waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
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?  The temperature of intergalactic space (or intercluster or  intersupercluster space) would be very, very close to the microwave  background temperature, 2.73 kelvins.  I recall that in interstellar  space in our neighborhood of the galaxy it's something like 4 K.  Is that what you were looking for?
In article <1t30fu$str@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:  > In article <1993May14.163044.1@stsci.edu> dempsey@stsci.edu writes: >>This is a real world too.  You can't do science like this with out doing >>politics as well, unfortunately.  Good PR keep the $$ coming in. >> >  > "Do you know what makes rocket ships fly?  Funding, makes them fly. > No Bucks,  No Buck Rogers" :-) >  >  Ok, so you have proven you saw the right stuff.  However, as I said above, it takes politics and PR to keep the bucks coming. "No politics, no bucks, no buck rogers."   >  > 	I think you are missing the point.   If an agency has gathered some data > on something.  and once tax dollars have been spent,  the data is now > Property of the people of the US government.  The government may > charge to recover some of the cost,  or they may charge to maintain > the data,  but they cannot claim the data  is proprietary,  unless it > is classified national security data. >  Yes this may be true in the case of the SCIENCE data coming from the spacecraft and other stuff about the operations.  However, there is still stuff regarding regular operation that belongs to the company and they have ever legal right to keeping it theirs.  But this does not mean that everything can or should be swept under the umbrella of company proprietory data.   > I live down the road from NIH.  THey run studies all the time. > I can go into their  library  and  photocoppy all the raw data from > any study thev'e  done.   Just bring a roll of quarters. >  You can do the same here...you just have to wait a year.   > I'm not saying you guys don't have internal rules,  but they are > not supported by US law. >  Safeguard internal company data are indeed supported by US law.
In article <C50zxA.1K9@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <1ppm7j$ip@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: |>I thought the area rule was pioneered by Boeing. |>NASA guys developed the rule,  but no-one knew if it worked |>until Boeing built the hardware 727 and maybe the FB-111????? | |Nope.  The decisive triumph of the area rule was when Convair's YF-102 -- |contractually commmitted to being a Mach 1.5 fighter and actually found |to be incapable of going supersonic in level flight -- was turned into |the area-ruled YF-102A which met the specs.  This was well before either |the 727 or the FB-111; the 102 flew in late 1953, and Convair spent most |of the first half of 1954 figuring out what went wrong and most of the |second half building the first 102A. |--  |All work is one man's work.             | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology |                    - Kipling           |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry    Good thing i stuck in a couple of question marks up there.  I seem to recall, somebody built  or at least proposed a wasp waisetd Passenger civil transport.  I thought it was a 727,  but maybe it was a DC- 8,9???   Sure it had a funny passenger compartment, but on the other hand  it seemed to save fuel.  I thought Area rules  applied even before transonic speeds,  just not as badly.
In <1993Apr23.103038.27467@bnr.ca> agc@bmdhh286.bnr.ca (Alan Carter) writes:  >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?  The Command Loss Timer is a timer that does just what its name says; it indicates to the probe that it has lost its data link for receiving commands.  Upon expiration of the Command Loss Timer, I believe the probe starts a 'search for Earth' sequence (involving antenna pointing and attitude changes which consume fuel) to try to reestablish communications.  No-ops are sent periodically through those periods when there are no real commands to be sent, just so the probe knows that we haven't forgotten about it.  Hope that's clear enough to be comprehensible.   --  "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 <1993Apr20.142747.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu   writes: > In article <C5sB3p.IB9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss)   writes: > >    I saw in the newspaper last night that Dr. Mae Jemison, the first > > black woman in space (she's a physician and chemical engineer who flew > > on Endeavour last year) will appear as a transporter operator on the > > "Star Trek: The Next Generation" episode that airs the week of May 31. > > It's hardly space science, I know, but it's interesting. > >  > > Doug Loss >  >  > Interesting is rigth.. I wonder if they will make a mention of her being an > astronaut in the credits.. I think it might help people connect the future   of > space with the present.. And give them an idea that we must go into space.. >    A transporter operator!?!?  That better be one important transport.  Usually   it is a nameless ensign who does the job.  For such a guest appearance I would   have expected a more visible/meaningful role.  --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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    |
In article <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> gfk39017@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (George F. Krumins) writes: |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.   Sorry that's an aesthetics argument.  maybe this string shoudl mofe to sci.space.aesthetics.  Planes  ruin the night sky.  Blimps ruin the night sky.  Radio towers ruin the night sky.
In article <1993May11.200419.13494@bmerh85.bnr.ca> rivan@bnr.ca writes: >  Its seems a bit scarry to me that such a project which for the first >time in years promisses some hope in changing the current trend in >massively overpriced boosting capability, lacks much publicity...  The people involved in it have been building hardware rather than writing press releases.  This is not a high-manpower project; they don't *have* spare people sitting around.  As I understand it, there has also been some feeling on the part of some of the project management that publicity was not a good idea.  A lot of people have been working on changing this view, with some success.
In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au (Enzo Liguori) writes: ;From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research: ; ;........ ;WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC ; ;1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED? ;What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that ;it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night). ;Is NASA really supporting this junk? ;Are protesting groups being organized in the States? ;Really, really depressed. ; ;             Enzo  I wouldn't worry about it.  There's enough space debris up there that a mile-long inflatable would probably deflate in some very short period of time (less than a year) while cleaning up LEO somewhat. Sort of a giant fly-paper in orbit.  Hmm, that could actually be useful.  As for advertising -- sure, why not?  A NASA friend and I spent one drunken night figuring out just exactly how much gold mylar we'd need to put the golden arches of a certain American fast food organization on the face of the Moon.  Fortunately, we sobered up in the morning.
In article <1quh78INNf45@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov writes: >> >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... >> Great! I'll visit the National Air and Space Museum at the end of the >> month... > >Sorry to put a damper on your plans, but I was there three weeks ago and >it wasn't there.  Not that I would have known to look for it, of course, >but I combed the space exhibits pretty thoroughly and something like that >would have caught my attention instantly.  It wasn't especially prominent, as I recall.  However, quite possibly it's no longer on display; NASM, like most museums, has much more stuff than it can display at once, and does rotate the displays occasionally.
I'm replying to someone who asked for information on space camp. I have a brochure that has all different schedules. What age, what  level and what program do you want to know the schedule of? Most of the  missions are 5 to 8 days long. The address for Huntsville is:  Alabama Space Science Exhibit Commission U.S. Space and Rocket Center One Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807  - Jennifer
Original to: szabo@techbook.com G'day szabo@techbook.com  29 Mar 93 07:28, szabo@techbook.com wrote to All:   sc> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo), via Kralizec 3:713/602   sc> Here are some longer-term markets to consider:  Here are some more:  * Terrestrial illumination from orbiting mirrors.  * World enviroment and disaster monitering system. (the Japanese have already developed a plan for this, called WEDOS) Although this may be more of a "public good".  * Space tourism.  * Energy relay satellites  ta  Ralph
I found it very interesting that Atlas depended on pressure to maintain tank geometry....leads me to the question: ? have any  of the SSTO concepts explored pressurized tankage such that the launch configuration would be significantly different from the reentry one?  I have long been facinated by pnumatic structures as conceived and built by Frei Otto and others, a "ballon" tank SSTO sounds very clever.
Original to: wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM G'day wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM  20 Apr 93 18:17, wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM wrote to All:   wAC> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson), via Kralizec 3:713/602   wAC> The Apollo program cost something like $25 billion at a time when  wAC> the value of a dollar was worth more than it is now. No one would  wAC> take the offer.  If we assume 6% inflation since 1969, that $25B would be worth about $100B GD reckon a moon mission today could cost only $10B. Thats a factor of ten reduction in cost. It might be possible to reduce that number futher by using a few shortcuts ( Russian rockets?).   Asuming it gets built, I think the Delta Clipper could very well achive the goal.  ta  Ralph
In article <1rgvjsINNbhq@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) writes: >  > If gamma ray bursters are extragalactic, would absorption from the > galaxy be expected?  How transparent is the galactic core to gamma > rays? >  > How much energy does a burster put out?  I know energy depends on > distance, which is unknown.  An answer of the form _X_ ergs per > megaparsec^2 is OK. >  >  > -- >     John Carr (jfc@athena.mit.edu)         I had to turn to one of my problem sets that I did in class for this little problem.  I don't have a calculator, but I DO have the problem set that we did not too long ago, so I'll use that, and hope it's what you wanted.   This is a highly simplified problem, with a very simple burst.  Bursts are usually more complex than this example I will use here.         Our burst has a peak flux of 5.43E-6 ergs cm^-2 sec^-1 and a duration of 8.95 seconds.  During the frst second of the burst, and the last 4 seconds, its flux is half of the peak flux.  It's flux is the peak flux the rest of the time.  Assume that the background flux is 10E-7 erg cm^-2 sec^-1.         Then we had to find the integrated luminosity of the burst, for several different spheres: R=.25pc(Oort Cloud Radius), R=22.5pc(at the edge of the galaxy), R=183.5pc or the edge of the galactic corona, and lastly at a R=8800Mpc.           We integrated the flux over all time to find the fluence, then used the old standby formula:                         Luminosity=4(pi)(r^2)Fpeak         For a radius of .25 pc, we found an L around 10^32 erg/sec.  Pretty energetic for close by.  for the coronal model, we found around 10^43 erg/sec. And lastly, for the cosmological model an L=10^53. That's what you'd call moderately energetic, I'd say.  Any suggestions about what could put out that much energy in one second?                                                  -jeremy
In article <1993May13.101820.21298@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:  >>As a rough guess I would say that in 10 years Shuttle has delivered >>to LEO about as much as Saturn V did in 4 years.  >We have to be careful to define what is payload and what is propulsion >and spacecraft structure.   Often Shuttle lifts satellites with upper stages. Yet we still consider it payload. Ten Saturn flights over about 4 years delivered to LEO roughly the same as 50 shuttle flights over 10 years.  >of course Saturn lifted more than Shuttle, >but it's cost to orbit in same year dollars was higher.  They where pretty much the same in terms of cost/pound. A resurected Saturn would cost only $2,000 per pound (if development costs are ignored) which is five times cheaper than Shuttle.      Allen
In article <15APR199315012030@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov>, baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: > In article <1993Apr15.094320.1723@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes... >>> > So how close would the comet have gotten to Jupiter on the pass that >>> > put it into temporary orbit, and how far is it likely to get from >>> > Jupiter before it makes its escape? >>>  >>> The answer to all of these questions is we don't know yet. >>> We don't know for sure if the comet is in a temporary orbit. >>  >>I see.  I wasn't so interested in this particular case as in typical >>behavior, anyway.  Can these questions be answered for a previous >>instance, such as the Gehrels 3 that was mentioned in an earlier posting? >  > Gehrels 3 was in a temporary Jovian orbit for about 3 or 4 years.  I'll > get the orbital elements from Dance of the Planets and post them here.  Sorry folks, I should have done this, and meant to just after i hit the  send key...  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  Also, perihelions of Gehrels3 were:  April  1973     83 jupiter radii August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii  Hope this helps...I'm even less of an orbital mechanic than I am an artist.
In article <schumach.736269085@convex.convex.com>, schumach@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes: |> [Description of Boeing study of two-staged spaceplane using |> supersonic ramjets deleted.] |>  |> In other words, Boeing is not seriously thinking about |> reliable, less-expensive access to orbit. They just like |> to fool around with exotic airplanes. |>
In article <1993May1.043916.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >How hard or easy would it be to have a combo mission such as a solar sail on >the way out to the outer planets, but once in near to orbit to use more normal >means..  If you've got a good propulsion system that's not useful for deceleration, sure you can use chemical rockets for that part... but even just doing the deceleration chemically is a major headache.  We're talking seriously high cruising velocities; taking the velocity down nearly to zero for a Pluto orbit isn't easy with chemical fuels.  Incidentally, solar sails are not going to be suitable as the acceleration system for something like this.  They don't go anywhere quickly.  (I speak as head of mission planning for the Canadian Solar Sail Project, although that is more or less an honorary title right now because CSSP is dormant.) They can't fly a mission like this unless you start talking about very advanced systems that drop in very close to the Sun first.
I commend everybody to look at the FTP site 'ftp.cicb.fr' -> Ethernet address 129.20.128.2 <- in the directory /pub/Images/ASTRO: there are lots of images (all of kinds in astronomy subject) especially in GIF format and a NEW ! directory of some JPL animations  For your comfort, README files in all subdirectories give size and description of each image, and a 7 days' newer images' list is in READMENEW  Note: you can connect it as 'anonymous' or 'ftp' user, then the quota       for each is 8 users connected in the same time.       So, if the server responds you "connection refused", be patient !  2nd note: this site is reachable by Gopher at 'roland.cicb.fr'           -> Ethernet address 129.20.128.27 <-           in 'Divers serveurs Ftp/Le serveur ftp du CRI-CICB/Images/ASTRO'  If you have any comments, suggestions, problems, then you can contact me at E-mail 'rousself@univ-rennes1.fr'
"The Forever War", one of my favorite SciFi books, had a passage devoted to  breathing fluids. The idea was to protect people from the high accelerations  required for interstellar travel by emersing the passengers in dry-cleaning  fluid saturated with oxygen. Plenty of very imaginative ideas is this book. I would certainly recommend it (won the Hugo and the Nebula awards).
In article <27APR199320210230@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov> abdkw@stdvax.gsfc.nasa.gov (David Ward) writes:  >Given that fact, and the spacecraft attitude knowledge >of approx. 2 arcmin, we might be able to figure out how well BATSE can >determine the location (rotational) of a Gamma Ray burster from knowledge >of the all-sky map's accuracy.  PR material for the other three instruments >give accuracies on the order of "fractions of a degree", if that's  >any help.  But I believe that there is a fundamental difference here.  The other x three instruments are focusing instruments, that, more or less, form an image, so positional errors are limited by craft attitude and the  resolving power of the optics.  BATSE is an altogether different beast, effectively just 8 coincidence counters, one on each corner of  the craft.  Positional information is triangulated from the  differential signal arrival times at each of the detectors. Positional error would be predominantly determined by timing errors and errors in craft attitude. Since none of the 8 BASTE detectors have any independant angular resolution whatsoever, they can not be used to determine parallax.  Indeed, parallax would just add a very small  component to the positional error.    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). If the 3 degree accuracy reported above is true, we're going to  have to add a BASTE to the pluto fast flyby to get enough baseline.  The beauty of BASTE is that it both gives positional information and watches the entire sky simultaneously, a realy handy combination when you have no idea where the next burst is coming from.
In article <STEINLY.93Apr21152344@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:  >Seriously though. If you were to ask the British government >whether their colonisation efforts in the Americas were cost >effective, what answer do you think you'd get? What if you asked >in 1765, 1815, 1865, 1915 and 1945 respectively? ;-)  What do you mean? Are you saying they thought the effort was profitable or that the money was efficiently spent (providing max value per money spent)?  I think they would answer yes on ballance to both questions. Exceptions would be places like the US from the French Indian War to the end of the US Revolution.   But even after the colonies revolted or where given independance the British engaged in very lucrative trading with the former colonies. Five years after the American Revolution England was still the largest US trading partner.    Allen
I just wanted to point out, that Teflon wasn't from the space program. It was from the WWII nuclear weapons development program.  Pipes in the  system for fractioning and enriching uranium had to be lined with it.  Uranium Hexafloride was the chemical they turned the pitchblend into for enrichment.  It is massively corrosive.  Even to Stainless steels. Hence the need for a very inert substaance to line the pipes with.  Teflon has all its molecular sockets bound up already, so it is very unreactive.  My 2 sense worth.
mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes: >>>Jeff.Cook@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM (Jeff Cook) writes: >>>>people in primitive tribes out in the middle of nowhere as they look up  That has sort of happened for real. Back in the 1920's travellers in the Sudan would find strange cigar shaped designs on native huts. When asked the locals would say it was a picture of the great omen that appeared in the sky. This was LZ 53 a zepplin flying from Bulgaria to German East Africa with supplies in 1917 (and back since it was fooled by the British secret service.)
> Another legend with the name Vulcan was the planet, much like Earth, > in the same orbit  There was a Science fiction movie sometime ago (I do not remember its  name) about a planet in the same orbit of Earth but hidden behind the  Sun so it could never be visible from Earth. Turns out that that planet  was the exact mirror image of Earth and all its inhabitants looked like  the Earthings with the difference that their organs was in the opposite  side like the heart was in the right side instead in the left and they  would shake hands with the left hand and so on...   C.O.EGALON@LARC.NASA.GOV  C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov
>greg mccolm suggested that math is a good example of the inertia >(silver age) of current science..... > >is math really a science? what new has math "told" us recently? >please dont flame me... ive taken no math since 11th grade... >completed BC calc early and go the hell out... is there really >NEW stuff going on?? (im not flaming, but honestly durious...)
In article <C6B0By.1C9@zoo.toronto.edu: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: :In article <1993Apr30.101054.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes: :>... Also, as implied by other posters, why  :>do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway? ... :You don't *need* to, but it's desirable.  HST, like all satellites in :low Earth orbit, is gradually losing altitude due to air drag.  It was :deployed in the highest orbit the shuttle could reach, for that reason. :It needs occasional reboosting or it will eventually reenter.  (It has :no propulsion system of its own.)  Has any thought been given as to how they are going to boost the HST yet? Give it a push?  I can see the push start cartoons now :-).