waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993May1.042810.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Habital planets are also dependent on what kind of plant life can be grown.. >and such.. Length of growing season (that is if you want something more than >VAT food, argh, Id ratehr eat an MRE for  along period of time).  Using greenhouses to extend the growing season shouldn't be a problem. I'm supprised they don't do so in Alaska (cheaper to import, perhaps?)  >Incans and Sherpa and other low pressure atmosphere and such are a limit in >human adaptability(someone mentioend that Incan woman must come to lower >elevations to have babies brought to term? true?)  No, the Incas had no problems with this, but the Spanish did.
In some sense, I think that the folks who think the idea is wonderful, and the folks who want to boycott anyone who has anything to do with this project are both right.  That is, I think that space advertising is an interesting idea, and if someone wants to try it out, more power to them. However, a company may discover that the cost of launch is not the only cost of advertising, and a company who  gauged that ill will would lose them more revenue than the advertising would gain might decide to bow out of the project.  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.
kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:  >In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:  >Demonstrating that these puppies are beyond the oort cloud would  >require resolution on the order of arcseconds, since the oort  >cloud is postulated to extend to about 0.5 parsec (all together  >now: "Parallax ARc SECond", a parsec is the distance of an object  >that demonstrates one arc second of parallax with a 2 AU base line).  According to my *Glossary of Astronomy and Astrophysics*: "parsec (abbreviation for parallax second) 	The distance at which one astronomical unit subtends an angle of 1 second of arc.  1 pc = 206,265 AU = 3.086 X 10^13 km = 3.26 lt-yr."  George
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?  Thanks, Alan
In article <C5qIv3.H0o.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes: >In article <1993Apr18.091051.14496@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: >   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. > >Ah, but the whole point is that money spent on a lunar base is not >wasted on the moon. It's not like they'd be using $1000 (1000R?) bills >to fuel their moon-dozers. The money to fund a lunar base would be >spent in the country to which the base belonged. It's a way of funding >high-tech research, just like DARPA was a good excuse to fund various >fields of research, under the pretense that it was crucial to the >defense of the country, or like ESPRIT is a good excuse for the EC to >fund research, under the pretense that it's good for pan-European >cooperation. > >Now maybe you think that government-funded research is a waste of >money (in fact, I'm pretty sure you do), but it does count as >investment spending, which does boost the economy (and just look at >the size of that multiplier :->).  Actually I favor government funded research. It *is* a pump prime for a lot of basic technologies. I also understand the short term value of high tech welfare programs. But they can't substitute for long range wealth generation via commercial enterprise. That's what's needed to maintain a healthy economy *anywhere*, on Earth or Luna. I don't see that long term potential on Luna due to a bunch of factors I outline in another post.  Gary
In article <C69AGI.MJu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >I'm wondering if "vandalize" is the proper word to use in this situation.  My >dictionary defines "vandalism" as "the willful or malicious destructuion of  >public or private property, especially of anything beautiful or artisitc." I >would agree the sky is beautiful, but not that it is public or private property.  It's public because it belongs to everybody.  It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light.  If they can sell you or your city or your state an unshielded light that wastes 30 to 50 percent of its light, they make more _money_.  Never mind that your money is wasted. Never mind that taxpaper's money is wasted.  Never mind that the sky is ruined.   Bob Bunge
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.  one  space walk,  or use the second canadarm to remove the arrays.  You may want to put Hubble back in the payload bay for a reboost, and you don't want to clip off the panels each time.  For the Gamma-Ray Observatory, one of the design requirements was that there be no stored-energy mecahnisms (springs, explosive squibs, gas shocks, etc.) used for deployment.  This was partially so that everything could be reeled back in to put it back in the payload bay, and partially for safety considerations.  (I've heard that the wings on a cruise missile would cut you in half if you were standing in their swath when they opened.)  Back when the shuttle would be going up every other day with a cost to orbit of $3.95 per pound :-), everybody designed things for easy servicing.
Well, I seem to have struck an  interesting discussion off.  Given that I am not an astrophysicist  or nuclear physicist,  i'll have to boil it down a bit.  1)  ALl the data on bursts to date,  shows a smooth random distribution.  2)  that means they aren't concentrated in  galactic cores, our or someone elses.  3) If the distribution is smooth,  we are either seeing some  ENORMOUSLY large phenomena  scattered at the edge of the universe  said phenomena being subject to debate almost as vioent as the phenomena 	OR we are seeing some phenomena  out at like the Oort cloud,  but then it needs some potent little energy source,  that isn't detectable  by any other current methods.  4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.  5)  the bursts seem to bright to be something like black hole quanta or super string  impacts or something like that.  So everyone is watching the data and arguing like mad in the meanwhile.  what i am wondering,  is this in people's opinion,  A NEW Physics problem.  Einstein got well known for solvingthe photoelectric effect.     Copernicus,  started looking at  irregularities in planetary motion.  Is this a big enough problem, to create a new area of physics? just a little speculative thinking folks.
rdouglas@stsci.edu (Rob Douglas) writes:  >[...]  But try to land a shuttle with that big huge telescope in the  >back and you could have problems.  The shuttle just isn't designed to land  >with that much weight in the payload.  Is HST really _that_ much heavier than a Spacelab ???  bd
In article <10505.2BBCB8C3@nss.org>, freed@nss.org (Bev Freed) writes: >I was wondering if the FAQ files could be posted quarterly rather than monthly >.  Every 28-30 days, I get this bloated feeling.  Or just stick 'em on sci.space.news every 28-30 days?
In <1rls95$9aj@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers >ruin the night sky.    >Like i said,  get a vote, and create some more national parks.  which >include onobstructed air space.  You should have heard Prof. McNally , from my days as an astronomy undergraduate, denouncing photon pollution. It was easy to imagine him taking practical steps to modify the sodium lamps on the street outside Mill Hill observatory with a 12-gauge shotgun :-)  However, seriously, it is possible to limit the effects of streetlights, by adding a reflector, so that the light only illuminates the ground, which is after all where you need it. As a bonus, the power consumption required for a given illumination level is reduced. Strangely enough, astronomers often seek to lobby elected local authorities to use such lighting systems, with considerable success in the desert areas around the major US observatories. At least, thats what McNally told us, all those years ago. ( British local authorities couldn`t care less, as far as I can see )  I suppose that the "right" to dark skies is no more than an aspiration, but it is a worthwhile one. Illuminated orbital billboards seem especially yukky, and are presumably in the area of international law, if any, although I do find the idea of a right to bear anti-satellite weapons intriguing.
In article <1pfiuh$64e@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:  >If the japanese are really going for Nukes, why not go with better >technology then we have.  AS opposed to BWR/PWRs  have they really >considered some of the 3rd generation Inherently safe designs.  The Japanese are still on the learning curve as far as nuclear power goes. This means that unlike the Germans (who do great things all by themselves) the Japanese tie up with foreign companies. The major one is Mitsubishi (who else) who have a sharing agreement with GE I think. No chance of a new design.  >Sodium has lots of chemical problems but it really solves design >difficulties.  Or the inherently safe types.  Sodium has *lots* of chemical problems. Like it eats stainless steel. Very slowly but it gets there in the end. Not what I call a desired property. As for design difficulties, what does sodium do there? It is a bitch and it is only its chemical properties (flwed though they are) that means it gets used. Two loops? That's not a design problem? Isolation from air and water? That doesn't cause design problems? In comparison BWR's a dream rides!  >PWR's work real good,  but they need lots of steel,  and they are highly >complex systems.  Simplicity is a virtue.  Don't get none of that in a Liquid Sodium Breeder! More steel, more complexity.  Joseph Askew
In article <1r54to$oh@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >The question i have about the proton, is  could it be  handled at >one of KSC's spare pads, without major  malfunction,  or could it be >handled at kourou  or Vandenberg?     Seems like a lot of trouble to go to. Its probably better to    invest in newer launch systems. I don't think a big cost advantage for using Russian systems will last for very long (maybe a few years).  Lockheed would be the place to ask, since you would probably have to buy  the Proton from them (they market the Proton world wide except Russia).  They should know a lot about the possibilities, I haven't heard them propose US launches, so I assume they looked into it and found it  unprofitable.   >Now if it uses storables,    Yes...  >then  how long would it take for the russians >to equip something at cape york?  Comparable to the Zenit I suppose, but since it looks like nothing will be built there, you might just as well pick any spot.  The message is: to launch now while its cheap and while Russia and Kazakstan are still cooperating. Later, the story may be different.
I have a nice quote that I like (or as close as I can remember it).  If I say something that you think is crazy, ask me what I mean before you think its crazy..   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..   Sorry my two cents worth. Or is it two rubles worth?  The basic quote idea is from H. Beam Pipers book "Space Vikings". Its a good book on how civilization can fall, and how it can be raised to new heights.
prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:   >4)  we know it's not real close,  like  slightly extra solar,  because >we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.  Correct, we have no parallax measurements on the bursts.  Therefore, we can't tell whether they're slightly extra solar or not!  (which means that parallax can't tell us whether or not it's real close.)
In article <734975852.F00001@permanet.org> Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes: >If anyone knows anyone else who would like to get sci.space, >but doesn't have an Internet feed (or has a cryptic Internet >feed), I would be willing to feed it to them.	  	Kudos to Mark for his generous offer, but there already exists a large (email-based) forwarding system for sci.space posts:  Space Digest. It mirrors sci.space exactly, and provides simple two-way communication.  	TO SUBSCRIBE: 	   Send the following message in the *body* (not subject) of an 	   email message:  		subscribe space John Q Public  	   to one of these addresses:  		listserv@uga 		listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu 		listserv@finhutc 		listserv@finhuc.hut.fi 		space-request@isu.isunet.edu  	   You'll receive all the posts in "digest" form once a day.  Please 	   use a listserv if you can, the "space-request" address is handled 	   manually.  	TO POST MESSAGES: 	   Send your message (with a reasonable Subject line) to:  		space@isu.isunet.edu  Questions, comments to space-request@isu.isunet.edu
On Sat, 15 May 1993 01:45:54 GMT, hansk@aie.nl (Hans Kinwel) said:  Hans> As somebody replied on whether the space shuttle is connected to Hans> Usenet: "No. Of course the main flow of information would be up, Hans> unless Henry Spencer would be aboard, in which case the main Hans> flow of information would be down."  Gene Miya says that Henry will never go aloft in the Shuttle; the payload bay isn't big enough for his chocolate chip cookies.  When Henry was here at Dryden, he was looking pretty covetously at the SR-71s and the F-104s, even though they don't have much cookie space. I guess he figured that he could manage for a short flight....
In article <C5Dz7C.J0E@visix.com> dan@visix.com (Daniel Appelquist) writes:      I'm on a fact-finding mission, trying to find out if there exists a list of    potentially world-bearing stars within 100 light years of the Sun...    Is anyone currently working on this sort of thing?  Thanks...     Dan    --   In principle, any star resembling the Sun (mass, luminosity) might have planets located in a suitable orbit. There several within 100 ly of the sun. They are single stars, for double or multiple systems might be troublesome. There's a list located at ames.arc.nasa.gov somewhere in pub/SPACE. I think it is called stars.dat. By the way, what kind of project, if I may know?  Rui --  *** Infinity is at hand!                               Rui Sousa *** If yours is big enough, grab it!                   ruca@saber-si.pt
The difficulties of a high Isp OTV include: Long transfer times (radiation damage from VanAllen belts for both  the spacecraft and OTV Arcjets or Xenon thrusters require huge amounts of power so you have to have either nuclear power source (messy, dangerous and source of radiation damage) or BIG solar arrays (sensitive to radiation, or heavy) that make attitude control and docking a big pain.  If you go solar, you have to replace the arrays every trip, with current technology. Nuclear power sources are strongly restricted by international treaty.  Refueling (even for very high Isp like xenon) is still required and] turn out to be a pain.  You either have to develop autonomous rendezvous or long range teleoperation to do docking or    ( and refueling) .  You still can't do much plane change because the deltaV required is so high!  The Air Force continues to look at doing things this way though. I suppose they are biding their time till the technology becomes available and the problems get solved.  Not impossible in principle, but hard to do and marginally cheaper than one shot rockets, at least today.  Just a few random thoughts on high Isp OTV's. I designed one once...
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:  > The first flight will be a low hover that will demonstrate a vertical > landing.  There will be no payload.  DC-X will never carry any kind  Exactly when will the hover test be done, and will any of the TV networks carry it.  I really want to see that...
In article <schumach.736495556@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: >This "reverse the polarity!" crap always bugged the hell out of me, too, >until I found an actual, live, real-life example of it working! I quote >from Aviation Week and Space Technology for 2 July 1990, page 25: > >	He [Colonel Charles F. Stirling, speaking of the problem of >	fuel bubble formation in Titan 4 Aerojet LR87 engines] said >	engineers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory had run into >	the same problem and suggested that the Air Force look at the >	effect of Aerozene 50 decomposition. The fix, now flown three >	times without incident, was to reverse the inlet and outlet >	portions of the hot gas cooler. > >! Once again, life imitates art.   How about the discussion of the STS Tether experiment.  Ran forward, it would suck energy from the Earth's magnetic field, while trivially slowing the Shuttle.  It could also have run backward -- if they ran  electricity through the tether the other way, it would have trivially propelled the Shuttle faster.  But an even better example comes to mind.  There's this electronics guy, someone like Craig Anderton or Don Lancaster.  Ten years ago he wrote about an invention of his.  He could take a light-detector, run current through it at about a hundred times its rating, and it would glow.  He got legal rights to this design of a combination "fiber optic emitter/receiver".  This turned out to be the basic unit of ATT's  (I think) plan to bring Brazil's communications system into the 21st century.  (The article was mostly about his legal wranglings with the company that eventually got him well-compensated for his invention.)
Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote: : THe limit on space-walking is a function of suit supplies (MASS) : and Orbiter Duration.     : In order to perform the re-boost of the HST, the OMS engines : will be fired for a long period.  Now the shuttle is a heavy : thing.  THe HST isn't light either.  THe amount of OMS fuel : needed to fly both up is substantial.   a small booster : carried up and used to boost HST on it's own will weigh significantly : less then the OMS fuel required to Boost  both HST and SHUttle, : for a given orbital change.    : From what i understand,  the mass margins on the HST missions are : tight enough they can't even carry extra Suits or MMU's.  : pat  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.
In article <844@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:  >	Ok, so how about the creation of oil producing bacteria?  I figure >that if you can make them to eat it up then you can make them to shit it. >Any comments?  Sure.  Why keep using oil?  A hydrogen/electric economy would likely be cleaner and more efficient in the long run.  The laws of supply and demand should get the transition underway before we reach a critical stage of shortage.
Hi Folks not exactly certain if this is the best place to ask, but I am searching for a summer internship in engineering.  I will be graduating in early  May with a B.S. in aerospace engineering and then pursuing my Masters this Fall .Does anyone know of anything that is available, I am in the process of applyi ng to some of the larger companies (ie. MacDac, Martin Marietta, Lockheed.  If a nyone knows of anything I would appreciate it if you could mail it to me.  Thanks in advance
Any comments on the absorbtion of the Office of Exploration into the Office of Space Sciences and the reassignment of Griffin to the "Chief Engineer" position?  Is this just a meaningless administrative shuffle, or does this bode ill for SEI?  In my opinion, this seems like a Bad Thing, at least on the surface. Griffin seemed to be someone who was actually interested in getting things done, and who was willing to look an innovative approaches to getting things done faster, better, and cheaper.  It's unclear to me whether he will be able to do this at his new position.  Does anyone know what his new duties will be? -- _______________________________________________________________________________
higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:  >snydefj@eng.auburn.edu (Frank J. Snyder) writes:  >> I am looking for any information concerning projects involving Solar >>  Sails. [...] >> Are there any groups out there currently involved in such a project ?  Bill says ...  >Also there is a nontechnical book on solar sailing by Louis Friedman, >a technical one by a guy whose name escapes me (help me out, Josh),  I presume the one you refer to is "Space Sailing" by Jerome L. Wright.  He  worked on solar sails while at JPL and as CEO of General Astronautics.  I'll furnish ordering info upon request.  The Friedman book is called "Starsailing: Solar Sails and Interstellar Travel." It was available from the Planetary Society a few years ago, I don't know if it still is.
In <jgladu-290493130832@128.249.27.63> jgladu@bcm.tmc.edu (grungy) writes:  >In article <1993Apr29.064347.15433@wisipc.weizmann.ac.il>, >ward@pashosh.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (Ward Paul) wrote: >> If you want people to back the space program it must be a good thing in >> and of itself.  >I think we *should* tell them about the things that they are using now that >are spinoffs of the space program.  That is the only way you can *prove* >its worth to *them* - and they vote and pay taxes too.  The continued >existence of the space program relies upon that money.  I have to agree with Ward.  The problem with your approach is they add up what you can reasonably claim as 'spin-offs', add up what's been spent on space, and then come back with something like, "You spent $X billion for that?  Wouldn't it be better just to spend the money on direct research and forget all this space stuff?  We could have got all that stuff a *lot* cheaper that way.  Space is wasteful and inefficient."  Then they cancel your funding and spend it studying mating rituals of New Guinea tribesmen or something.  --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden