waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
The most current orbital elements from the NORAD two-line element sets are carried on the Celestial BBS, (513) 427-0674, and are updated daily (when possible).  Documentation and tracking software are also available on this system.  As a service to the satellite user community, the most current elements for the current shuttle mission are provided below.  The Celestial BBS may be accessed 24 hours/day at 300, 1200, 2400, 4800, or 9600 bps using 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.  Element sets (also updated daily), shuttle elements, and some documentation and software are also available via anonymous ftp from archive.afit.af.mil (129.92.1.66) in the directory pub/space.  STS 56      1 22621U 93 23  A 93105.06179397  .00044513  00000-0  12649-3 0   230 2 22621  57.0022 147.2850 0004246 288.7332  38.0941 15.92991629  1084 1993 023B   1 22623U 93 23  B 93103.37312705  .00041032  00000-0  11888-3 0    86 2 22623  57.0000 155.1150 0004422 293.4650  66.5967 15.92653917   803
In article <1r6f3a$2ai@news.umbc.edu> rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes: >how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year. >Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles. >Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below >the arctic circle.    If you want to have some fun.  Plug the basic formulas  into Lotus.  Use the spreadsheet auto re-calc,  and graphing functions to produce  bar graphs  based on latitude,  tilt  and hours of day light avg.
In article <1993Apr27.092444.27199@ee.ubc.ca>, davem@ee.ubc.ca (Dave Michelson) wrote: >  > In article <1ralibINNc0f@cbl.umd.edu> mike@starburst.umd.edu (Michael F. Santangelo) writes: > >dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock) writes: > > > >...text of options "A" and "B" deleted... > > > >>Option C - Single Core Launch Station. > >>This is the JSC lead option. Basically, you take a 23 ft diameter > >>cylinder that's 92 ft long, slap 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines on > >>the backside, put a nose cone on the top, attached it to a  > >>regular shuttle external tank and a regular set of solid rocket > >>motors, and launch the can. Some key features are: > >>  - Complete end-to-end ground integration and checkout > >>  - 4 tangentially mounted fixed solar panels > >>  - body mounted radiators (which adds protection against > >>    micrometeroid & orbital debris) > >>  - 2 centerline docking ports (one on each end) > >>  - 7 berthing ports > >>  - a single pressurized volume, approximately 26,000 cubic feet > >>    (twice the volume of skylab). > >>  - 7 floors, center passageway between floors > >>  - 10 kW of housekeeping power > > > >Somehow I have a strange attraction for this idea (living in > >a modular home maybe has altered my mind).  The only thing > >that scares me is the part about simply strapping 3 SSME's and > >a nosecone on it and "just launching it."  I have this vision > >of something going terribly wrong with the launch resulting in the > >complete loss of the new modular space station (not just a peice of > >it as would be the case with staged in-orbit construction). >  > I certainly like this "Option C"...  It's much more like the original > Phase B studies from the early 1970's.  Good stuff!  This is actually more like the stuff from Phase A and MOL....Phase B ended with a "Power Tower" approach....
On Tue, 6 Apr 1993 02:19:59 GMT, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) said:  Phil> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:  >On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:  >Pat> In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu> Pat> >nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Question is can someone give me 10 >examples of direct NASA/Space related >research that helped humanity >in general? It will be interesting to see..  >Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.  I think they also pushed Hi Tech Pat> >Composites for airframes.  Look at Fly by Wire.  >Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits.  Phil> Didn't one of the early jet fighters have these?  I also think Phil> the germans did some work on these in WWII.  The NACA came up with them before World War II.  NASA is directly descended from the NACA, with space added in.  You'll notice that I didn't mention sweep wings even though the X-5, tested at what's now Dryden, had them.  We did steal that one dirctly from the Germans.  The difference is that swept wings don't change their angle of sweep, sweep wings do.  Perhaps the similarity of names has caused some confusion?  747s have swept wings, F-111s have sweep wings.  >Winglets.  Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.  Phil> A lot of this was also done by the military...  After NASA aerodynamicists proposed them and NASA test teams demonstrated them.  Richard Whitcomb and R.T. Jones, at Langley Research Center, were giants in the field.  Dryden was involved in the flight testing of winglets and area ruling (in the 70s and 50s, respectively).  It's true that we used military aircraft as the testbeds (KC-135 and YF-102) but that had more to do with availability and need than with military involvement.  The YF-102 was completely ours and the KC-135 was bailed to us.  The Air Force, of course, was interested in our results and supportive of our efforts.  Dryden flew the first digital fly by wire aircraft in the 70s. No mechnaical or analog backup, to show you how confident we were. General Dynamics decided to make the F-16 flyby-wire when they saw how successful we were.  (Mind you, the Avro Arrow and the X-15 were both fly-by-wire aircraft much earlier, but analog.)  Phil> Egad! I'm disagreeing with Mary Shafer!    The NASA habit of acquiring second-hand military aircraft and using them for testbeds can make things kind of confusing.  On the other hand, all those second-hand Navy planes give our test pilots a chance to fold the wings--something most pilots at Edwards Air Force Base can't do.
On Thu, 22 Apr 1993 04:54:03 GMT, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu said:  nsmca> So some of my ideas are a bit odd, off the wall and such, but nsmca> so was Wilbur and Orville Wright, and quite a few others..  This is a common misconception.  There was nothing "off the wall" about the Wright Brothers.  They were in correspondance with a number of other experimenters (Octave Chanute, Lillienthal, etc), they flew models, they had a wind tunnel.  In short, they were quite mainstream and were not regarded as odd or eccentric by the community.  I suggest you read The Bishop's Boys or the biography by Harry Gates? Combs?  (I can never remember which it is--the guy that had the FBOs and owned Learjet for a while).  These are both in print and easily obtainable.  The Bishop's Boys is in trade paperback, even.  Even better would be the multi-volume set of the Wrights' writings, but this is out of print, rare, and hideously expensive.
First, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Hey, that's me!) wrote: : : I have 19 (2 MB worth!) uuencode'd GIF images contain charts outlining : : one of the many alternative Space Station designs being considered in : : Crystal City.  [...]  Second, kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (me again) wrote: : I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu. : You can retrieve them from: :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode01.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode02.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode03.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode04.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode05.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode06.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode07.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode08.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode09.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode10.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode11.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode12.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode13.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode14.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode15.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode16.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geode17.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeA.gif :   ics.uci.edu:incoming/geodeB.gif  : The last two are scanned color photos; the others are scanned briefing : charts.  : These will be deleted by the ics.uci.edu system manager in a few days, : so now's the time to grab them if you're interested.  Sorry it took : me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server, : but it's out of space.  But now I need to clarify the situation.  The "/incoming" directory on ics.uci.edu does NOT allow you to do an "ls" command.  The files are there (I just checked on 04/28/93 at 9:35 CDT), and you can "get" them (don't forget the "binary" mode!), but you can't "ls" in the "/incoming" directory.  A further update: Mark's design made the cover of Space News this week as one of the design alternatives which was rejected.  But he's still in there plugging.  I wish him luck -- using ET's as the basis of a Space Station has been a good idea for a long time.  May the best design win.  -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
nicho@vnet.IBM.COM (Greg Stewart-Nicholls) writes:  >In <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes: >>It is so typical that the rights of the minority are extinguished by the >>wants of the majority, no matter how ridiculous those wants might be. > Umm, perhaps you could explain what 'rights' we are talking about >here .. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- >Greg Nicholls ...         : Vidi >nicho@vnet.ibm.com or     : Vici >nicho@olympus.demon.co.uk : Veni  I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.  Let me give you an example.  When you watch TV, they have commercials to pay for the programming.  You accept that as part of watching.  If you don't like it, you can turn it off.  If you want to view the night sky, and there is a floating billboard out there, you can't turn it off.  It's the same  reasoning that limits billboards in scenic areas.  Pat writes: George.  	It's called a democracy.  The majority rules.  sorry. If ytou don't like it, I suggest you modify the constitution to include a constitutional right to Dark Skies.   The theory of government here is that the majority rules,  except in the nature of fundamental civil rights.  I say:  	Any reasonably in-depth perusal of American history will show 	you that many WASPs have continued the practices of prejudice, 	discrimination, and violence against others of different 	races, religions, and beliefs, despite the law.  Pat says: If you really are annoyed,   get some legislation to create a dark sky zone,  where in all light emissions are protected in the zone.  Kind of like the national radio quiet zone.  Did you know about that?  near teh Radio telescope  observatory in West virginia, they have a 90?????? mile EMCON zone.  Theoretically they can prevent you from running light AC motors, like air conditioners and Vacuums. In practice, they use it mostly to  control  large radio users.  I say: What I'm objecting to here is a floating billboard that, presumably, would move around in the sky.  I, for one, am against legislating at all.  I just wish that people had a bit of common courtesy, and would consider how their greed for money impacts the more ethereal and aesthetic values that make us human.  This includes the need for wild and unspoiled things, including the night sky.  George
In <C4tCL8.7xI.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:   >[Fred saying that gov coercive poser is necessary for any space program]  >I reply; >>>BTW, Fred, you've really crossed the border, since you admit that the ideas >>>you support can only be carried out with coercive power.  Now that's really >>>f***in' intolerant, so get off yer high horse about tolerance.  >Fred replies; >>No, Tommy, I "admit" that there are such things as 'market failures' >>which necessitate intervention by other than capitalist forces to >>correct.  >I guess your understanding of this 'market failure' should be classified >under Phil's 'economics on the level of 19th century medicine', since you >apparently completely ignored that this 'market failure' can as easily, >or even much more easily, be attributed to "government intervention >failure".  So, in addition to a strong moral argument against what you >propose, there is also a strong utilitarian argument, namely that gov's >destruction of wealth through confiscastory taxation and redistribution >on a major scale has made significant private capital investments harder >to make.  I note that you make no such case as you claim can be 'even more easily made'.  Yes, the argument can (and has) been made that current government policy creates even larger market barriers than there were in the first place, but there is no such term as 'government failure', since the government can change policies whenever it pleases.  The market doesn't do that and is governed by (relatively) well-understood forces.  This libertopican bilge about 'moral arguments' about taxation, etc., is, at bottom, so much simplistic economic thinking. It can only be 'justified' by cliche derision of anyone who knows more about economics than the libertopian -- which is what invariably happens.  Tripe a la Tommy, the new libertopian dish.  >>Get a clue, little boy, and go salve your wounded pride in my not >>considering you infallible in some other fashion.  I'm not interested >>in your ego games.  >Puh-leese, Fred.  This, besides being simply an attempt to be insulting, >really belongs on private mail.  If 'ego-games' are so unimportatnt to >you, why the insults and this strange negative attatchment for me?  Wherever do you get this inflated idea of your own importance?  --  "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 <1993Apr15.204210.26022@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes: > >There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah, >this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.  Damn!  So it was YOU who was drinking beer with ROBERT McELWANE in the PARKING LOT of the K-MART!  				UNLIMITED INSEMINATION OF THIS MESSAGE 					RIGIDLY REFUSED
prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:   >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?  >pat
In <C65FDw.E8E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes: >According to this reasoning there are no rights, at least none that I can think >of.... >   You've got it. What you regard as a right, someone else will regard as a privilege. Followups to some generic ethics and morality newsgroup ....
In article <bill.047m@xpresso.UUCP> bill@xpresso.UUCP (Bill Vance) writes: >It has been known for quite a while that the earth is actually more pear >shaped than globular/spherical.  Does anyone make a "globe" that is accurate >as to actual shape, landmass configuration/Long/Lat lines etc.?  I don't think you're going to be able to see the differences from a sphere unless they are greatly exaggerated.  Even the equatorial bulge is only about 1 part in 300 -- you'd never notice a 1mm error in a 30cm globe -- and the other deviations from spherical shape are much smaller.
In article <1993Apr15.131954.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:  >Reid, alas, gives us no measure of the "power/influence" of readers... >Sorry, Mark.  I think I can. Largely as a result of efforts by people reading this group writing letters and making phone calls the following has happened:  1. NASA reprogrammed funds to keep NASP alive in 1991. 2. Efforts to kill DC-X and the SSRT progam where twice twarted    (Feb. and June of last year). 3. Gouldin kept his job in spite of heavy lobbying against him.  This may not be what Mark was thinking of but it shows that the readers of sci.space DO have power and influence.    Allen
In article <1993Apr17.053333.15696@sfu.ca> Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca> writes: >... a high explosive Orion prototype flew (in the atmosphere) in San >Diego back in 1957 or 1958...   I feel sure >that someone must have film of that experiment, and I'd really like to >see it. Has anyone out there seen it?  The National Air & Space Museum has both the prototype and the film. When I was there, some years ago, they had the prototype on display and the film continuously repeating.
Well,  you better not get the shuttle as your launch vehicle.  and most ELV's have too  far of a backlog for political messages.  If during the campaign season,  the candidates for president had launched one,  right around now we'd  be getting a launch for PEROT 92.  and if they had used the shuttle,  we'd be seeing launches for NIXON now more then ever.
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.. > You think this is crazy. Well in a way it is, but in a way it is reality. >  > There is a billin the congress to do just that.. Basically to make it so > expensive to mine minerals in the US, unless you can by off the inspectors or > tax collectors.. ascially what I understand from talking to a few miner friends  > of mine, that they (the congress) propose to have a tax on the gross income of > the mine, versus the adjusted income, also the state governments have there > normal taxes. So by the time you get done, paying for materials, workers, and > other expenses you can owe more than what you made. > BAsically if you make a 1000.00 and spend 500. ofor expenses, you can owe > 600.00 in federal taxes.. Bascially it is driving the miners off the land.. And > the only peopel who benefit are the eco-freaks..  >  > Basically to get back to my beginning statement, is space is the way to go > cause it might just get to expensive to mine on earth because of either the > eco-freaks or the protectionist..  > Such fun we have in these interesting times.. >  > == > Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked  The current mining regulations and fees were set in the 1800's! What the so-called "eco-freaks" want to do is to simply bring those fees in line with current economic reality.  Currently, mining companies can get access to minerals on public lands for ridiculously low prices -- something like $50!  The mining lobby has for decades managed to block any reform of these outdated fees.  In fact, the latest attempt to reform them was again blocked -- President Clinton "compromised" by taking the mining fee reforms out of his '94 budget, and plans to draft separate legislation to fight that battle. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you take this to talk.environment.
In article <1qk4qf$mf8@male.EBay.Sun.COM> almo@packmind.EBay.Sun.COM writes: >Hey!? What happened to the solar sail race that was supposed to be >for Columbus+500?  There was a recession, and none of the potential entrants could raise any money.  The race organizers were actually supposed to be handling part of the fundraising, but the less said about that the better.
> Portugese launch complex were *wonderful  Portuguese launch complex??? Gosh.... Polish are for American in the  same way as Portuguese are for Brazilians (I am from Brazil). There is  a joke about the Portuguese Space Agency that wanted to send a  Portuguese  astronaut to the surface of the Sun (if there is such a thing). How did they solve all problems of sending a man to the surface of the  Sun??? Simple... their astronauts travelled during the night...   C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV  C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov
In article <schumach.736263860@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com  (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:  > In <1rs0au$an6@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >  >>How different would the contamination threat of a small manuevering tug >>be from that of the Shuttle and it's OMS engines?????? >  > The aperture door will be shut during reboost. Using the shuttle > means that there will be someone nearby to pry the door open again  > if it should stick. >   Well, no, during the original deployment mission the HST aperture door was not opened until after the Shuttle had landed.    I presume that during a re-boost mission HST would be berthed in the orbiter with the orbiter bay doors shut; but still there would be lots of contamination worries.  I understand that the EVA suits are one of the hardest things to  keep clean.  But I still don't know where the idea is coming from that HST _NEEDS_ a re-boost.  We have many problems but our orbit is the least of them.  There is certainly no plan to change the orbit in the first servicing mission in December.
Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager                          MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT                             April 16, 1993  1.  The Magellan mission at Venus continues normally, gathering gravity data which provides measurement of density variations in the upper mantle which can be correlated to surface topography.  Spacecraft performance is nominal.  2.  Magellan has completed 7225 orbits of Venus and is now 39 days from the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the Transition Experiment.  3.  No significant activities are expected next week, as preparations for aerobraking continue on schedule.
There are actually only two of us.  I do Henry, Fred, Tommy and Mary.  Oh yeah, this isn't my real name, I'm a bald headed space baby.
In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes: > >Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used >to compute sunrise and sunset times. > >Joe Wetstein  There is a wonderful book by Jean Meeus called "Astronomical Algorithms," (1991) which I am fairly sure contains an algorithm for sunrise and sunset times.   Dan Asimov Mail Stop T045-1 NASA Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
In article <1993May15.210927.23846@mri.com> paulc@mri.com (Paul Carroll) writes: >I know about the phone numbers, etc. to get Kennedy/Canaveral >launch information, but is there any equivalent way of finding out >about launches at Vandenberg?  Bear in mind that a lot of the Vandenberg launch traffic is military and at least semi-secret.  They aren't interested in publicizing it beforehand.
In article <C74tLs.2sG@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes: [deleted] >To say that "visible light astronomy is already a dying field" is  >pure hokum.  To use the "logic" that things are already bad, so it doesn't >matter if it gets worse is absurd.  Maybe common sense and logic >are the dying fields. > >George Krumins >--  [deleted] Ok, so those scientists can get around the atmosphere with fancy computer algorythims, but have you looked ad the Hubble results, the defects of the mirror are partially correctable with software (see those jupiter pictures for results), but is the effects are completely reversable, why is there going to be a shuttle mission to fix it?  The way I see it (and please, astromomers give me a swift net-kick in the butt if i'm out of the ball park), the astromers are making the best of limited possiblities, there's only one hubble, and the shuttle makes another in the near future a non-thought.  Perhaps those self same billboards could have small optical receptors of a limited kind mounted on the reverse sides of the mirror's (if that is what is used) and then the whole thing becomes a giant array telescope...  --
Has anyone heard of or Played Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space?  Does anyone know when it is expected to be released...?
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.  Right, the Profiting Caste is blessed by God, and may   freely blare its presence in the evening twilight ..