waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
Every time you read about a shuttle landing they mention the double sonic   booms.  Having taken various relevant classes, I have several ideas of where   they come from, but none of them are very convincing.  Exactly what causes   them?  Are they a one time pheneomenon, or a constant one like the supersonic   shockwave that is constantly produced by a plane, but you hear only when it   goes over you?  --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |  Only two things are infinite,  | | Princeton Planetary Society     |      the universe and human     | |                                 |   stupidity, and I'm not sure   | |                                 |   about the former. - Einstein  | | carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------| | space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
Reply address: mark.prado@permanet.org   > From: higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey)  >  > In article <1993Apr19.230236.18227@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>,  > daviss@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (S.F. Davis) writes:  > > |> AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration  > confernce> |> May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the  > auspices of AIAA.  >  > Thanks for typing that in, Steven.  >  > I hope you decide to go, Pat.  The Net can use some eyes  > and ears there...  I plan to go.  It's about 30 minutes away from my home. I can report on some of it (from my perspective ...) Anyone else on sci.space going to be there?  If so, send me netmail.  Maybe we can plan to cross paths briefly... I'll maintain a list of who's going.  mark.prado@permanet.org
In <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:  >Being wierd again, so be warned:  >Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to >keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.  >How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things >around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not?? >It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system, >objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy >without having much of the solar system to worry about..  Doing this in anything like reasonable time would require more propulsion capability than we can manage.  You would have to boost to Pluto and then slow back down.  You could do something like a Hohman orbit, but I think that would take ridiculous amounts of time (my Rubber Bible is at home).  --  "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 <1r46j3INN14j@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >In article <STEINLY.93Apr20160116@topaz.ucsc.edu>, steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: | |>Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-) | >Sherzer Methodology!!!!!!
Why can't an aircraft be designed so that the pilot can always be  maintained in a upright position, perpendicular to the plane of acceleration?  With the visual helmets now being used that display some of the flight parameters and with a keyboard and manuvering equipment moving with the pilot, a pilot may be able to function at accelerations in excess of 12G.  Is anyone currently pursuing this area or is there a reason why this is impossible at the present time?
In article <1rpv9o$k00@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au> u9152083@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au (Glen Justin Balmer) writes: >It said that in the 60's they developed a rocket that used ions or nuclear >particles for propolsion. >The government however, didn't give them $1billion for the developement...  I'd guess this was a garbled report of the NERVA effort to develop a solid-core fission rocket (the most mundane type of nuclear rocket). That was the only advanced-propulsion project that was done on a large enough scale to be likely to attract news attention.  It *could* be any number of things -- the description given is awfully vague -- but I'd put a small bet on NERVA.
Is anybody out there willing to discuss with me careers in the Army that deal with space?  After I graduate, I will have a commitment to serve in the Army,  and I would like to spend it in a space-related field.  I saw a post a long time ago about the Air Force Space Command which made a fleeting reference to its Army counter-part.  Any more info on that would be appreciated.  I'm  looking for things like: do I branch Intelligence, or Signal, or other?  To whom do I voice my interest in space?  What qualifications are necessary? Etc, etc.  BTW, my major is computer science engineering.  Please reply to ktj@reef.cis.ufl.edu
In article <C65FIE.4ty@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes in response to Michael Adams post: >>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..- Adams > >Why bother with a new newsgroup?  If you want to discuss the subject, >*start discussing it*.  If there is enough traffic to annoy the rest of >us, we will let you know... and *then* it will be time for a new newsgroup.  Well, here goes.  The first item of business is to establish the importance space life sciences in the whole of scheme of humankind.  I mean compared to football and baseball, the average joe schmoe doesn't seem interested or even curious about spaceflight.  I think that this forum can make a major change in that lack of insight and education.  All of us, in our own way, can contribute to a comprehensive document which can be released to the general public around the world.  The document would scientifically analyze the technical aspects of long term human habitation in space.  I believe that if any long-term space exploration program is to  succeed we need to basically learn how to engineer our own microworld (i.e. the spacecraft).  Only through the careful analyses of engineering, chemical, biological, and medical factors will a good ecosystem be created to facilitate human life on a long-duration flight.  So, I would like to see posts of opinions regarding the most objective methods to analyze the accepted scientific literature for technologies which can be applied to long-duration spaceflight.  Such a detailed literature search would be of interest to ourselves as space advocates and clearly important to existing space programs.  In essence, we would be dividing the space life science issues into various technical problems which could be solved with various technologies. This database of acceptable solutions to various problems could form the basis of detailed discussions involving people from the bionet, isunet, and any other source!
In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> 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.  Actually, the situation is even worse than that.  The *total mass* of the Pluto Fast Flyby spacecraft is only 250ish pounds, and most of that is support equipment like power and communications.  The mass available for instruments is maybe 10% of that.  I don't think a BATSE will fit...  Actually, would you need the shielding?  My understanding is that it's mostly there to give the detectors some directionality.  No point in doing that if you've only got one.  I'm sure the burst detectors that have flown on other deep-space missions haven't weighed that much. (Mind you, they're probably still too heavy -- the PFF people would put more Pluto-specific instruments on first, if they had any mass to spare.)
From article <C5owCB.n3p@world.std.com>, by tombaker@world.std.com (Tom A Baker): >>In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes... >>>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected >>>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might >>>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but >  > Parity errors in memory or previously known conditions that were waivered. >    "Yes that is an error, but we already knew about it" > I'd be curious as to what the real meaning of the quote is. >  > tom   My understanding is that the 'expected errors' are basically known bugs in the warning system software - things are checked that don't have the right values in yet because they aren't set till after launch, and suchlike. Rather than fix the code and possibly introduce new bugs, they just tell the crew 'ok, if you see a warning no. 213 before liftoff, ignore it'.
In article <29APR199311345485@judy.uh.edu>, wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: -| In article <1993Apr28.200843.83413@embl-heidelberg.de>, tuparev@EMBL-Heidelberg.DE (Georg Tuparev) writes... -| >  -| >  -| >ANNOUNCEMENT:	The "HyperKnowledge" PROJECT for NeXTSTEP -|  -| I know this is kinda off the subject of sci.space, but not really, I want to -| answer this for their, as well as everyone else's information.  What these -| people are proposing, by and large already exists and can be purchased today. -|  -| It is called labview by National Instruments. IT is a wonderful object -| IT is a wonderful object oriented graphical programming language. -| [some lines deleted]  I am afraid you are mis-directed. NeXTSTEP is an operating system as opposed to  a package. I have read a little about it but since Steve Jobs does not seem to  have the marketing capabilities of Bill Gates my info. is limited. Probably why the far inferior Windows NT is going to be more widely distributed (but that is another flame-ridden story). Some of the innovative features of NeXTSTEP are binary compatibility across platforms (eg you can just copy your program from a Sparc to a PC and it would run, as opposed to buying the version of the package ported to a PC), graphical object-oriented design (its all WSIWIG postscript),  supports parallel hetrogeneous processing, and best of all it is based around  the Mach micro-kernel so you can make it look like Unix with X, or DOS, or NT or  even VMS if you feel the need. No package out there comes even close. I hope  people will subscribe to the HyperKnowledge project and NeXTSTEP finally takes off in my lifetime :-)
> > 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  Thanks for the information!  I assume p is the semi-major axis and e the eccentricity.  The peri- helion and aphelion are then given by p(1-e) and p(1+e), i.e., about 2.90 and 3.95 AU respectively.  For Jupiter, they are 4.95 and 5.45 AU. If 1977 was after the temporary capture, this means that the comet ended up in an orbit that comes no closer than 1 AU to Jupiter's -- which I take to be a rough indication of how far from Jupiter it could get under Jupiter's influence.  > 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? --  Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto		"Remember the Golgafrinchans" utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com					-- Pete Granger
In article <1993Apr30.173625.10139@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes: > In article <C6B2pA.My4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes: > > > >an image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the earth. > >it appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth. > >the GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named > >CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively. > > > >pretty cool pictures;  in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image > >details on the moon are viewable. >  > Near midsummer, you can see the relfection of the Sun in the ocean. > Also during solar eclise you can see the shadow of the sun move > across the clouds.  Speaking of which, a paper was out a few years ago about a weather sat imaging a lunar eclipse -- are those images uploaded anywhere?  I could dig out the reference if there's interest.  Shag  --
NASA Headquarters distributed the following press release today (4/6). I've typed it in verbatim, for you folks to chew over. Many of the topics recently discussed on sci.space are covered in this.  Gibbons Outlines Space Station Redesign Guidance  Dr. John H. Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, outlined to the members-designate of the Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance to the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of the space station.  A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a high option of $9 billion will be considered by the committee. Each option would cover the total expenditures for space station from fiscal year 1994 through 1998 and would include funds for development, operations, utilization, Shuttle integration, facilities, research operations support, transition cost and also must include adequate program reserves to insure program implementation within the available funds.  Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within the NASA budget for the President's new technology investment. As a result, station options above $7 billion must be accompanied by offsetting reductions in the rest of the NASA budget.  For example, a space station option of $9 billion would require $2 billion in offsets from the NASA budget over the next 5 years.  Gibbons presented the information at an organizational session of the advisory committee. Generally, the members-designate focused upon administrative topics and used the session to get acquainted. They also received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation on the process the Station Redesign Team is following to develop options for the advisory committee to consider.  Gibbons also announced that the United States and its international partners -- the Europeans, Japanese, and Canadians -- have decided, after consultation, to give "full consideration" to use of Russian assets in the course of the space station redesign process.  To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate in the redesign effort on an as-needed consulting basis, so that the redesign team can make use of their expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR and the possible use of MIR and other Russian capabilities and systems. The U.S. and international partners hope to benefit from the expertise of the Russian participants in assessing Russian systems and technology. The overall goal of the redesign effort is to develop options for reducing station costs while preserving key research and exploration capabilities. Careful integration of Russian assets could be a key factor in achieving that goal.  Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is committed to the redesigned space station and to making every effort to preserve the science, the technology and the jobs that the space station program represents. However, he also is committed to a space station that is well managed and one that does not consume the national resources which should be used to invest in the future of this industry and this nation."
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>   >> Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, [..]   >> please try to remember that there are more human activities than   >> those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the   >> Priesthood.  F Baube responds;    Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may     freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..    Steinn Sez;   >The Priesthood has never quite forgiven   >the merchants (aka Profiting Caste [sic])   >for their rise to power, has it?  If we are looking for evidence of belessed-by-God-ness, I'd say the ability to blare lights all over the evening sky is about the best evidence you could ever hope to get.  No wonder the preistly classes are upset :-)  -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 <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to >keep watch? ...  There would be some point to doing long-term monitoring of things like particles and fields, not to mention atmospheric phenomena.  However, there is no particular plan to establish any sort of monitoring network. To be precise, there is no particular plan, period.  This is a large part of the problem.  In this context, it's not surprising that unexciting but useful missions like this get short shrift at budget time.  The closest approach to any sort of long-term planetary monitoring mission is the occasional chance to piggyback something like this on top of a flashier mission like Galileo or Cassini.  >How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things >around and near and on Pluto...  It is most unlikely that there is much happening on Pluto that would be worth monitoring, and it is a prohibitively difficult mission to fly without new propulsion technology (something the planetary community has firmly resisted being the guinea pigs for).  The combined need to arrive at Pluto within a reasonable amount of time, and then kill nearly all of the cruise velocity to settle into an orbit, is beyond what can reasonably be done with current (that is, 1950s-vintage) propulsion.  >It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system, >objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy >without having much of the solar system to worry about..  Most of this can be done just about as well from Earth.  The few things that can't be, can be done better from a Voyager-like spacecraft that is *not* constrained by the need to enter orbit around a planet.
Thanks Ron and Peter for some very nice maps.  I have an advice though.  You wrote that the maps were reduced to 256 colors.  As far ad I understand JPEG pictures gets much better (and the compressed files smaller) if you use the original 3 color 24 bit data when converting to JPEG.  Thanks again,
AW&ST  had a brief blurb on a Manned Lunar Exploration confernce May 7th  at Crystal City Virginia, under the auspices of AIAA.  Does anyone know more about this?  How much, to attend????  Anyone want to go?
brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us writes:  >But as to the question of what philosopher will be most highly regarded in >500 years, it may very well be Ayn Rand (who in every important respect >was "American", but was born in Russia).  But I guess that remains to be seen.  1. Please take this out of sci.space.  2. Ayn Rand was not only born in Russia, but educated there. A lot of her philosophy reflects not only a European education but a  reaction against certian events in Russia while she lived there. I've heard that to the extent there is a division of modern philosophy between the "Continental" and British/American schools, Rand belongs in the former in terms of methodology et al, even though she was trying to say things that would belong in the latter school.  I.e. she was trapped in the language of Kant and Hegel, even though she was trying to say (at times) much different things.
I understand the when one is in orbit, the inward force of gravity at one's center of mass is exactly balanced by the outward centrifugal force from the orbiting motion, resulting in weightlessness.   I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is there a constant sensation of falling? And what is the motion sickness that some astronauts occasionally experience?    Please reply only if you are either a former or current astronaut, or  someone who has had this discussion first-hand with an astronaut.  Thanks!
In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes... >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. >  I didn't think the bi-stem design was used so much for the retrieval as for the ability to launch in a tight (size) STS envelope.  This is my own  guess, based on similar designs flown on other large STS-launched s/c  (GRO, UARS).  Also, there _might_ be some consideration given to mass  requirements (bi-stems weight less than conventional S/A).  Finally,  the HST arrays _do_ have the ability to be detached--remember, they're  going to be replaced with new arrays.  However, as an ACS guy who's seen his branch management pull their collective hair out over HST, I would voice a hearty 'yea' to using conventional arrays over bi-stems, whenever possible.  No half hertz flexible modes, no thermal snap, no problem.
What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard  associated theories. (which sound thin to me)  Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian? Does anyone buy all the life theories?
In article <C5suMG.2rF.1@cs.cmu.edu+ flb@flb.optiplan.fi ("F.Baube[tm]") writes: +At one time there was speculation that the first spacewalk  +(Alexei Leonov ?) was a staged fake. + +Has any evidence to support or contradict this claim emerged ? + +Was this claim perhaps another fevered Cold War hallucination ?  I, for one, would be an avid reader of a sci.space.ussr.what.really. happened.
I have the "osculating elements at perigee" of an orbit, which I need to convert to something useful, preferably distance from the earth in evenly spaced time intervals. A GSM coordinate system is preferable, but I convert from other systems. C, pascal, or fortran code, or if you can point me to a book or something that'd be great.  here's the first few lines of the file.  0  () 1  (2X, A3, 7X, A30) 2  (2X, I5, 2X, A3, 2X, E24.18) 3  (4X, A3, 7X, E24.18) 1  SMA       SEMI-MAJOR AXIS 1  ECC       ECCENTRICITY 1  INC       INCLINATION 1  OMG       RA OF ASCENDING NODE 1  POM       ARGUMENT OF PERICENTRE 1  TRA       TRUE ANOMALY 1  HAP       APOCENTRE HEIGHT 1  HPE       PERICENTRE HEIGHT 2      3  BEG  0.167290000000000000E+05 3    SMA       0.829159999999995925E+05 3    ECC       0.692307999999998591E+00 3    INC       0.899999999999999858E+02 3    OMG       0.184369999999999994E+03 3    POM       0.336549999999999955E+03 3    TRA       0.359999999999999943E+03 3    HAP       0.133941270127999174E+06 3    HPE       0.191344498719999910E+05 2      1  REF  0.167317532658774153E+05 3    SMA       0.829125167527418671E+05 3    ECC       0.691472268118590319E+00 3    INC       0.899596754214342091E+02 3    OMG       0.184377521828175002E+03 3    POM       0.336683788851850579E+03 3    TRA       0.153847166458030088E-05 3    HAP       0.133866082767180880E+06 3    HPE       0.192026707383028306E+05  Thanks in advance,
In article <1993Apr29.121501@is.morgan.com>, jlieb@is.morgan.com (Jerry Liebelson) writes... > I want to know what weightlessness actually FEELS like. For example, is >there a constant sensation of falling?   Yes, weightlessness does feel like falling.  It may feel strange at first, but the body does adjust.  The feeling is not too different from that of sky diving.  >And what is the motion sickness >that some astronauts occasionally experience?