waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr30.004311.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > Being wierd again, so be warned:  Being what?  Oh, _weird_.  OK, I'm warned!  > Is there a plan to put a satellite around each planet in the solar system to > keep watch? I help it better to ask questions before I spout an opinion.  Keep watch for what?  > How about a mission (unmanned) to Pluto to stay in orbit and record things > around and near and on Pluto.. I know it is a strange idea, but why not??  Oh, the several tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars it would cost to "record things" there.  And I'd prefer a manned mission, anyway.  > It could do some scanning of not only Pluto, but also of the solar system, > objects near and aaroundpluto, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy > without having much of the solar system to worry about..  We've already got a pretty good platform to "scan" the solar system, as well as SETI and looking at the galaxy without having much of the solar system to worry about.. Care to guess where it is?  Shag  --
In <1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey writes: >In article <19930422.121236.246@almaden.ibm.com>, Wingert@vnet.IBM.COM (Bret Wingert) writes: >> 3. The Onboard Flight Software project was rated "Level 5" by a NASA team. >>    This group generates 20-40 KSLOCs of verified code per year for NASA. > >Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes >from? It sounds like the RISKS Digest  equivalent of Large, Extra >Large, Jumbo... Or maybe it's like "Defcon 5..." > >I gather it means that Shuttle software was developed with extreme >care to have reliablility and safety, and almost everything else in >the computing world is Level 1, or cheesy dime-store software.  Not >surprising.  But who is it that invents this standard, and how come >everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?  Level 5 refers to the Carnegie-Mellon Software Engineering Institute's Capability Maturity Model.  This model rates software development org's from1-5.  with 1 being Chaotic and 5 being Optimizing.  DoD is beginning to use this rating system as a discriminator in contracts.  I have more data on thifrom 1 page to 1000.  I have a 20-30 page presentation that summarizes it wethat I could FAX to you if you're interested... Bret Wingert Wingert@VNET.IBM.COM
In article <1rou8gINN7s4@gap.caltech.edu> palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: |prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: | |>In article <1993Apr26.200406.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes: |>|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 | |>big Capacitor :-)   Real Big  capacitor. | |It's been suggested.  (Specifically, lightning strikes between clouds |in the interstellar medium.) |   How big of a lightning rod, would you need for protection? and  would you need jupiter as a ground plane.
In article <1993Apr20.072706.19981@cs.ruu.nl>, jhwitten@cs.ruu.nl (Jurriaan Wittenberg) writes... >In <19APR199320262420@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov  >(Ron Baalke) writes: >  >>4.  On Monday morning, April 19, the moon will occult Venus and >>interrupt the tracking of Magellan for about 68 minutes.  >Will this mean a loss of data or will the Magellan transmit data later on ??  The gravity data is collected in real-time and it not recorded to the tape recorder.  However, you only need to collect the gravity every 3rd or 4th orbit, so there is no real data loss if the Moon blocks transmission for a short while.  >BTW: When will NASA cut off the connection with Magellan?? Not that I am >looking forward to that day but I am just curious. I believe it had something >to do with the funding from the goverment (or rather _NO_ funding :-)
What in blazes is going on with Wayne Matson and gang down in Alabama?  I also heard an unconfirmed rumor that Aerospace Ambassadors have disappeared.  Can anyone else confirm??
From the "JPL Universe" April 23, 1993  Cosmologist Stephen Hawking tours Lab
In article <1993Apr20.234427.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: |> Okay here is what I have so far: |>  |> Have a group (any size, preferibly small, but?) send a human being to the moon, |> set up a habitate and have the human(s) spend one earth year on the moon. Does |> that mean no resupply or ??  |>  |> Need to find atleast $1billion for prize money.   My first thought is Ross Perot.  After further consideration, I think he'd be more likely to try to win it...but come in a disappointing third.  Try Bill Gates.  Try Sam Walton's kids.  Matt
In article <1993Apr28.171915.5013@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: |> In <1993Apr28.141606.17449@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov> bday@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Brian Day) writes: |>  |> >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 ??? |>  |> I can't speak to sheer mass, but part of the problem is that HST |> wasn't built to ever be brought back down.  It's not built for those |> kinds of 'jolt' forces and there is no support cradle for it (which is |> additional weight that would be required.  Just to throw it out there:  The mass of the telescope is 11,600 kg  (25,500 lb).  I do not know what Space lab weighs, but I believe it is less.  Can anyone verify??  Also, remember that weight was not the only concern, as many others have  noted, just one possible concern.  I was responding to a statement that if you can boost it, why can't you land it.  Those are too different problems.  ROB --  =========================================================================== | Rob Douglas                     | SPACE     | 3700 San Martin Drive     | | AI Software Engineer            | TELESCOPE | Baltimore, MD  21218, USA | | Advance Planning Systems Branch | SCIENCE   | Phone: (410) 338-4497     | | Internet: rdouglas@stsci.edu    | INSTITUTE | Fax:   (410) 338-1592     | ===========================================================================  Disclaimer-type-thingie>>>>>  These opinions are mine!  Unless of course  	they fall under the standard intellectual property guidelines.  	But with my intellect, I doubt it.  Besides, if it was useful 	intellectual property, do you think I would type it in here?
We`ve had the the Great Western, the [ dunno ] and the Great Northern postulated as Brunel`s masterpiece. Keep boxing the compass chaps, you`ll get round to it eventually.  The Great Western was a highly successful transatlantic mail ship, with hybrid sail and steam propulsion. The Great Eastern, which broke the 'Little Giant' financially and otherwise, was a revolutionary leap forward in ship design. A thirty thousand ton all steel vessel, with primary steam propulsion, it was at the time easily the biggest ocean going vessel ever built. Brunel took advantage of the fact that cargo and / or fuel capacity rose with the cube of scale, while drag rose with the square, so a really big ship could steam thousands of miles without coaling.  Unfortunately, there was no real market for such a beast at the time, and it was eventually sold off at scrap values. As another poster said, it then went on to a successful career as a telegraph cable laying ship. It was in fact the only ship of its day capable of laying a transatlantic cable in one go, with the endurance and capacity to carry the huge reel all the way, and the manoeuverabilty to dredge for defective sections. See Arthur C Clarke`s book "How the World was One" [ I think that`s right ]  If that`s how the Shuttle goes down in history, as a technical triumph and a financial disaster for the builder, it would not be entirely ignoble, but I doubt if history will be so charitable.  Its true the Shuttle can do things no other launch system can do, but are they worth doing? With low cost access to space, you could have an affordable space station for doing shuttle-like extended manned missions. As it is, the shuttle is not so much a space-truck as a space-RV, ( only not so cheap to run :-( )
Would someone please send me a list of the historic space flights?  I  am not looking for a list of all flights, just the ones in which something  monumental happened.  Or better yet, is there an ftp site with the list of all shuttle flights?
This discussion is better followed in talk.politics.space Joseph Cain		cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu    cain@fsu.bitnet		scri::cain (904) 644-4014		FAX (904) 644-4214 or -0098
> flight tests are generally carefully coreographed and just what  > is going to be  'pushed' and how > far is precisely planned (despite occasional deviations from plans, > such as the 'early' first flight of the F-16 during its high-speed > taxi tests).  .. and Chuck Yeager earlier flights with the X-1...
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 55      1 22640U 93 27  A 93119.24999999  .00041555  00000-0  12437-3 0    90 2 22640  28.4657 249.3697 0008512 260.9747 152.1416 15.90732913   425
In article <C6DtD0.HHI@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >by what the Voyagers did:  they exploited a lineup that occurs only >every couple of centuries, and even so Voyager 2 took a rather indirect >route to Neptune.  Indirect compared to what?  Did Voyager 2 traverse a substantially greater distance than, say, a Hohmann orbit?  I've never heard Voyager's path described as "indirect" before...
loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes: >Besides the mechanical problems of moving so dense a medium in oan out >of the lungs (diaphragm fatigue, etc.), is there likely to be a problem >with the mixture?  I mean, since the lungs never expel all the air in >them, the inhaled air has to mix pretty quickly with the residual air in >the lungs to provide a useful partial pressure of oxygen, right?  Would >this mixing be substantially faster/slower at the pressures we're >talking about?    There was an interesting article in Scientific American some time ago about breathing liquid. (It was a few months before _The Abyss_ came out.) As far as I can remember, they mentioned three things that were difficult to do at once with a substitute breathing fluid:   - low viscosity --- if it's too difficult to force the fluid in & out      of the lungs, you can't extract enough oxygen to power your own     breathing effort (let alone anything else)    - diffusion rate --- obviously, not all the air in your lungs is     expelled when you breathe out; and the part that isn't expelled     is the part that's nearest the walls of the alveoli. (alveolus?)     So the trip from the blood vessels to the new air has to be done     by diffusion of the gas through the fluid. Apparently oxygen     tends to diffuse more readily than CO2, so even if you can get enough     oxygen in, you might not be able to get enough CO2 out.    - oxygen/CO2 capacity --- you have to be able to dissolve enough     gas per unit volume.     Oh, and of course, your new breathing fluid must not irritate the lungs or interfere with their healing or anything like that...
In article <C50orq.7G0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, gwg33762@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Garret W. Gengler) writes... >In sci.space you write: >  >>Try the ENVIRONET database at GSFC. FTP to envnet.gsfc.nasa.gov or  >>128.183.104.16, or call (310)286-5690.  They have data on STS, Ariane, Titan,  >>Atlas, Delta and Scout launch environments. >  >Howdy.  Thanks for the info. >  >I tried "anonymous" FTP there, but it didn't work. >I also tried telnetting to the same address, but it asked for a login >and password, although there was a note saying that the new username for >environet was "envnet".   >  >Anyways, do you have any idea what else I should try? >  >Thanks, >Garret >  >  The home office number for ENVIRONET is (301) 286-5690 (note area code change).  A friend of mine used to use it to get LDEF data, but he had to apply for a login name and password.  I have a call in for more info, which I hope to get in the morning.
It is usually possible to reach people at IKI (Institute for Space Research) in Moscow by writing to  	IKIMAIL@esoc1.bitnet  This is a machine at ESA in Darmstadt, Germany; IKI has a dedicated phone line to this machine and someone there logs in regularly to retrieve mail.  In addition, there are several user accounts belonging to Russian scientific institutions on  	<user>@sovam.com  which is a commercial enterprise based in San Francisco that provides email services to the former USSR.  For example, fian@sovam.com is the "PHysics Institute of the Academy of Sciences" (initials transliterated from Russian, of course).  These connections cost the Russians real dollars, even for *received* messages, so please don't send anything voluminous or frivilous.  ===================================================================== Larry R. D'Addario National Radio Astronomy Observatory
In article <15821.2be3e125@cpva.saic.com> thomsonal@cpva.saic.com writes: >On Sat, 1 May 1993 23:13:39 GMT, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) said: > >> No.  A "dragless" satellite does not magically have no drag; it burns fuel >> constantly to fight drag, maintaining the exact orbit it would have *if* >> there was no drag.   > >     Well, almost. It turns out that clever orbital mechanics can  >engineer things so that resonant interactions with the higher order  >harmonics of the Earth's gravitational field can pump energy into a  >satellite, and keep it from experiencing drag effects for periods of  >months to years.   A harmonic of the Earth's gravitational field?  What IS a harmonic of the Earth's gravitational field?  >     My favorite example of this is the Soviet/Russian heavy ELINT  >satellites of the Cosmos 1603 class, which are in 14:1 resonance. In   14:1 resonance with WHAT?  It's not like there's any wavelength or frequency to the Earth's gravitational field.  Now, there' might be some interesting interactions with the Moon's tidal effect--is that what you're talking about? > >    This probably has little relevance to space stations, since the 71  >degree orbits of the C1603 satellites are at 850 km, which is  >unacceptably far into the inner van Allen belt for manned platforms. But  >it's kind of interesting from the point of view of the physics of the  >situation.   What are the physics of the situation?  The only way I can see gravitational effects being useful in adding energy to an object orbiting Earth is some sort of interaction with the moon.
In article <1993Apr23.124759.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: >Will someone tell an ignorant physicist where the term "Level 5" comes >from? > >But who is it that invents this standard, and how come >everyone but me seems to be familiar with it?  The SEI. Software Engineering Institute, a DoD funded part of Carnegie Mellon University.  You can read about part of it in Ed Yourdon's The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer (Yourdon Press).  Just passing thru.....
In article <1993Apr20.152819.28186@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary   Coffman) writes: > >Why do you think at least a couple centuries before there will > >be significant commerical activity on the Moon? >  > Wishful thinking mostly. [Lots of stuff about how the commerical moonbase=fantasyland]  Then what do you believe will finally motivate people to leave the   earth?  I'm not trying to flame you.  I just want to know where you   stand.  -Chuck --- *******************************************************************  	Chuck Chung				(919) 660-2539 (O) 	Duke University Dept. of Physics	(919) 684-1517 (H) 	Durham, N.C.      27706			cchung@phy.duke.edu 	 	"If pro is the opposite of con,  		then what is the opposite of progress?"
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.? >Thanks in advance.  Even if they did, a globe at a scale that you could fit into your average room or even average "hall" the deviations you mention would not be visually evident. In other words a micrometer would be required to test the fact that  the Globe was infact pear-shaped.    Regards Scott. _______________________________________________________________________________ Scott Fisher [scott@psy.uwa.oz.au]  PH: Aus [61] Perth (09) Local (380 3272).                                                                              _--_|\       N Department of Psychology                                    /      \    W + E University of Western Australia.      Perth [32S, 116E]-->  *_.--._/      S Nedlands, 6009.  PERTH, W.A.                                      v             *** ERROR 144 - REBOOT? is a registered trademark of ENSONIQ Corp ***
Hello everyone,  	I was hoping someone could help me out.  I'm writing a program 	for my astronautics class for assent of the shuttle into a low 	orbit.  There are two things I'd like to know, First, how much  	time elapses between launch and the pitch over. Second, what is 	the cross-sectional area of the shuttle, srb's, and ext. tank.  	Thanks for any information, post or e-mail.
In article <C5uB2s.FD@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer) writes: >There are currently no particular plans to do any further searches for life.  Not quite true.  One of the instruments on Mars Observer will be searching for potential fossil sites.     >>Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian? >  >Mars Observer, currently approaching Mars, will probably try to get a better >image or two of the "face" at some point.  It's not high priority; nobody >takes it very seriously.  The shadowed half of the face does not look very >face-like, so all it will take is one shot at a different sun angle to ruin >the illusion.
Found it! Thanks. I got several offers for help. I appreciate it and will be contacting those people via e-mail.  Thanks again...
Has anyone looked into the possiblity of a Proton/Centaur combo? What would be the benefits and problems with such a combo (other than the obvious instability in the XSSR now)?
In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >  > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away? >  > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by? >  > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?    >  . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic, 'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or part of the Oort cloud.  Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there isn't a mechanism for the others either.
In <C5tvL2.1In@hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de> hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp) writes:  >In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au  >(Enzo Liguori) writes:  >> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were >>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the >>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the  >This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.  >>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize >>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.  >If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in >terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are, >selling every bit that promises to make money?   Well, I guess I'm left wondering just who all the 'light fascists' think *they* are.  Yes, I understand the issues.  I don't even particularly care for the idea.  But am I the only one that finds the sort of overreaction above just a *little* questionable?  You must find things like the Moon *really* obnoxious in their pollution.  A few questions for those frothing at the mouth to ask themselves:  	1) How long is this thing supposed to stay up?  Sounds like it would have a *huge* drag area, not a lot of mass, and be in a fairly low orbit.  	2) Just what orbital parameters are we talking about here? What real impact are we talking about, really?  How many optical astronomers are *really* going to be impacted?  	3) Which is more important; adding a few extra days of 'seeing' for (very few) optical astronomers or getting the data the sensors are supposed to return along with the data for large inflatables (and the potential there for an inflatable space station)? The choice would seem to be one or the other, since the advertising is being used to help fund this thing.  	4) If your answer to 3) above was "the astronomers", then feel free to come up with some other way to fund the (to my mind) more important research data that would be gained by this WITHOUT SPENDING ANY MORE OF MY MONEY TO DO IT.  In other words, put up or shut up.  >I guess we really >deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I >guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.  Probably so.  I'm just not sure we agree about who the 'stupid' are.   >	Another depressed planetary citizen, >	hoover  Yeah, me too.  --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
hoover@mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de (Uwe Schuerkamp) writes:  >In article <C5t05K.DB6@research.canon.oz.au> enzo@research.canon.oz.au  >(Enzo Liguori) writes:  >> hideous vision of the future.  Observers were >>startled this spring when a NASA launch vehicle arrived at the >>pad with "SCHWARZENEGGER" painted in huge block letters on the  >This is ok in my opinion as long as the stuff *returns to earth*.  >>What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize >>the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore.  >If this turns out to be true, it's time to get seriously active in >terrorism. This is unbelievable! Who do those people think they are, >selling every bit that promises to make money? I guess we really >deserve being wiped out by uv radiation, folks. "Stupidity wins". I >guess that's true, and if only by pure numbers.  >	Another depressed planetary citizen, >	hoover   This isn't inherently bad.  This isn't really light pollution since it will only be visible shortly before or after dusk (or during the day).  (Of course, if night only lasts 2 hours for you, you're probably going to be inconvienenced. But you're inconvienenced anyway in that case).  Finally: this isn't the Bronze Age, and most of us aren't Indo European; those people speaking Indo-Eurpoean languages often have much non-indo-european ancestry and cultural background. So: please try to remember that there are more human activities than those practiced by the Warrior Caste, the Farming Caste, and the Priesthood.  And why act distressed that someone's found a way to do research that doesn't involve socialism?  It certianly doesn't mean we deserve to die.