waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C6BDGM.90r@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: |In article <1rrgu7$9lp@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: |>>No, the thing is designed to be retrievable, in a pinch.  Indeed, this |>>dictated a rather odd design for the solar arrays, since they had to be |>>retractable as well as extendable... |> |>Why not design the solar arrays to be detachable.  if the shuttle is going |>to retunr the HST,  what bother are some arrays... | |They can be detached in an emergency.  But expensive hardware is not thrown |away casually (bearing in mind that nobody knew the design was defective). |If the deployment crew had found some nasty flaw -- the lid failing to open, |for example -- it would have been a bit embarrassing to have to throw the |solar arrays away to get the thing back in the payload bay.   I guess it's  kind of an aesthetics argument.  I can see the solar arrays being expensive,  and  there could be contingencies where you would be throwing away brand new solar cells,   but  it seems so cheap compared toa shuttle mission, i wouldn't think they would bother.
I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I just wanted to add a point.     The whole question of "a right to a dark sky" revolves around the definition of a right.  Moral rights and natural rights are all well and good, but as far as I can see, a right is whatever you or someone representing you can enforce.  In most civilizations, the government or the church (or both) defines what the rights of the citizens are, and then enforces those rights for them.  Here in the U.S., the constitution provides a "Bill of Rights" from which most if not all legal rights are considered to derive.  I'm sure that most other countries have comparable documents.  If you can persuade a court that you have a right to a dark sky derived in some manner from the Bill of Rights (in the U.S.), you can prevent (maybe) these billboards from being launched.  To keep anyone in the world from launching then gets into international law and the International Court of Justice (correct name?) in the Hague, something I know little about.
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?     my own pet theory is that it's  Flying saucers  entering hyperspace :-)  but the reason i am asking is that most everyone assumes  that they are  colliding nuetron stars  or  spinning black holes,  i just wondered if any mechanism could exist  and place them  closer in.
Are you guys talking about the Soviet "shuttle"?  It's not "Soyuz", it's called "Buran" which means "snow storm."  (At least that's what they call it on Russian TV).
In article <C4M8E5.AuD@csn.org> et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) writes: >From: et@teal.csn.org (Eric H. Taylor) >Subject: Re: Gravity waves, was: Predicting gravity wave quantization & Cosmic Noise >Summary: Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of relativity? >Keywords: space, curvature, nothing, tesla >Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 20:18:04 GMT >In article <C4KvJF.4qo@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes: >>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes: >>> Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes: >>>> "Existence" is undefined unless it is synonymous with "observable" in >>>> physics. >>> [crb] Dong ....  Dong ....  Dong ....  Do I hear the death-knell of >>> string theory? >> >>     I agree.  You can add "dark matter" and quarks and a lot of other >>unobservable, purely theoretical constructs in physics to that list, >>including the omni-present "black holes." >> >>     Will Bruce argue that their existence can be inferred from theory >>alone?  Then what about my original criticism, when I said "Curvature >>can only exist relative to something non-curved"?  Bruce replied: >>"'Existence' is undefined unless it is synonymous with 'observable' in >>physics.  We cannot observe more than the four dimensions we know about." >>At the moment I don't see a way to defend that statement and the >>existence of these unobservable phenomena simultaneously.  -|Tom|- > >"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have >no properties." >"Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the >space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, >is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, >for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view." - Nikola Tesla > >---- > ET  "Tesla was 100 years ahead of his time. Perhaps now his time comes." >----
In article <1993May11.153010.438@den.mmc.com> seale@possum.den.mmc.com (Eric H Seale) writes: >I can't speak for the Russian probes, but the last I heard, the 1997 US >probe is planned to have air-bags on it (seriously!) to cushion the >impact.  Hopefully, it won't be a "bouncer" (should just hit and go >"thud").
fils@iastate.edu (Douglas R Fils) writes:  >In article <1qgiah$h9g@news.cerf.net> diaspar@nic.cerf.net (Diaspar Virtual Reality Network) writes: >>The rollout was great and I got lots of great shots. I attended >>the press briefing and got shots of the DC-Y model, too. All >>in 3D >> >>David H. Mitchell >> >> >David, >	Are you still planing on scanning these and posting them >somewhere?  Hope Hope Hope.  If you could that would be GREAT.  >Thanks for report of the rollout as well >take care >Doug  	They did the rollout already??!?  I am going to have to pay more attention to the news.  Are any of the gifs headed for wuarchive??    Patrick
In article <93107.144339SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes: >This is turning into 'what's a moonbase good for', and I ought >not to post when I've a hundred some odd posts to go, but I would >think that the real reason to have a moon base is economic. > >Since someone with space industry will presumeably have a much >larger GNP than they would _without_ space industry, eventually, >they will simply be able to afford more stuff.  If I read you right, you're saying in essence that, with a larger economy, nations will have more discretionary funds to *waste* on a lunar facility. That was certainly partially the case with Apollo,  but real Lunar colonies will probably require a continuing military, scientific, or commercial reason for being rather than just a "we have  the money, why not?" approach.  It's conceivable that Luna will have a military purpose, it's possible that Luna will have a commercial purpose, but it's most likely that Luna will only have a scientific purpose for the next several hundred years at least. Therefore, Lunar bases should be predicated on funding levels little different from those found for Antarctic bases. Can you put a 200 person base on the Moon for $30 million a year? Even if you use grad students?  Gary
In <C5sy4s.4x2.1@cs.cmu.edu> 18084TM@msu.edu (Tom) writes:   >Nick Haines sez; >>(given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in >>maturity, I strongly doubt that this [having lots of bugs] is the case).  >Level 5?  Out of how many?  What are the different levels?  I've never >heard of this rating system.  Anyone care to clue me in?  SEI Level 5 (the highest level -- the SEI stands for Software Engineering Institute).  I'm not sure, but I believe that this rating only applies to the flight software.  Also keep in mind that it was *not* achieved through the use of sophisticated tools, but rather through a 'brute force and ignorance' attack on the problem during the Challenger standdown - they simply threw hundreds of people at it and did the whole process by hand.  I would not consider receiving a 'Warning' status on systems which are not yet in use would detract much (if anything) from such a rating -- I'll have to get the latest copy of the guidelines to make sure (they just issued new ones, I think).  Also keep in mind that the SEI levels are concerned primarily with control of the software process; the assumption is that a well controlled process will produce good software.  Also keep in mind that SEI Level 5 is DAMNED HARD.  Most software in this country is produced by 'engineering practicies' that only rate an SEI Level 1 (if that).   --  "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live  in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
Does anyone know ifthe STS-56 email press kit was ever released?  -Tony Ryan, "Astronomy & Space", new International magazine, available from:               Astronomy Ireland, P.O.Box 2888, Dublin 1, Ireland. 6 issues (one year sub.): UK 10.00 pounds, US$20 surface (add US$8 airmail). ACCESS/VISA/MASTERCARD accepted (give number, expiration date, name&address).
A bright light phenomenon was observed in the Eastern Finland     on April 21. At 00.25 UT two people saw a bright, luminous     pillar-shaped phenomenon in the low eastern horizont near     Mikkeli. The head of the pillar was circular. The lower part     was a little winding. It was like a monster they told. They     were little frightened. Soon the yellowish pillar became     enlarged. A bright spot like the Sun was appeared in the middle     of the phenomenon. At last the light landed behind the nearby     forest. Now there was only luminous trails in the sky which were     visible till morning sunrise.      The same phenomenon was observed also by Jaakko Kokkonen in     Lappeenranta. At 00.26 UT he saw a luminous yellowish trail in     the low northeastern horizont. The altitude of the trail was     only about 3-4 degrees. Soon the trail began to grow taller.     A loop was appeared in the head of the trail. It was like a     spoon. This lasted only 10 seconds. Now the altitude was about     five degress above horizont. He noted a bright spot at the     upper stage of loop. The spot was at magnitude -2. The loop     became enlarged and the spot was now visible in the middle of     the loop. A cartwheel-shaped trail was appeared round the bright     spot. After a minute the spot disappeared and only fuzzy trails     were only visible in the low horizont. Luminous trails were still     visible at 01.45 UT in the morning sky.      The phenomenon was caused by a Russian rocket. I don't know if     there were satellite launches in Plesetsk Cosmodrome near     Arkhangelsk, but this may be a rocket experiment too. Since 1969     we have observed over 80 rocket phenomena in Finland. Most of     these are rocket experiments (military missile tests?), barium     experiments and other chemical releases. During these years we     have observed 17 satellite launches.      Leo Wikholm
In article <1993Apr29.010847.1@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> belgarath@vax1.mankato.msus.edu writes:  > getting at here.  This puppy is far enough away, that if a bright > burst happens nearby, the huge annulus created by it will hopefully > intersect the line or general circle given by BATSE, and we can get a > moderately accurate position. Say oh, 2 or 3 degrees. That is the > closest anyone has ever gotten with it.   You can do a whole hell of a lot better than 2 or 3 degrees with the differential timing measurements from the interplanetary network. Ignore the directional information from BATSE; just look at the time of arrival.  With three detectors properly arranged, one can often get positions down to ~arc minutes.  BTW, about Oort cloud sources: shouldn't this be testable in the fairly near future?  Some of the GRBs have very short rise times (< 1 ms).  We could detect the curvature of the burst wavefront out to a distance of on the order of b^2/(t c) where b is the detector spacing and t the time resolution.  For t = 1 ms and b = 2 AU, this is on the order of 16 light years.  I understand statistics will reduce this number considerably, as would geometry if the burst is coming from the wrong direction.
In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) asked: |>  |> Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used |> to compute sunrise and sunset times. |>  |> I would appreciate any advice. |>  |> Joe Wetstein |> jpw@coe.drexel.edu  To compute this, and many other astronomical things, go and get (x)ephem written by Elwood C. Downey. It is e.g. on export.lcs.mit.edu
In article <1993Apr27.094238.7682@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes... >If re-boosting the HST by carrying it with a shuttle would not damage it, >then why couldn't HST be brought back to earth and the repair job done >here? >  >Is it because two shuttle flights would be required, adding to the alredy >horrendous expense? >   I don't think a reboost exercise is analogous to a shuttle landing/launch in terms of stresses/misalignments/etc.  I would think of the reboost as a gentile push, where a landing, then launch as two JOLTS which would put more mechanical stress on the instruments.  Additionally, there might be a concern about landing loads to the shuttle in the event of a laden landing.  Finally, probably some thought went into possible contamination  problems if the instruments came back to earth.  Of course, the cost of two shuttle launches _is_ a good reason to avoid something that might be done in one shuttle launch.  Here's hoping Cepi's gang gets the job done right the first time.
Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes:  >the "Environmental >Billboard" is a large inflatable outer support structure of up to >804x1609 meters.  Advertising is carried by a mylar reflective area, >deployed by the inflatable 'frame'. >   To help sell the concept, the spacecraft responsible for >maintaining the billboard on orbit will carry "ozone reading >sensors" to "continuously monitor the condition of the Earth's >delicate protective ozone layer," according to Mike Lawson, head of >SMI. Furthermore, the inflatable billboard has reached its minimum >exposure of 30 days it will be released to re-enter the Earth's >atmosphere. According to IMI, "as the biodegradable material burns, >it will release ozone-building components that will literally >replenish the ozone layer."  ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^   Can we assume that this guy studied advertising and not chemistry?  Granted  it probably a great advertising gimic, but it doesn't sound at all practical.
In a recent article nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Okay we have figure out that a mission specifically to Pluto is to large  >and to expensive..  I'd hardly call the current Pluto Fast Flyby proposal "too large" (if the new technology insertion currently taking place succeeds, the S/C mass will drop to 110-120 kg) or "too expensive" ($400 million [FY92 $] for two S/C), especially when compared to other NASA planetary missions.  >Basically what I mean is design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for >different missions,namely different planets. Each probe would be tied in with >the mother ship (or earth as the case may be).. This is good when and if we go >for Mars (the MArs mission can act as either Mother ship or relay point for  >the probes.  This proposal would work only if your various targets are relaively nearby and the require minimal delta-v from the mother ship.  A mission to the main belt might be one possibility for such a mission -- I recall a paper being presented at an AIAA deisgn conference in Irvine in February where such a proposed spacecraft was designed by some grad students at UT Austin (I think).  Four mini-spacecraft would detatch from the main S/C, each visiting a seperate asteroid and then returning to the main S/C.  After analysis, the main S/C would then be targeted for the most "interesting" object for further study.  Now, if I could only *find* that paper...  =)
higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:  >In article <324417a1@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Wales.Larrison@ofa123.fidonet.org writes: >> COMMERCIAL SPACE NEWS/SPACE TECHNOLOGY INVESTOR NUMBER 22 >[...] >>    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...  My information shows that the last San Marco launch was 1988.  There seem to  have been a total of seven before that.  I seem to recall that someone, either ASI or the University of Rome (?) includes money in their annual budget for maintainance of the platforms (there are actually two).  The Italians have been spending money to develop an advanced Scout.  However, recent events in the Italian space program, and the Italian government overall make me skeptical that this will get off the ground in the near future.
Introducing the Back to the Moon in Congress:                           The Next Step                                    The next key hurdle for the Lunar Resources Data Purchase  Act is introduction of the Act in Congress. At this point,  many congresspersons have been approached about the bill. However, for a successful effort to pass the bill, we need the best possible congressperson to introduce the bill. Due to his position as Chair of the House Committee on Space and Science, Congressman George Brown is the logical choice. He has a long record of support and interest in space development, and helped pass the Launch Services Purchase Act and the Space Settlements Act.                               There is a small group of activists in southern California  who have assisted George Brown in his recent re-election campaigns. We are mobilizing this group to have them tell Congressman Brown about the Back to the Moon bill. We are also asking pro-space constituents to let him know that they care about getting America back to the Moon.         Finally, there is a good chance that a nationwide alert  for space activists to call or write George Brown to have him introduce the Back to the Moon bill may be staged during late spring, 1993.         All this should produce a positive reaction from Brown's office. As more is known, it will be passed on.         However, even if we are successful in getting him to support the bill,  this alone will not ensure passage of the bill. For any bill to become law, one of three conditions must exist: either the bill must reflect widespread national support for an issue (such as extension of unemployment insurance benefits); be propelled by high-priced lobbyists (we're out of luck there); or have widespread support within Congress, due to small, but widespread, constituent support. The latter is the path that we, by necessity, must choose.                             This means that the introduction of the Lunar Resources  Data Purchase Act must be immediately accompanied by a large number of congresspersons' sponsorship of the bill.  To accomplish this, we need activists to ask their congressperson to support the Lunar Resources Data Purchase Act - now. To wait until the bill is introduced is simply too late - it takes time to have a congressperson's staff review a bill.         If your congressperson mentions that the bill is not yet introduced, please elicit their opinion of the bill as currently written. We appreciate all comments on the bill from activists and politicians.         If you have yet to see the Back to the Moon bill, please request a copy by Email (please include your U.S. postal service address), or contact your local chapter of the National Space Society).
In article <C71EnF.HJM@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes: >In <1993May13.100935.21187@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > >|It is, however, now somewhat of an experimental science with the exploration >|of fractals, strange attractors, and artificial life. Whether important >|insights will be gained from these experiments is unknown, but it does >|tend to change the shape of what has mostly been viewed as an abstract >|deductive field. > >How do you do experiments in mathematics?  Nowadays, usually with a computer. No theory predicted the numeric  discoveries listed above. No one can yet write an algorithm that will predict the precise behavior of any of these at any precise level of their evolution. So it remains for experimenters to gather data on their behavior.  Gary
Davis Nicoll sez; >>      Hmmm. I seem to recall that the attraction of solid state record- >>players and radios in the 1960s wasn't better performance but lower >>per-unit cost than vacuum-tube systems.  I'd buy that for two reasons.  The tubes for TV's and radios (if you can still find them) are usually 3x or more expensive than comparable transistors.  Also, ask any electric-guitar enthusiast which type of amp they prefer, and they'll tell you tube-type, since tubes have lower distortion and noise than transistors.  'Course, most of your electric guitar types just say "Tubes sound better, dude." :-)  Also, transistors have the advantage in both waste-heat and energy-use, mainly because of the heaters on the cathodes of the tubes.  -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk   \\ As the radius of vision increases, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \\ the circumference of mystery grows.
In article <1rd1g0$ckb@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: >How will said re-boost be done? >Grapple, HST,  stow it in Cargo bay,  do OMS burn to high altitude,   >unstow  HST,   repair  gyros,  costar install,  fix solar arrays, >then return to earth?  Actually, the reboost will probably be done last, so that there is a fuel reserve during the EVAs (in case they have to chase down an adrift astronaut or something like that).  But yes, you've got the idea -- the reboost is done by taking the whole shuttle up.  >My guess is  why  bother with  usingthe shuttle to reboost? >why not  grapple,  do all said fixes,   bolt a small  liquid  fueled >thruster module  to  HST,   then let it make the re-boost...  Somebody has to build that thruster module; it's not an off-the-shelf item.  Nor is it a trivial piece of hardware, since it has to include attitude control (HST's own is not strong enough to compensate for things like thruster imbalance), guidance (there is no provision to feed gyro data from HST's own gyros to an external device), and separation (you don't want it left attached afterward, if only to avoid possible contamination after the telescope lid is opened again).  You also get to worry about whether the lid is going to open after the reboost is done and HST is inaccessible to the shuttle (the lid stays closed for the duration of all of this to prevent mirror contamination from thrusters and the like).  The original plan was to use the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle to do the reboost.  The OMV was planned to be a sort of small space tug, well suited to precisely this sort of job.  Unfortunately, it was costing a lot to develop and the list of definitely-known applications was relatively short, so it got cancelled.
I have often thought about, if its possible to have a powerfull laser on earth, to light at the Moon, and show lasergraphics at the surface so clearly that you can see it with your eyes when there is a new moon.  How about a Coca Cola logo at the moon, easy way to target billions of people.  Do you know if its possible?