waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr15.051309.22252@stortek.com>, pg@sanitas.stortek.com (Paul Gilmartin) writes: > Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey (higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov) wrote: > : While you're at it, comet experts, explain how a comet gets into > : Jovian orbit to begin with! >  > : There are non-gravitational forces from heating and outgassing when a > : comet gets into the inner solar system.  [...] >  > Don't forget the Galilean satellites of Jupiter.      My poor old physics intuition will be very surprised if these tiny  masses, sitting very close to Jupiter, play any role whatsoever in the  problem.   Or, to put it more technically, the extra "volume" they add  to the phase space of possible capture trajectories is negligible.    Jupiter is 2E27 kg, while the Galilean satellites are around 1E23.    Also, as I said, the few references that I've looked at do not  mention outgassing or breakup as important processes.  The important  thing is a Jupiter-Sun-comet "reverse slingshot" that leads to a  weakly Jupiter-bound orbit for the comet (at least a temporary one).
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:  >|>Report called it The Science of Order, but that's probably pomposity.  >|It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration >|of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important >|insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does >|tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract >|deductive field.  >How do you do experiments in mathematics? Well ... Have a look at a new journal: Journal of Experimental Mathematics It has several Fields medallists on its editorial board. You want to knwo more? Try Klaus Peters in Boston or David Epstein at Warwick .
In article <C6BDIo.K7C@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes: >rbunge@access.digex.net (Robert Bunge) writes: > >It's vandalism because many people -- power companies -- do maliciously waste light.  > >"maliciously" implies evil intent.  The lighting companies aren't going out >of their way to spoil the sky.  They just don't care. > >>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. > >It is the responsibility of the customer to choose the most efficient hardware. >If that's what your city will buy, that's what the lighting company will sell. >Write a letter to city hall.  That's fine idea, but it only works if the lighting/power company even bothers to supply good light fixtures.  For instance, a power company in Virginia  recently asked a state commission for permission to sell more lights of various type.  Yet, all of the different fixture that they sold and wanted to sell were bad designs - one that wasted the light.  Thus, you couldn't even buy a good light from them.  In most places, to get a good light, you have to either order it special at high cost or call a store in Arizona.  At some point, society starts to make rules.  Cars have to pass safety tests.   Companies have to meet pollution standards, etc..  There are two ways to achieve this:  educate the public so that they demand good lighting or force code down the lighting companies backs.  History seems to suggest that the latter is more likely to work.  > >Please note that I'm not defending light pollution.  The orignial focus of  >this thread was space based light sources. > Agreed, so I won't respond again.  It's important for all you spacers out  there to realize that some people will object to various wild ideas that  have been presented.  Just like Congress, it would be best to consult the astronomers/lovers of the night sky before you try some PR stunt to boost public knowledge about space. > >--  >Josh Hopkins                                          jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu >		    "Find a way or make one." >	             -attributed to Hannibal
In article <1993Apr25.151108.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > I like option C of the new space station design..  > It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant.. >  > Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex... >  > Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for > it.. >  > Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to..  >  > Where is Captain Eugenia(sp) when you need it (reference to russian heavy > lifter, I think). > == > Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked >  >  >  >
In article <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:     Nick Haines sez;    >(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in    >maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).     Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never    heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?  This is a rating system used by ARPA and other organisations to measure the maturity of a `software process' i.e. the entire process by which software gets designed, written, tested, delivered, supported etc.  See `Managing the Software Process', by Watts S. Humphrey, Addison Wesley 1989. An excellent software engineering text. The 5 levels of software process maturity are:  1. Initial 2. Repeatable 3. Defined 4. Managed 5. Optimizing  The levels are approximately characterized as follows:  1. no statistically software process control. Have no statistical    basis for estimating how large software will be, how long it will    take to produce, how expensive it will be, or how reliable it will    be.  Most software production is at this level.  2. stable process with statistical controls, rigorous project    management; having done something once, can do it again. Projects    are planned in detail, and there is software configuration    management and quality assurance.  3. The process is defined and understood, implementation is    consistent. This includes things like software inspection, a    rigorous software testing framework, more configuration management,    and typically a `software engineering process group' within the    project.  4. Statistical information on the software is systematically gathered    and analysed, and the process is controlled on the basis of this    information. Software quality is measured and has goals.  5. Defects are prevented, the process is automated, software contracts    are effective and certified.
In article <stephens.737384293@ngis> stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: |had.'  and went on to mention that in aviation if you are found |with an adjustable spanner in your tool box you can be fired. An |adjustable spanner by trying to fit all nuts, fits none of them |properly, and so damages all of them. In the demanding environment of |the air the adjustable wrench is rightly considered a lethal instrument.   Dave,  	What i recall from air craft maintence.  Torqque  and safety wires or cotters  were more important, then if some bolt face were nicked up.  If it was in bad shape you replaced it with another $30,  aircraft grade bolt.  I can see adjustable spanners eating up profit,  but lives?
> According to the person I talked to, the proposed "billboard" > will be too small to resolve with the naked eye -- so small > and visually unimportant...  >  >   Anyway, he suggested that the > visual impact would approximate that of a jumbo jet > at 45k feet (12km) altitude.  ----------
For an essay, I am writing about the space shuttle and a need for a better propulsion system.  Through research, I have found that it is rather clumsy  (i.e. all the checks/tests before launch), the safety hazards ("sitting on a hydrogen bomb"), etc..  If you have any beefs about the current space shuttle program Re: propulsion, please send me your ideas.  Thanks a lot.
In article <C65o4t.A7o@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own >recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the >(night) sky as seen from space? > >Note, I am *not* talking about the temperature of the Microwave Background >Radiation.  There are more things in the sky than just the MBR; what I'm >after is total blackbody temperature -- what a thermal radiator would see, >disregarding (or shielding against) the Sun and nearby large warm objects. >My dim recollection is that the net effective temperature is substantially >higher than that of the MBR, once you figure in things like stars and the >zodiacal light, but I'd like numbers. >--  >SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry  It's not quite what you were asking, but a few years ago I helped some EE remote sensing people run some experiments on the microwave emmissivity of ice; they used the sky for a background calibration source.  They said that from Earth's surface the sky looks like a 60K blackbody.
I am taking a course entitled "Exploring Science Using Internet". For our final project, we are to find a compendium of Internet resources  dealing with a science-related topic. I chose Astronomy. Anyway, I was  wondering if anyone out there knew of any interesting resources on Internet that provide information on Astronomy, space, NASA, or anything like that.  THANKS!
In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes: >If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it, >then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done >here?  The forces and accelerations involved in doing a little bit of orbital maneuvering with HST aboard are much smaller than those involved in reentry, landing, and re-launch.  The OMS engines aren't very powerful; they don't have to be.
I like option C of the new space station design..  It needs some work, but it is simple and elegant..  Its about time someone got into simple construction versus overly complex...  Basically just strap some rockets and a nose cone on the habitat and go for it..  Might be an idea for a Moon/Mars base to..
In article <1rh4rqINNi7o@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >>>You'd need to launch HLVs to send up large amounts of stuff.  Do you know  >>>of a private Titan pad?  >>Nobody who is interested in launching things cheaply will buy Titans.  It >>doesn't take many Titan pricetags to pay for a laser launcher or a large >>gas gun or a development program for a Big Dumb Booster, all of which >>would have far better cost-effectiveness. > >Henry, I made the assumption that he who gets there firstest with the mostest >wins.   Only if he doesn't spend more than a billion dollars doing it, since the prize is not going to be scaled up to match the level of effort.  You can spend a billion pretty quickly buying Titan launches.  What's more, if you buy Titans, the prize money is your entire return on investment.  If you develop a new launch system, it has other uses, and the prize is just the icing on the cake.  I doubt very much that a billion-dollar prize is going to show enough return to justify the investment if you are constrained to use current US launchers.  (There would surely be a buy-American clause in the rules for such a prize, since it would pretty well have to be government-funded.) You're going to *have* to invest your front money in building a new launch system rather than pissing it away on existing ones.  Being there first is of no importance if you go bankrupt doing it.  >... could I get a couple of CanadARMs tuned for the lunar environment?  I >wanna do some teleoperated prospecting while I'm up there...  I'm sure Spar would offer to develop such a lunar-tuned system and deliver a couple of them to you for only a couple of hundred million dollars.
In article <pgf.735012282@srl03.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: |> rls@uihepa.hep.uiuc.edu (Ray Swartz (Oh, that guy again)) writes: |>  |> >The gravity maneuvering that was used was to exploit 'fuzzy regions'.  These |> >are described by the inventor as exploiting the second-order perturbations in a |> >three body system.  The probe was launched into this region for the |> >earth-moon-sun system, where the perturbations affected it in such a way as to |> >allow it to go into lunar orbit without large expenditures of fuel to slow |> >down. The idea is that 'natural objects sometimes get captured without |> >expending fuel, we'll just find the trajectory that makes it possible". The |> >originator of the technique said that NASA wasn't interested, but that Japan |> >was because their probe was small and couldn't hold a lot of fuel for |> >deceleration. |>  |>  |> I should probably re-post this with another title, so that |> the guys on the other thread would see that this is a practical |> use of "temporary orbits..." |>  |> Another possible temporary orbit: |>  |> -- |> Phil Fraering         |"Seems like every day we find out all sorts of stuff. |> pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|Like how the ancient Mayans had televison." Repo Man |>  |>   If you are really interested in these orbits and how they are obtained you should try and find the following paper:       Hiroshi Yamakawa, Jun'ichiro Kawaguchi, Nobuaki Ishii,       and Hiroki Matsuo, "A Numerical Study of Gravitational Capture      Orbit in the Earth-Moon System," AAS-92-186, AAS/AIAA Spaceflight      Mechanics Meeting, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 1992.  The references included in this paper are quite interesting also and  include several that are specific to the HITEN mission itself.
In article <C5y4t7.9w3@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.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.   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.   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.
>because of his doubtfull credibility as an astronomer. Modern,  >ground-based, visible light astronomy (what these proposed >orbiting billboards would upset) is already a dying field: The  Ahh, perhaps that's why we've (astronomers) have just built *2* 10-meter ground-based scopes and are studying designs for larger ones. Seriously, though, you're never going to get a 10-meter scope into orbit as cheaply as you can build one on the ground, and with adaptive optics and a good site, the difference in quality is narrowed quite a bit anyway.  Also, scopes in low orbit (like Hubble) can only observe things continuously for ~45 minutes at a time, which can be a serious limitation.  >opacity and distortions caused by the atmosphere itself have >driven most of the field to use radio, far infrared or space-based >telescopes. In any case, a bright point of light passing through >the field doesn't ruin observations. If that were the case, the  I sure as hell does if the 'point of light' is half a degree in extent and as bright as the moon.  Have you ever noticed how much brighter the night sky is on a moonlit night?   >thousands of existing satellites would have already done so (satelliets >might not seem so bright to the eyes, but as far as astronomy is concerned, >they are extremely bright.)  Existing satellites *are* points of light, but an advertising sign that appeared as a point would be useless, so I rather think these will appear larger than a 'typical' satellite.  Also, satellite tracks *are* ruining lots of plates in the current Palomar Sky Survey. > >                                             Frank Crary >                                             CU Boulder  What deparment are you in anyway, Philosophy?  You obviously are not qualified to speak about astronomy...
Apologies if this gets posted twice, but I don't think the first one made it. --------------------------------------------------------------------    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE           Contact:  OASIS (310) 364-2290     15 April 1993                                Los Angeles, CA       LOCAL NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY CHAPTERS SPONSOR TALK BY L.A.   ADVOCATE OF LUNAR POWER SYSTEM AS ENERGY SOURCE FOR THE WORLD     On April 21, the OASIS and Ventura County chapters of the National  Space Society will sponsor a talk by Lunar Power System (LPS) co- inventor and vice-president of the LPS Coalition, Dr. Robert D. Waldron.  It will be held at 7:30 p.m. at the Rockwell Science Center in Thousand Oaks, CA.     Dr. Waldron is currently a Technical Specialist in Space Materials Processing with the Space Systems Division of Rockwell International in Downey, California.  He is a recognized world authority on lunar materials refinement.  He has written or coauthored more than 15 articles or reports on nonterrestrial materials processing or utilization.  Along with Dr. David Criswell, Waldron invented the lunar/solar power system concept.     Momentum is building for a coalition of entrepreneurs, legal experts, and Soviet and U.S. scientists and engineers to build the Lunar Power System, a pollution-free, energy source with a potential to power the globe.     For the past three years members of the coalition, nearly half from California, have rejuvenated the commercial and scientific concept of a solar power system based on the Moon.     The LPS concept entails collecting solar energy on the lunar surface and beaming the power to Earth as microwaves transmitted through orbiting antennae.  A mature LPS offers an enormous source of clean, sustainable power to meet the Earth's ever increasing demand using proven, basic technology.     OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization) is the Greater Los Angeles chapter of the National Space Society, which is an international non-profit organization that promotes development of the space frontier. The Ventura County chapter is based in Oxnard, CA.         WHERE:  Rockwell Science Center Auditorium, 1049 Camino                Dos Rios, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Could someone please send me the basics of the NASP project: 1. The proposal/objectives 2. The current status of the project/obstacles encountered 3. Chance that the project shall ever be completed or any other interesting information about this project.  Any help will be much appreciated
In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU>, richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes:   >  (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Does anyone have a reference (something I can look up, not just your own >> recollections -- I have a few of those myself) on the temperature of the >> (night) sky as seen from space? >> >  >    Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody > in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'), > what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient > radiation field?" >  >    If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and  > molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far > from being blackbodies.  Many different observations, including IRAS > and COBE, have determined that interstellar dust grain temperatures > can range from 40K to 150K.    Yes, but that's because interstellar grains are very poor radiators, not remotely black bodies.  As a consequence they are a lot warmer than the "ambient".   >    Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit > from place to place (how close are you to the nearest OB association, > I would guess).  Outside the galaxy, of course, things aren't so  > varied. >   When I was in graduate school, a long time ago, we used 10,000 deg K with a DILUTION FACTOR of 10+4 for representative values of the radiant energy background in the galaxy due to starlight.
In article <C74rAn.4qA@ucdavis.edu> ez012344@hamlet.ucdavis.edu (Dan Herrin) writes: > >[Space ad proposed] > >This is undoubtedly the sickest thing to come down the marketing pipe >in years, and the best reason for resurrecting the "Star Wars" killer >satellite system. > >Dan >  Why don't you activist guys cut misc.invest out of this thread? They didn't offer any shares for sale yet...
Did the Russian spacecraft(s) on the ill-fated Phobos mission a few years ago send back any images of the Martian moon?  If so, does anyone know if they're housed at an ftp site?   Thanks.
From: Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org >  > COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22 >  > 7- ANOTHER PEGASUS COMPETITOR IS ANNOUNCED > [..] > Tsniimach Enterprise is described as a ex-military  > establishment, focusing on aerodynamics and thermal protection  > of spacecraft and which has participated in the development of  > the Buran shuttle system,  They are located near the NPO Energia  > facility in Kaliningrad, outside of Moscow.   If this facility is in Kaliningrad, this is not near Moscow, it is in fact the ex-East Prussian Konigsberg, now a Russian enclave on the Baltic coast.  It is served by ships and rail,  and the intrepid traveller in Europe would find it accessible  and might even want to try to arrange a tour (??).  * Fred Baube (tm)         *  In times of intellectual ferment, * baube@optiplan.fi       * advantage to him with the intellect * #include <disclaimer.h> * most fermented * May '68, Paris: It's Retrospective Time !!
kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov writes:  >: In article <1993Apr30.000050.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >: >Why not build a inflatable space dock.  [discussion of pros and cons deleted]  >These are some of the technical difficulties which the LLNL proposal >for an inflatable space station dealt with to varying degrees of >success.  Could someone give me the references to the LLNL proposal?  I've been meaning to track it down in conjuntion with something I'm working on.  It's not  directly related to space stations, but I think many of the principles will  carry over.
In article <C5w5F8.3LC.1@cs.cmu.edu> nickh@CS.CMU.EDU (Nick Haines) writes: > >Would they buy it, given that it's a _lot_ more expensive, and not >much more impressive, than putting a large set of several-km >inflatable billboards in LEO (or in GEO, visible 24 hours from your >key growth market). I'll do _that_ for only $5bn (and the changes of >identity).  	I've heard of sillier things, like a well-known utility company wanting to buy an 'automated' boiler-cleaning system which uses as many operators as the old system, and which rumour has it costs three million more per unit. Automation is more 'efficient' although by what scale they are not saying...
on Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1993 23:19:46 GMT, Edmund Hack <arabia!hack> writes:  /In article <1pgdno$3t1@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: /> />I always thought GD's  Fighter plants were in Long Island.   /> /No, Northrup has a plant on Long Island.  I don't think Northrup ever had a plant on Long Island.  The two main airframe manufacturers there were (Fairchild)/Republic which closed its doors after the T-46 cancellation, and Grumman (which is still hanging on last I time I called). I think Sperry also started there.  If you're ever in the area check out the Cradle of Aviation Museum at Mitchell field (now mostly parking lots behind the Nassau Coliseum and the community college).  Good display of vehicles from Long Island, including a LEM flight article.