waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes:  [Excellent discussion of DC-X landing techniques by Henry deleted]  >Since the DC-X is to take off horizontal, why not land that way??  The DC-X will not take of horizontally.  It takes of vertically.   >Why do the Martian Landing thing..   For several reasons.  Vertical landings don't require miles of runway and limit noise pollution.  They don't require wheels or wings.  Just turn on the engines and touch down.  Of course, as Henry pointed out, vetical landings aren't quite that simple.  >Or am I missing something.. Don't know to >much about DC-X and such.. (overly obvious?).  Well, to be blunt, yes.  But at least you're learning.  >Why not just fall to earth like the russian crafts?? Parachute in then...  The Soyuz vehicles use parachutes for the descent and then fire small rockets just before they hit the ground.  Parachutes are, however, not especially practical if you want to reuse something without much effort.  The landings are also not very comfortable.  However, in the words of Georgy Grechko, "I prefer to have bruises, not to sink."
I'd like to thank everyone and anyone who sent me information to help me with my project.      _______  ___   ___       ___      ___     ___  ___    ___    |     |  |  |  |  |     /   \     |   \   |  | \  \  /   /  --| |-   |  |  |  |    / /\  \    | |\ \  |  |  \  \/   /   | |    |   --   |   /  --   \   | | \ \ |  |   \     /     | |    |   __   |  /  -----  \  | |  \ \|  |   /  /\ \     |_|    |__|  |__| /__/     \__\ |_|   \____|  /__/  \_\    I'll send my report to all who requested a copy!
In article <1r6f3a$2ai@news.umbc.edu> rouben@math9.math.umbc.edu (Rouben Rostamian) writes: >>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used >>to compute sunrise and sunset times. > >Here is a computation I did a long time ago that computes the length >of the daylight.  You should be able to convert the information here >to sunrise and sunset times.  Sorry, not so -- the changes in sunrise and sunset times are not quite synchronized.  For example, neither the earliest sunrise nor the latest sunset comes on the longest day of the year.
In article <C6Assy.Ao9@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes:  >    Analog SF magazine did an article on a similar subject quite a few > years ago.  The question was, if an alien spacecraft landed in > Washington, D.C., what was the proper organization to deal with it: The > State Department (alien ambassadors), the Defense Department (alien > invaders), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (illegal aliens), > the Department of the Interior (new non-human species), etc.  It was > very much a question of our perception of the aliens, not of anything > intrinsic in their nature.  The bibliography for the article cited a > philosophical paper (the name and author of which I sadly forget; I > believe the author was Italian) on what constitutes a legal and/or moral > person, i.e., a being entitled to the rights normally accorded to a > person.  The paper was quite interesting, as I recall.  This is a whole different situation.  If aliens were able to get here prior to us being able to get there, one might conclude that they would be more advanced and therefore "more intelegent" that we are.  However if we get somewhere where there is life, chances are we wont be able to communicate with them.  So we will have no clue as to weather they are "intelegent" or not.  >    I think you'd have to be very careful here if the answer is yes.  The > human track record on helping those poor underpriveleged cultures (does > underpriveleged mean not having enough priveleges?) is terrible.  The > usual result is the destruction or radical reorganization of the > culture.  This may not always be wrong, but that's the way to bet.  That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it that way.  My question however was more along the lines of... Every year the US spends millions of tax dollars and giving tax breaks to individuals and companies who feed the poor of foreign countries while thousands of our own people sleep on the streets at night. Would we give to the economicly dissadvantaged on another planet if we hadn't resolved these issues on our own?   But... Your comment brings up another good question.  Over the years we have decided that certain cultures need improvements.  The native americans is a good example.  Prior to our attempt to civilize them, the native american culture had very little crime, no homelessnes, no poverty.  Then the europeans came along and now they have those and more.  If we encounter life elsewhere, do we tell them they have to live in houses, farm the land and go to church on sunday? --  Have a day,
Can someone please remind me who said a well known quotation?   He was sitting atop a rocket awaiting liftoff and afterwards, in answer to the question what he had been thinking about, said (approximately) "half a million components, each has to work perfectly, each supplied by the lowest bidder....."   Attribution and correction of the quote would be much appreciated.
The Apollo astronauts also trained at (in) Meteor Crater in the Flagstaff area (Arizona).  There is now a museum with a space shop. Caution: they ease you by 6$. Compared to a KSC visit it's not worth.
In article <1993Apr20.211638.168730@zeus.calpoly.edu> jgreen@trumpet.calpoly.edu (James Thomas Green) writes: >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)?  I haven't seen any speculation about it. But, the Salyut KB (Design Bureau)  was planning a new LH/LOX second stage for the Proton which would boost payload to LEO from about 21000 to 31500 kg. (Geostationary goes from 2600 kg. (Gals launcher version) to 6000 kg.. This scheme was competing with the Energia-M last year and I haven't heard which won, except now I recently read that the Central Specialized KB was working on the  successor to the Soyuz booster which must be the Energia-M. So the early results are Energia-M won, but this is a guess, nothing is very clear in  Russia. I'm sure if Salyut KB gets funds from someone they will continue  their development.   The Centaur for the Altas is about 3 meters dia. and the Proton  is 4 so that's a good fit for their existing upper stage, the Block-D which sets inside a shround just under 4 meters dia. I don't know about launch loads, etc.. but since the Centaur survives Titan launches which are probably worse than the Proton (those Titan SRB's probably shake things up pretty good) it seems feasible. EXCEPT, the Centaur is a very fragile thing and may require integration on the pad which is not available now. Protons are assembled and transported horizontially. Does anyone know  how much stress in the way of a payload a Centaur could support while bolted to a Proton horizontally and then taken down the rail road track and erected on the pad?    They would also need LOX and LH facilities added to the Proton pads  (unless the new Proton second stage is actually built), and of course any Centaur support systems and facilities, no doubt imported from the US at great cost. These systems may viloate US law so there are political problems to solve in addition to the instabilities in the CIS you mention.
Dale sez; >Mr. Hathaway's post is right on the money, if a little lengthy.  In short, >an orbiting billboard would be trash, in the same way that a billboard on >the Earth is trash.  Billboards make a place look trashy.  That is why there >are laws in many places prohibiting their use.  The light pollution >complaints are mainly an attempt to find some tangible reason to be against >orbiting billboards because people don't feel morally justified to complain >on the grounds that these things would defile the beauty of the sky.  I don't buy it.  If the things had no value at all, people wouldn't spend money to make them. So their lack of value is just your opinion, not an actual fact, which is neither a philisophical or legal basis for prohibiting them.  On the other hand, I lived in OakBrook IL for a while, where zoning laws prohibit billboards, as you mention above.  I think it was a fine law, despite it's contradictory basis.  I would guess that the best legal and moral basis for protest would be violation of private property.  "I bought this house, out in the boondocks, specifically to enjoy my hobby, amateur astronomy.  Now this billboard has made that investment worthless, so I want the price of the property, in damages."  It wouldn't take too many succesful cases like that to make bill-sats prohibitively expensive.  -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \ They communicated with the communists, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3
I feel compelled to complain: the statement that recent observations rule out merging neutron stars as sources of gamma-ray bursts is utterly false, even though it is popular enough to make it to BATSE press releases. The idea behind the statement is as follows:       "if you smack two neutron       stars together, or have a neutron star be gobbled up by a black hole,       a lot of energy is released, enough for a gamma-ray burst at a       cosmological distance. But, so the reasoning continues, this energy        is released below a lot of matter, so the radiation becomes       thermalized and you expect to see roughly a blackbody spectrum.       The observed spectra are strongly non-thermal, so this model must       be wrong." As so often, the fault lies with the imagination of the person who was trying to prove the model wrong rather than with the model. It may be that the initial energy release is not seen as a gamma-ray burst, but the 'fireball' of energy and matter that is created may spew out a relativistic flow. When this slams into the surrounding  medium, a strong flux of non-thermal gamma rays results, which may carry off a substantial fraction of the initial total energy. All this is not my idea: it is in a series of papers by Martin Rees, Peter Meszaros (sorry for the missing accents:-) and co-workers. It is certainly not a complete model, but it may well be the best one around (summing over all proposed distance scales). An alternative proposal for what creates the initial fireball, by the way, is the  so-called 'failed supernovae' scenario by Stan Woosley, in which a very massive star at the end of its life collapses to a black hole. If the stellar core was rotating, part of the infalling matter will be temporarily halted because it is supported by centrifugal force, and form a very dense neutron torus that accretes onto the black hole. This beast may spew out a jet along the rotation axis, which again constitutes relativistic flow. The rate of such events may be much higher than that of neutron star mergers, but the flux may be more strongly beamed, so that the net rate of bursts observed on Earth stays the same between the two scenarios, but the energy released per event can be a lot less in the failed supernova scenario.  On another note: I do believe that the distance scale must  ultimately be resolved via some classical astronomical method such as finding counterparts to the bursts at other wavelengths, or finding a definitive signature of some known class of objects in the distribution of positions and fluxes. Theorists have historically not been too successfull in finding the distance of any object by proving that there is only one possible way in which the object can work, and therefore it *must* be so-and-so.
In article <15APR199320340428@stdvax> abdkw@stdvax (David Ward) writes: >In article <C5JLwx.4H9.1@cs.cmu.edu>, ETRAT@ttacs1.ttu.edu (Pack Rat) writes... >>There has been something bothering me while watching >>NASA Select for a while.  Well, I should'nt say >>bothering, maybe wondering would be better.  When >>they are going to launch they say (sorry but I forget >>exactly who is saying what, OTC to PLT I think) >>"Clear caution & warning memory.  Verify no unexpected >>errors. ...".  I am wondering what an "expected error" might >>be.  Sorry if this is a really dumb question, but > > >In pure speculation, I would guess cautions based on hazardous >pre-launch ops would qualify.  Something like "Caution:  SRBs >have just been armed."    Also in pure speculation:  Parity errors in memory or previously known conditions that were waivered.    "Yes that is an error, but we already knew about it"  Any problem where they decided a backup would handle it.  Any problem in an area that was not criticality 1,2,3..., that is, any    problem in a system they decided they could do without.  I'd be curious as to what the real meaning of the quote is.
No.  Do this.  Have the DC-X1, make an unscheduled landing at teh 50 yard line during the halftime show of This years Superbowl.  ABC  will have more reporters there  for that,  then at any news event.
In article <C5r2DK.764@skates.gsfc.nasa.gov>, xrcjd@resolve.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles J. Divine) writes: > Just a pointer to the article in the current Science News article > on Federal R&D funding. >  > Very briefly, all R&D is being shifted to gaining current  > competitive advantage from things like military and other work that > does not have as much commercial utility. > --  > Chuck Divine  Gulp.  [Disclaimer:  This opinion is mine and does not represent the views of Fermilab, Universities Research Association, the Department of Energy, or the 49th Ward Regular Science Fiction Organization.]
belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:  >catalog.  These tests all  show, that the bursts have an isotropic >distribution(evenly spread out in a radial direction), and they show signs of >homogeneity, i.e. they do not clump in any one direction.  So, unless we are >sampling the area inside the disk of the galaxy, we are sampling the UNIVERSE. >Not cool, if you want to figure out what the hell caused these things.  Now, I >suppose you are saying, "Well, we stil only may be sampling from inside the >disk."  Well, not necessarily.  Remember, we have what is more or less an >interplanetary network of burst detectors with a baseline that goes waaaay out >to beyond Pluto(pioneer 11), so we should be able, with all of our detectors de >tect some sort of difference in angle from satellite to satellite.  Here's an  >analogy:  You see a plane overhead.  You measure the angle of the plane from >the origin of your arbitrary coordinate system.  One of your friends a mile >away sees the same plane, and measures the angle from the zero point of his >arbitrary system, which is the same as yours.  The two angles are different, >and you should be able to triangulate the position of your burst, and maybe >find a source.  To my knowledge, no one has been able to do this.    Uh, no. These burst detectors are just that, burst detectors. They have no angular resolution.  Now a network of burst detectors could have angular resolution, but we do not have a decent set of different networks at the distances neccesary from each other to determine if they're happening in the oort cloud or not.  We have one network, and trying to make two networks out of it degrades what angular resolution we have.
In article <1rq3os$64i@access.digex.net>, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: > In article <3t75nhg@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes: > | > |	As Herny pointed out, you have to develop the thruster. > |Also, while much lighter, you still have to lift the mass of > |the thruster to orbit, and then the thruster lifts its own  > |weight into a higher orbit.  And you take up room in the payload >>bay. >> >  > a yes,  but the improvement in  boost orbit to the HST is Significant,  I do not understand what you are saying here.  What is improved, what  is Significant, and what does this have to do with carrying more  equipment on a servicing mission?  Also, as implied by other posters, why  do you need to boost the orbit on this mission anyway?  Maybe you have  something here, but could you please clarify it for us on the net?   > and  that means you can then carry EDO packs  and enough consumables > so the SHuttle mission can go on long enough to also fix the > array tilt motors,  and god knows what else  is going to wear out  From what I've heard, the motors are fine - it is one of the two  sets of electronics that control the motors that needs a fix.  The  motors and electronics are separate pieces of hardware.  I expect  to be corrected if I'm wrong on this.
Can somebody elaborate on "Area Ruling".  I gather it's something to do with aerodynamics of trans-sonic planes, and can be summarised as "Coke bottle good, Coke can bad".  Anyone provide more details, derivation etc?
In article <YAMAUCHI.93Apr21131325@yuggoth.ces.cwru.edu>, yamauchi@ces.cwru.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: |> >NASA would provide contractual launch services. However, |> >since NASA bases its charge on seriously flawed cost estimates |> >(WN 26 Mar 93) the taxpayers would bear most of the expense. This |> >may look like environmental vandalism, but Mike Lawson, CEO of |> >Space Marketing, told us yesterday that the real purpose of the |> >project is to help the environment! The platform will carry ozone |> >monitors he explained--advertising is just to help defray costs. |>  |> This may be the purpose for the University of Colorado people.  My |> guess is that the purpose for the Livermore people is to learn how to |> build large, inflatable space structures. |>   The CU people have been, and continue to be big ozone scientists. So  this is consistent. It is also consistent with the new "Comercial  applications" that NASA and Clinton are pushing so hard.  |>  |> >Is NASA really supporting this junk?  Did anyone catch the rocket that was launched with a movie advert  all over it? I think the rocket people got alot of $$ for painting  up the sides with the movie stuff. What about the Coke/Pepsi thing  a few years back? NASA has been trying to find ways to get other  people into the space funding business for some time. Frankly, I've  thought about trying it too. When the funding gets tight, only the  innovative get funded. One of the things NASA is big on is co-funding.  If a PI can show co-funding for any proposal, that proposal has a SIGNIFICANTLY higher probability of being funded than a proposal with more merit but no  co-funding. Once again, money talks!
In article <1rpt1v$q5h@hsc.usc.edu> khayash@hsc.usc.edu (Ken Hayashida) writes: >As for human tolerances, the best example of human endurance in terms >of altitude (i.e. low atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen partial pressure) >is in my opinion to the scaling of Mt. Everest without oxygen assistance... >... This is quite a feat of physiological endurance...  Indeed so; it's at the extreme limit of what is humanly possible.  It is possible only because Mount Everest is at a fairly low latitude:  there is a slight equatorial bulge in the atmosphere -- beyond what is induced by the Earth's rotation -- thanks to the overall circulation pattern of the atmosphere (air cools at poles and descends, flowing back to equator where it is warmed and rises), and this helps just enough to make Everest- without-oxygen feasible.  Only just feasible, mind you:  the guys who did it reported hallucinations and other indications of oxygen starvation, and probably incurred some permanent brain damage.
dmcaloon@tuba.calpoly.edu (David McAloon) writes: [Lots of trippy stuff deleted]  Wow...  What is this guy smoking and WHERE can I GET SOME?  Dan
In article <1rkb56INN9hs@mojo.eng.umd.edu> sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu writes: >>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. > >Unless you're Martin Marietta, since (as I recall) they bought out the GD >line of aerospace products.   I think you've got an off-by-one error in your memory. :-)  MM bought the satellite-building side of GE.  E, not D.  MM and GD are still competitors.  >If MM/GD does it as an in-house project, their costs would look much better >than buying at "list price."  Better, yes, but we're not talking order of magnitude.  (Especially if you want to use Titan IV, which belongs to the USAF, not MM.)  >... C'mon. Allen is telling us how cheap we can get improved this >or that...   Sure, you can get a heavylift launcher fairly cheap if you do it privately rather than as a gummint project.  But we're still talking about something that will cost nine digits per launch, unless you can guarantee a large market to justify volume production.
The following press release was distributed April 1 by NASA Headquarters.  Space Station Redesign Advisory Members Named  Along with Dr. Charles M. Vest, recently named by Vice President Albert Gore to head the advisory committee on the redesign of the Space Station, NASA has announced the names of representatives from government and industry and academic experts from across the country to participate in an independent review of the redesign options being developed by NASA.  "I am extremely honored to have been selected to lead this important review panel. America's future in science and technology and as a world leader in space demands our utmost attention and care," said Vest. "We have assembled a diverse panel of experts that, I believe, will bring the appropriate measures of insight, integrity and objectivity to this critical task."  The advisory committee is charged with independently assessing various redesign options of the space station presented by NASA's redesign team, and proposing recommendations to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the space station program. Space station international partners also are being asked to  participate and will be named at a later date. The advisory committee will submit its recommendations in June.  Advisory committee members named today include:  Dr. Charles Vest              Dr. Bobby Alford President, MIT                Executive VP & Dean of Medicine                               Baylor College of Medicine  Mr. Jay Chabrow               Dr. Paul Chu President, JMR Associates     Director, Texas Center for                               Superconductivity                               University of Houston  Dr. Ed Crawley                Dr. John Fabian Prof of Aero & Astro          President & CEO MIT                           ANSER  Maj. Gen. James Fain          Dr. Edward Fort Deputy Chief of Staff for     Chancellor Requirements; Headquarters    North Carolina AT&T USAF Materials Command        State University  Dr. Mary Good                 Mr. Frederick Hauck Senior VP of Technology       President, International Technical Allied Signal, Inc.           Underwriters  Dr. Lou Lanzerotti            Mr. William Lilly Chair, Space Sciences         National Academy of Public Board, National Research      Administration Council  Mr. Duane McRuer              Dr. Brad Parkinson President Systems Technology  Prof of Astro & Aero                               Stanford University  Dr. Robert Seamans            Dr. Lee Silver Former NASA Deputy Admin.     W.M. Keck Foundation Professor                               for Resource Geology                               California Institute of                               Technology
Other idea for old space crafts is as navigation beacons and such.. Why not?? If you can put them on "safe" "pause" mode.. why not have them be activated by a signal from a space craft (manned?) to act as a naviagtion beacon, to take a directional plot on??