more in the japaneese, and european spirit of initial cooperation.  They have also learned that design requirements that are phony (I.E. some generals idea of what a space vehicle ought to be) ends up getting chopped up in congress, because it is not a REAL requirement.  Any feedback?
In article <billoshC6Bqyy.H6H@netcom.com>, billosh@netcom.com (William E. O'Shaughnessy) says: > >If you brighten up the dark part of CV043015.GIF with your viewer you >will see two other objects near the upper left part of the moon. >One is actually between the weather satellite and the moon. > >                            Bill O'Shaughnessy > What are those other objects?  UFOs????
In article <1993Apr21.190156.7769@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk) 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? |> >What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other |> >than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)? |>  |>  |> The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton  |> is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D |> which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about |> launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which |> are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things |> up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile |> thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now. |> Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know  |> how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while |> bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track |> and erected on the pad?    The Centaur that is being built for T4 would be a better bet to integrate  onto the Proton as the T4/Centaur is designed for the Extremely Harsh  envorinment of the T4 launch. It is also closer to 4 m in diameter.   You've hit on the real kicker, however. The Centaur is pressure stabilized.  It cannot hold up its own weight without pressure in the tanks. Additionally,  the pressure difference between the two tanks must be maintained to ~+/- 5 psi.  That is rather tight to be rocking and rolling on the train. The pressure  stabilization is how centaur achieves the performance. On numerous occasions (when I was there 88-91) the AF wanted to see what it would take to make  a non-pressure stabilized centaur. The answer -- a centaur not worth launching.   The Atlas/Centaur does not require on-pad integration, however the T4/Centaur does. I believe the on-pad integration is to a great extent due to the  cleanliness requirements and PFL configuration, so maybe something can be  done there........   |>  |> They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads  |> (unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course |> any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the |> US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political |> problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention.   The addition of LOX/LH facilities is critical as the centaur tops off as it  lifts off. A LHe facility is also needed. I don't know what the proton uses  for fuel, but since they are derived from ICBM's I would suspect that they  use storable propellants which don't have the ullage problem that cryo's  do. If there is no cryo at the sight at all, the addition of these systems  could be big $$, not to mention the real tech transfer issues involved with  providing centaur GSE to Russia. That issue alone might be enough to kill  this idea.
Ken Hayashida (khayash@hsc.usc.edu) wrote: : Mike Adams suggested discussions on long-term effects of spaceflight : to the human being.  I love this topic, as some of you regulars know.  : So, having seen Henry's encouraging statement about starting to talk : about it; I shall.  : I feel that we as a community of people have unique resources : to deliver to the world a comprehensive book which can elaborate : on the utility of spaceflight to fields which are as divergent  : as medical intensive care, agriculture, environmental protection, and  : probably more.  I do not believe that the general public understands : the impact of spaceflight on the whole of society.  In the absence : of such knowledge, we see dwindling support of the world's space effort.  Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society:  1.	Calculators 2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan) 3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)   p.s.  To all the regular contributors to sci.space.news and sci.space.shuttle, thanks for all your hard work keeping us informed as to the doings down in NASA and other space-type agencies.  I don't have much time to read USENET, but I ALWAYS read these two groups....
In article <1993Apr30.151033.13776@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes: >It's interesting to note that some of our best tools for cost control >available in industry today were derived from Government projects. >GANTT charts, CP/M, and most of the modern scheduling software comes >from DoD projects and their contractors.  The construction industry   Of course,  	How many government projects after Using PERT, GANT, C.P.M.s Process flow diagrams,  Level 5 software projects....  actually come in on schedule and under Cost.  I know the GAO determined that 80% of all NASA projects  miss their budgets due to failing to adequately measure  engineering developement costs.     Me, I am allin favor of Government R&D.  I thought Bell Labs was one of the best  to do research.   I don't think the government should pour money into any one sector,  but should engage in projects which naturally push the state of the art.    THings like  High tech  construction projects,  apollo  was worth it for the doing.  Running hte national labs.  The SSC is grossly overweight,  but is a reasonable project at a lower cost.    Unfortunately support for solo investigators is direly neglected.  Maybe what they should do, is throw out much of the process and just tell new PH'ds,  you get a 1 time grant of $50,000.00   If you produce, you can  qualify for other grants.  If you don't  you never get in again.  THis way  young people get a shot at  reserach,  and older  stale  scientists don't dominate the process.
In article <C69qA6.J4w.1@cs.cmu.edu>, 0004244402@mcimail.com (Karl Dishaw) wrote: >  > Andy Cohen <Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com> writes: > >the Single Launch Core Station concept.  A Shuttle external tank and solid > >rocket boosters would be used  to launch the station into orbit.  Shuttle > >main engines would be mounted to the tail of the station module for launch > >and jettisoned after ET separation. >  > Why jettison the SSMEs?  Why not hold on to them and have a shuttle  > bring them down to use as spares?
In article <1psfan$pj0@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes... >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?     If Comet Shoemaker-Levy 1993e is in Jovian orbit, and if the comet is still hanging around when Galileo arrives, then I'm sure it will be added to the list of targets.  We'll have by then over two years of Earth-based observations to help narrow down the positions of the pieces of the comet. It probably won't be too much different than what was done with Gaspra.  >But when they were >imaging toutatis?  Galileo did not image Toutatis.  That came from Earth-based radar.
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?
In article <1993Apr26.193924.1189@bnr.ca>, jcobban@bnr.ca (Jim Cobban) writes: =Having read in the past about the fail-safe mechanisms on spacecraft, I had =assumed that the Command Loss Timer had that sort of function.  However I =always find disturbing the oxymoron of a "NO-OP" command that does something. =If the command changes the behavior or status of the spacecraft it is not =a "NO-OP" command.  Using your argument, the NOOP operation in a computer isn't a NOOP, since it causes the PC to be incremented.  =Of course this terminology comes from a Jet Propulsion Laboratory which has =nothing to do with jet propulsion.  Of course, the complaint comes from someone who hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
In article <2534@tdbunews.teradata.COM| swf@elsegundoca.ncr.com writes: | |No if you're Fred Hoyle.  He rejects the Big Bang, and proposes an infinitely |old universe (*really*), so in his model life *always* starts on a given planet |by seeding from outer space - there has *always* been life somewhere. | Didn't Fred Hoyle abandon the steady state theory?
Last I had heard because of budget and such the Air Farce is the only "Space Command" left.. The rest missions were generally given to the Air Farce..  Probably a good reason for me to transfer from the Army Guard to the Air Guard..  I hate walking with a pack on my back, and how do you put on your application for a job as a kitchen worker, that you have done a lot of KP (Kitchen Police)..
I've just read Richard Langley's latest "Navstar GPS Constellation Status".  It states that the latest satellite was placed in Orbit Plane Position C-3. There is already one satellite in that position. I know that it's almost ten years since that satellite was launched but it's still in operation so why not use it until it goes off?  Why not instead place the new satellite at B-4 since that position is empty and by this measure have an almost complete GPS-constellation (23 out of 24)?  /Thomas ================================================================================ Ericsson Telecom, Stockholm, Sweden
In article <1993Apr21.170817.15845@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: >  >> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were: >  > Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to > me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American > has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil > Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. > Same person?  I would guess not.  Dr. Neil Gehrels of CGRO is the son of Dr. Tom Gehrels of the University of Arizona.  Since he's long had research interests in asteroids and other solar-system astronomy, Tom is the one more likely to have discovered  a comet (and thus had his name attached to it).  Tom Gehrels is a leader in the Spacewatch project, which has recently increased mankind's discovery rate on near-Earth asteroids (they're finding a couple every month).  For much more on this interesting guy, read his autobiography, *On a Glassy Sea*.
In article <1993Apr28.150719.10511@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes... >  >  That's _Five Weeks In A Balloon_.  And if anyone can tell me where to >get it, I sure would like a reply!  I've been looking for that book for >TEN YEAR+, and never found it.  (Note that I am _not_ looking for a $200 >collector's item; I'm hoping that *someone* has published it in modern >times, either in paperback or hardcover.  I'm willing to spend $50 or >so to get a copy.  I too am a Jules Verne collector, and can tell you that though tough  to find, it *is* out there.  I keep my eyes open all the time for his books at various Bay Area used book stores, and every once in a while get *very* lucky.  You just need diligence.  I don't know if the book store situation near JSC is as good as the Bay Area, but good luck. I have also had excellent luck at the Antiquarian Book Fair which comes to SF every other year, though the prices are more in the $100-$200 range than the $50 you want to spend.  My guess is that *if* you find it, you won't need to spend even that much, since most people don't care  about it.  I think I paid about $15 for my dust-jacket-less but otherwise good condition copy, which I found one day at a small bookshop that happened to have just bought a lot of random books at an estate sale.    Of course, if you re willing to buy blind, you can put a $2 advertisement in the Antiquarian Bookseller's newsletter (the exact title of which escapes me at the moment.)  _Five Weeks in a Balloon_ is not the rarest of Jules Verne books.  Someone has it for sale somewhere, and the AB is the way to  find it.  In fact, I would be surprised if you didn't get multiple offers of sale.  Of course, that takes the fun out of hunting for it yourself...  Good luck.
> Keesler, Loftus, Potter, Stansbery, Kubriek....?  I gues it is Keesler. The others do not ring the bell but they might be  involved as well. Sometime ago Keesler was here at Langley teaching  a course on space debris and, if my memory does not fai,l I think there was even a reference to a book on the subject.  C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov
Why do spacecraft have to be shut off after funding cuts.  For example, Why couldn't Magellan just be told to go into a "safe" mode and stay bobbing about Venus in a low-power-use mode and if maybe in a few years if funding gets restored after the economy gets better (hopefully), it could be turned on again.    For that matter, why exactly were the Apollo lunar experiments "turned off" rather than just "safed".  Was it political (i.e. as along as they could be used, someone would keep bugging congress for funds)?  Turning them off keeps them pesky scientists out of the bureaucrat's hair....    I've heard the argument that an active but "uncontrolled" spacecraft causes "radio noise."  I find that hard to believe that this could be a problem in a properly designed "safe" mode. This safe mode could be a program routine which causes the spacecraft to go to least fuel using orientation, and once a (week, month, year, whatever) attempts a signal lock on Earth. At that time, if funding has been restored, the mission can continue.  If no signal is recieved, the spacecraft goes back to the safe mode for another time period. As we would know when the spacecraft is going to try to contact Earth, we could be prepared if necessary.    As another a spacecraft could do at the attempted contact is beam stored data towards Earth.  If someone can receive it, great, if not, so it's lost and no big deal. By making the time and signal location generally known, perhaps someone in the world might be able and willing to intercept the data even if they're not willing to contact the spacecraft.  I see this as being particularly useful for spacecraft which could have an otherwise long life and are in or are going to places which are otherwise unaccessible (Jupiter/Saturn Orbit, exiting the solar system, etc).     Perhaps those designing future spacecraft (Cassini, Pluto Flyby, etc) should consider designing in a "pause" mode in case their spacecraft gets the ax sometime in the future after completion of the primary mission. Perhaps Mars Observer and Galilleo could have some kind of routine written in for the post mission "drift" phase.  So any holes in all this?
I know that alot of how people think and act in a long distance space project would be much like old tiem explorers, sailors, hunters and such who spent alot of time alone, isolated, and alone or in minimal surroundings and sopcial contacts.. Such as the old arctic and antarctic expeditions and such..  I vote for a later on sci.space.medicine or similar newsgroup fro the discussion of long term missions into space and there affects on humans and such..
In article <1993Apr21.212202.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Here is a way to get the commericial companies into space and mineral >exploration. >Basically get the eci-freaks to make it so hard to get the minerals on earth..  If raw materials where to cost enough that getting them from space would be cost effective then the entire world economy would colapse long before the space mines could be built.    Allen
In article <1993Apr23.001718.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >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. >=== >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).   Lot's of these small miners  are no longer miners.  THey are people living rent free on Federal land,  under the claim of being a miner.  The facts are many of these people do not sustaint heir income from mining,  do not often even live their full time,  and do fotentimes do a fair bit of environmental damage.  These minign statutes were created inthe 1830's-1870's  when the west was uninhabited  and were designed to bring people into the frontier.  Times change people change.  DEAL.  you don't have a constitutional right to live off the same industry forever.  Anyone who claims the have a right to their job in particular,  is spouting nonsense.   THis has been a long term federal welfare program,  that has outlived it's usefulness.