waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
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.  [...]  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.  -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
The supersonic booms hear a few months ago over I belive San Fran, heading east of what I heard, some new super speed Mach 25 aircraft?? What military based int he direction of flight are there that could handle a Mach 25aircraft on its landing decent?? Odd question??
In article <18APR199313560620@judy.uh.edu>, Dennis writes about a zillion lines in response to article <1993Apr18.034101.21934@iti.org>, in which Allen wrote a zillion lines in response to article <17APR199316423628@judy.uh.edu>, in which Dennis wrote another zillion lines in response to Allen.  Hey, can it you guys. Take it to email, or talk.politics.space, or alt.flame, or alt.music.pop.will.eat.itself.the.poppies.are.on.patrol, or anywhere, but this is sci.space. This thread lost all scientific content many moons ago.
In <1993Apr15.234154.23145@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:  >As for the future, there is at least $5M in next years budget for work >on SSRT. They (SDIO) have been looking for more funds and do seem to have >some. However, SDIO is not (I repeat, is not) going to fund an orbital >prototype. The best we can hope from them is to 1) keep it alive for >another year, and 2) fund a suborbital vehicle which MIGHT (with >major modifications) just make orbit. There is also some money for a >set of prototype tanks and projects to answer a few more open questions.  Would the sub-orbital version be suitable as-is (or "as-will-be") for use as a reuseable sounding rocket?   >Better news comes from the new Spacelifter effort. The USAF managers of >this program are very open to SSTO and will have about $50M next >year for studies. This would be enough to bring DC-Y to PDR.  Thank Ghod! I had thought that Spacelifter would definitely be the bastard Son of NLS.   (And just as a reminder:) >Now not all of this money will go to DC but a good case could be made >for spending half on DC.
jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: >If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone >head and done some landings, but we also would have been more >determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the >Moon).  Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend >upon whether the Soviets tried to go.  Setting up a lunar base >would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think >that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value >of going to Mars (at least in the short run).  Thus we would >have concentrated on the moon.  Great speculation - I remember being proud on behalf of all the free world (you think that way when you are seven years old) that we had got there first. Now I'm almost sorry that it worked out that way.  I guess the soviets would have taken the victory seriously too, and would almost certainly not have fallen victim to the complacency that overtook the US program. Perhaps stretching to match US efforts would have destabilized them sooner than it did in fact - and in the tradition of Marvel Comics 'What If', this destabilization in the Brezhnev era might have triggered the third world war. Hmm, maybe it was a giant leap after all.
In article <STEINLY.93Apr23130246@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >In article <1r9de3INNjkv@gap.caltech.edu> jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeff Foust) writes: > >   In a recent article jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll) writes: >   >	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next >   >one  should be called 'Smiley'. > >   Unless I'm imaging things, (always a possibility =) 1992 QB1, the Kuiper Belt >   object discovered last year, is known as Smiley. > >As it happens the _second_ one is Karla. The first one was >Smiley. All subject to the vagaries of the IAU of course, >but I think they might let this one slide...  	Gee, I feel so ignorant now...  	Research, then post.
In article <C5133A.Gzx@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jbh55289@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Josh Hopkins) writes:  >>[Titan III is the cheapest US launcher on a $/lb basis]  >In that case it's rather ironic that they are doing so poorly on the commercial >market.  Is there a single Titan III on order?  They have a few problems. The biggest technical problem is the need to find two satellites going to the same rough orbit for a luanch.  They also don't show much interest in commercial launches. There is more money to be made churning out Titan IV's for the government. After all, it isn't every day you find a sucker, er, customer who thinks paying three times the commercial rate for launch services is a good idea!    Allen
In <C63nA8.4C1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> George F. Krumins writes: >I was suggesting that the minority of professional and amateur astronomers >have the right to a dark, uncluttered night sky.   Sorry, you have a _wish_ for an uncluttered night sky, but it isn't a right. When you get down to it, you actually have no rights that the majority haven't agreed to give you (and them in the process). It's a common misconception that being born somehow endows you with rights to this that and the other. Sadly this is not true.   Now if you want to talk about the responsibility that _should_ go with the power to clutter the night sky, then that's a different matter.
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:  >In article <C73w0t.FpH@cunews.carleton.ca> wcsbeau@superior.carleton.ca (OPIRG) writes: >>I don't think that idea means what you think it does. Having everyone >>on Earth subject to some ad agency's "poor taste" *is* an abomination. >>(abomination : n. loathing; odious or degrading habit or act; an >>object of disgust. (Oxford Concise Dictionary)) Maybe *you* don't mind >>having every part of your life saturated with commercials, but many of >>us loathe it.  >While I'm sure Sagan considers it sacrilegious, that wouldn't be >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 >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 >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.)  >                                             Frank Crary >                                             CU Boulder  Tell that to the people who run the 10-meter Keck telescope, or the  astronomers and engineers working on the Gemini twin 8-meter telescope project.  It took 7 years to build Keck I and now they are building Keck II.  According to the December 1992 Sky & Telescope, "This second 10-meter eye will convert the facility into a binocular telescope with double the light-gathering power and the ability to resolve the headlights of a car some 25,000 kilometers away."   Japan's 8.3-meter Subaru telescope will soon join Keck on Mauna Kea.  All these telescopes will work in the infrared, yes, but they are _visible light_ telescopes!  And haven't you heard anything about adaptive optics?  A lot of research was done with "Star Wars" funding, and some is now being shared with astronomers.  This shows great promise.  Soon, probably within a few years, even the largest telescopes will be able to resolve to their  theoretical limit _despite_ the distortions of the atmosphere.  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
In article <1993Apr20.020259.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >I think if there is to be a prize and such.. There should be "classes" >such as the following: > >Large Corp. >Small Corp/Company (based on reported earnings?) >Large Government (GNP and such) >Small Governemtn (or political clout or GNP?) >Large Organization (Planetary Society? and such?) >Small Organization (Alot of small orgs..)  Whatabout, Schools, Universities, Rich Individuals (around 250 people  in the UK have more than 10 million dollars each). I reecieved mail from people who claimed they might get a person into space for $500 per pound. Send a skinny person into space and split the rest of the money among the ground crew! > >The organization things would probably have to be non-profit or liek ?? > >Of course this means the prize might go up. Larger get more or ?? >Basically make the prize (total purse) $6 billion, divided amngst the class >winners.. >More fair? > >There would have to be a seperate organization set up to monitor the events, >umpire and such and watch for safety violations (or maybe not, if peopel want >to risk thier own lives let them do it?). > Agreed. I volunteer for any UK attempts. But one clause: No launch methods which are clearly dangerous to the environment (ours or someone else's). No usage of materials from areas of planetary importance.  >Any other ideas??  Yes: We should *do* this rather than talk about it. Lobby people! The major problem with the space programmes is all talk/paperwork and no action!  >== >Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked > >
In article <1993Apr19.130503.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: |> In article <6ZV82B2w165w@theporch.raider.net>, gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) writes: |> > With the continuin talk about the "End of the Space Age" and complaints  |> > by government over the large cost, why not try something I read about  |> > that might just work. |> >  |> > Announce that a reward of $1 billion would go to the first corporation  |> > who successfully keeps at least 1 person alive on the moon for a year.  |> > Then you'd see some of the inexpensive but not popular technologies begin  |> > to be developed. THere'd be a different kind of space race then! |> >  |> > -- |> >   gene@theporch.raider.net (Gene Wright) |> > theporch.raider.net  615/297-7951 The MacInteresteds of Nashville |> ==== |> If that were true, I'd go for it.. I have a few friends who we could pool our |> resources and do it.. Maybe make it a prize kind of liek the "Solar Car Race" |> in Australia.. |> Anybody game for a contest! |>  |> == |> Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked   Oh gee, a billion dollars!  That'd be just about enough to cover the cost of the feasability study!  Happy, Happy, JOY! JOY!
In article <1993Apr22.214735.22733@Princeton.EDU> phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser) writes: >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.   Christian  Slater, only gota  cameo on ST6,    and besides.  Maybe she can't act:-)
Actually, the "ether" stuff sounded a fair bit like a bizzare, qualitative corruption of general relativity.  nothing to do with the old-fashioned, ether, though.  maybe somebody could loan him a GR text at a low level.  didn't get much further than that, tho.... whew.
cam@hawk.adied.oz.au (The Master) writes:  > etoyoc@leland.Stanford.EDU (aaron thode) writes: >  > >Having tracked sci.space for quite a while, I have some questions > >about a mysterious figure called Henry Spencer. If there is anything > >going on in the space community, he seems to know it.  > >	The questions are somewhat tounge-in-cheek: > >	1) Is sci.space a hobby or a job for you? > >	1) Do you ever eat or sleep? > >	3) Does U of Toronto Zoology department conduct space research?  > >	Or do you just use an account there? > >Just curious. >  > >Aaron >  > Well, Henry Spencer is *also* responsible for parts of Cnews, and other > internet related things. >  > Quite a guy.  :) >  > Onya Henry! >  > c. >  This question comes up frequently enough that there should be a faq about it...
I might suggest giving the management some more mumble time by asking the very leading question (in two or three parts)    What are your long term expectations of space market, what projects specifically are they funding by internal funds and at what levels and what competition do you expect in this  area. (This last point is always worth hitting upper management with "gently" if you want  them to think and as hard as you can if you have a good case that there really is competion)
stange@meena.cc.uregina.ca writes:  >Phil, your point is well taken.  It is still a sad idea.  I'm worried by the concern about it though, for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with Space Advertising (which for a number of reasons is probably doomed to fail on financial grounds).  (And I've been reading and (and writing) this thread since way back when it was only on sci.space).  For starters, I don't think the piece of light-pollution apparatus would be as bright as the full moon. _That_ seems to me to be a bit of propaganda on the part of opponents, or wishful thinking on the part of proponents.  Second, this charge of ruining the night sky permanently has been levelled against other projects, that either 1) don't increace light pollution significantly, or 2) increace light pollution only over the target area.  You may or may not recognize #1 as being Solar Power Sattelites. I think it was Josh Hopkins who actually did the math, showing that SPS's weren't that bright after all, ending some two months of frenzied opposition on the part of dark-sky activists and various other types.  #2 is mainly projects like the orbiting mirror the CIS tested recently.  While slightly more worrisome, I'd like to point out that any significant scattering of light outside the target area for one of these mirrors would be wasted as far as the project would be concerned, and something any project like that would work against anyway. And given some of the likely targets, I don't think there's going to be much of an outcry from the inhabitants. There is too much dark sky in the northern CIS during the winter, and I doubt you'll find many activists in Murmansk demanding the "natural" sky back. If anything, he'll probably be inside, stripped buck naked in front of the UV lamp, making sure he'll get enough vitamin D for the "day."  The mirror experiments aren't something they're doing for crass advertising. They think that if they can build one, it'll be one of those things people in the affected areas will think they couldn't have lived without before. And I doubt anyone's going to really be able to convince them to stop.
One of the main reasons nations like the US and RUSSIA observe satellite   that have been launched is FORBs system whick loft nuclear bombs into   orbit which are planned to be detonated in LEO causing EMP pulses   interfering with the target command and control system.
>In article <VNci2B7w165w@inqmind.bison.mb.ca> victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) writes: >>From: victor@inqmind.bison.mb.ca (Victor Laking) >>Subject: Vulcan?  (No, not the guy with the ears!) >>Date: Sun, 04 Apr 93 19:31:54 CDT >>Does anyone have any info on the apparent sightings of Vulcan? >>  >>All that I know is that there were apparently two sightings at  >>drastically different times of a small planet that was inside Mercury's  >>orbit.  Beyond that, I have no other info. >> >>Does anyone know anything more specific? >>  As I heard the story, before Albert came up the the theory o'relativity and warped space, nobody could account for Mercury's orbit.  It ran a little fast (I think) for simple Newtonian physics.  With the success in finding Neptune to explain the odd movments of Uranus, it was postulated that there might be another inner planet to explain Mercury's orbit.    It's unlikely anything bigger than an asteroid is closer to the sun than Mercury.  I'm sure we would have spotted it by now. Perhaps some professionals can confirm that.
In article MJu@zoo.toronto.edu, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >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. >--  >SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision   | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology >between SVR3 and SunOS.    - Dick Dunn  |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry  I remember a physic prof. who talked about scaling a cue ball to Earth size. Its was significantly less spherical that the Earth!  --- Terry F Figurelle			Boeing Defense & Space Group email: tff@plato.ds.boeing.com		PO BOX 3999, Mail Stop 6J-EA phone: 206-394-3115 fax:206-394-4300	Seattle, WA 98124-2499
In <1pp6reINNonl@phantom.gatech.edu> matthew@phantom.gatech.edu (Matthew DeLuca) writes:  >In article <841@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (William Reiken) writes:  >>	Well this pretty much says it.  I have gotten alot of replys to this >>and it looks like oil is only on Earth.  So if those greedy little oil companys >>who obviously don't give **** about it uses up all the oil then that leaves us >>high a dry.  >Greedy little oil companies?  Don't blame them; oil companies just supply the  >demand created by you, me, and just about everyone else on the planet.  If we >run out, its all our faults.  He also ignores a few other things.  While organics would become significantly more expensive were all the oil to disappear (and thus some things would no longer be economically feasible), oil is hardly an irreplaceable resource any more than most other consumables.  As supply decreases, prices rise and alternatives become more competetive.  He also needs to consider that there has been an estimated 30 years of reserves pretty much as long as anyone has cared about petroleum; whatever the current usage rate is, we always seem to have about a 30 year reserve that we know about.  [I'm not sure that last figure is still true -- we tend not to look as hard when prices are comparatively cheap -- but it was certainly true during hte 'oil crisis' days of the 70's.]  --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
James Nicoll writes:  >	If the  new  Kuiper belt object *is*  called 'Karla', the next > one  should be called 'Smiley'.  No, no, no!  The previous one was called "Smiley".  1992 QB1 = Smiley, and 1993 FW = Karla.  Note that neither name is official.  It seems the discoverers have an aversion to the designation scheme.
I am looking for a source of orbital element sets other than UAF/Space Command.  I believe there is one on CompuServe.  Please let me know what other possible sources there are and how I can reach  them.  Thanks much.
I was reading Popular Science this morning and was surprised by an ad in the back.  I know that a lot of the ads in the back of PS are fringe science or questionablely legal, but this one really grabbed my attention. It was from a company name "Personal Missle, Inc." or something like that.  Anyhow, the ad stated that they'd sell rockets that were up to 20' in length and engines of sizes "F" to "M".  They also said that some rockets will reach 50,000 feet.  Now, aside from the obvious dangers to any amateur rocketeer using one of these beasts, isn't this illegal?  I can't imagine the FAA allowing people to shoot rockets up through the flight levels of passenger planes. Not to even mention the problem of locating a rocket when it comes down.  And no, I'm not going to even think of buying one.  I'm not that crazy.   -Paul "mine'll do 50,000 feet and carries 50 pounds of dynamite" Dokas
In article <1993Apr26.141114.19777@midway.uchicago.edu>, pef1@midway.uchicago.edu writes... >BATSE, by having 8 detectors of its own, can do its own location determination, >but only to within about 3 degrees (would someone at GSFC, like David, like >to comment on the current state of location determination?).  Having inde- >pendent sightings by other detectors helps drive down the uncertainty. >   Well, I'll avoid your question for now (got some learnin' to do) with a promise to come back with more info when I can find it.  I _do_ know that BATSE is the primary instrument in the development of the all-sky map of long-term sources.  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.  Speaking of GRO, the net-world probably was happy to see that the preps for orbit adjust appear to be going well.  Our branch guy who's helping out says that things have gone smoothly with the iso-valve preps and the burns will take place in mid-June.  Anyway, I'm off to find out more.  'Be back when I get some info.
In article <324417a1@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: > COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22 [...] >    This might point out some key discriminators in judging the  > feasibility of a commercial launch site.  These include: >   - Is there an identified key customer to provide core usage  > sufficient to recover setup costs? >   - Is there a market advantage of using the site? >   - Can existing infrastructure be used or modified at the site? >   - Can financing be found at low enough cost to support the  > investment?   >    Other commercial launch site ventures -- including those at  > Woomera, Poker Flat, Cape York, White Sands, Alabama Off-Shore  > Platform, Hawaii, and Vandenberg have to also be judged against  > these criteria.  In my opinion, some of these ventures are flying  > on hope and speculation, and not on sound financial grounds.]  This reminds me... my fuzzy brain recalls that somebody was thinking of reviving the San Marco launch platform off the coast of Kenya, where the Copernicus satellite was launched around 1972.  Is this true, or am I imagining it?  Possibly it's connected with one of the Italian programs to revive the Scout in a new version.  That old platform must be getting pretty rusty, and there ain't a lot of infrastructure to go with it...