waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C659w7.IyD@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes: >From: loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) >Subject: Re: What planets are habitable >Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 13:38:28 GMT >In article <JPG.93Apr27135219@holly.bnr.co.uk> jpg@bnr.co.uk (Jonathan P. Gibbons) writes: >>I would appreciate any thoughts on what makes a planet habitable for Humans. >>I am making asumptions that life and a similar atmosphere evolve given a range >>of physical aspects of the planet.  The question is what physical aspects >>simply disallow earth like conditions. >> >>eg Temperature range of 280K to 315K (where temp is purely dependant on dist >>     from the sun and the suns temperature..) >>   Atmospheric presure ? - I know nothing of human tolerance  There are people who have adapted to high altitudes in the Andes and in Tibet. I suspect that it took them several generations to make the adaptation because Europeans had difficulty making the adaptation. They had to send the women to a lower altitude when they were pregnant in order to insure sucessful childbirth.  >>   Planetary Mass ? - again gravity at surface is important, how much >>     can human bodies take day after day.  Also how does the mass effect >>     atmosphere.  I thinking of planets between .3 and 3 times mass of the >>     earth.  I suppose density should be important as well. >>  Another factor you should consider is the X-ray opacity of the atmosphere  in case of stellar flares, the uv opacity is also important because uv  radiation can kill or damage microbes, plants, and animals.
In article <1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: > >Unfortunately H. Beam Piper killed him self just weeks short of having his >first book published, and have his ideas see light.. Such a waste. > > Piper lived in my town (Williamsport, PA) when he killed himself.  It was in the early '60's.  He had had more than a few books published by that time, but he was down on his luck financially.  Rumor was that he was hunting urban pigeons with birdshot for food.  He viewed himself as a resourceful man, and (IMO) decided to check out gracefully if he couldn't support himself.  The worst part is that John Campbell, the long-time editor of Astounding/Analog SF magazine had cut a check for Piper's most recent story, and said check was in the mail.  If Campbell had known Piper's straits, I'm sure he would have phoned to say hang on. Campbell was like that.  I wish it had happened differently.  I always enjoyed Piper's stuff.
I know it's only wishful thinking, with our current President, but this is from last fall:       "Is there life on Mars?  Maybe not now.  But there will be."         -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator, 24 August 1992  -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office       kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368
In article <1993May1.051312.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >... design a mother ship that has piggy backed probes for >different missions,namely different planets...  Not useful unless you've got some truly wonderful propulsion system for the mother ship that can't be applied to the probes.  Otherwise it's better to simply launch the probes independently.  The outer planets are scattered widely across a two-dimensional solar system, and going to one is seldom helpful in going to the next one.  Uranus is *not* on the way to Neptune.  Don't judge interplanetary trajectories in general 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.  >Also the mother ship would be powered (if not the Mars Mission) by a normal >propulsion, but also a solar sail ...  Solar sails are pretty useless in the outer solar system.  They're also very slow, unless you assume quite advanced versions.
In article <1993Apr5.184527.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >This might a real wierd idea or maybe not.. > > >Why musta  space station be so difficult?? why must we have girders? why be >confined to earth based ideas, lets think new ideas, after all space is not >earth, why be limited by earth based ideas?? > Choose any or all of the following as an answer to the above:
Here is a potentially dumb question: What prevents the martian landers themselves from "polluting" the martian environment with earth based critters? Is the long trip in cold radiation bathed space enough to completely sterilize the landers?  I could imagine that a few teeny microbes could manage to get all the way there unharmed, and then possibly thrive given the right circumstances.
Excerpt From: rek@siss81 (Robert Kaye)  :Just a few contributions from the space program to "regular" society: : :1.	Calculators :2.	Teflon (So your eggs don't stick in the pan) :3.	Pacemakers (Kept my grandfather alive from 1976 until 1988)                      Don't forget Tang!  ::smile::
In article <STEINLY.93Apr25180118@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > >     What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away? > >Their distribution is very isotropic and the intensity distribution, >crudely speaking, indicates we're seeing an edge to the distribution.
tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) writes:  >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.  >By the way, 1992 QB1 can never be known as "Smiley" officially, because >that moniker has already been assigned to asteroid number 1613.  Could someone explain where these names come from?   I'm sure there's a  perfectly good reason to name a planetoid "Smiley," but I'm equally sure that I don't know what that reason is.
The SDIO has "contracted" with the NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) to fly the Clementine Mission.  BTW we call it DSPSE (Deep Space Project Science Experiment).  The NRL is building the spacecraft, designing the detailed mission and doing the integration and operations (with help from, JPL & Goddard & prob. some folks I have left out...don't be mad).  I am on the TAMP (Trajectory Analysis & Mission Planning) team and am responsable for the IV&V of the traj that Goddard/CSC are designing.  As for why SDIO is doing it, some of the reasons are:     1)  the safety constraints are too tight to try to run the LIDAR in LEO     2)  in LEO we don't get any new radiation data on the sensors, we will get        that data on our 9 passages through the Van Allen (sp?) Belts     3)  since we are going out there...why not piggy-back some general science     4)  the intercept problem is a lot easied over LONG distances and LONG times  I am sure there are some things I have forgotten, and some I haven't been told but, those are the reasons we all talk about.  --
Tonigth a TV journal here in Brasil announced that an object, beyond Pluto's orbit, was found by an observatory at Hawaii. They named the object Karla.  	The program said the object wasn't a gaseous giant planet, and should be composed by rocks and ices.  	Can someone confirm these information? Could this object be a new planet or a Kuiper object?  	Thanks in advance.  	Francisco.
dnash@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (David Nash) writes:  >We're talking about an orbiting ad here, not some little point >of light that puts a streak or two on a photograph.  It should have been >clear that anything used for advertisement is going to be a bit larger than >a point source.  Even if this was not clear there's a previous post on this >topic that makes it clear:  >---- >Message-ID: <FOX.93May15223005@graphics.nyu.edu> >Sender: notes@cmcl2.nyu.edu (Notes Person) >Nntp-Posting-Host: graphics.cs.nyu.edu >Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences >Date: Sun, 16 May 1993 03:30:05 GMT >Lines: 132  >In the New York Times on Sunday May 9th in the week in review >section there was a report of a group called "Space Marketing" >in Atlanta, Georgia who is planning to put up a one mile wide >reflective Earth orbiting satelite which will appear as large >						     ^^ ^^^^^ >and as bright as the Moon and carry some sort of advertising. >^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^  From the description I've read, it's prob. only going to be as bright as Jupiter. Anything else is probably hype from the opponents or wishful thinking from the sponsors.  If we could do something as bright as the full moon that soon, that cheap, the CIS would have done it already.
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?  Gruss, Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
In article <1993May1.044441.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >Okay, the earth has a magnetic field ... >...if you put a object in the earth magnetic field, it produces electricty..  Well, it's not that simple -- you're in Earth's magnetic field, and you don't generate electricity -- but it can be done.  >Now the question. Can you use electricity to power a space/low earth orbit >vehicle? and i fyou can, can you use the magnetic field of the earth to power >it??  The way you power things is with electricity, so the answer to the first question is definitely yes.  (If you meant to say "propel" rather than "power", the answer is "sort of".)  Yes, you can use interaction with the Earth's magnetic field to get electrical power, and there are potential applications for this.  However, bear in mind that there is no free lunch.  The energy isn't coming from nowhere.  What such systems do is convert some of the energy of your orbital velocity into electrical energy.  There are cases where this is a useful tradeoff.  Using power obtained in this way for propulsion is useful only in special situations, however.  What you *can* do is get your power by some other means, e.g. solar arrays, and run the interaction with the magnetic field in reverse, pumping energy *into* the orbit rather than taking energy out of it.  If you want more information, trying looking up "electrodynamic propulsion", "tether applications", and "magsails".  >Can the idea of a "dragless" satellite be used in part to create the >electrical field?  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.  This is why there are quotes around "dragless".
In <19APR199320262420@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov  (Ron Baalke) writes:  >Forwarded from Doug Griffith, Magellan Project Manager > >                        MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT >                            April 16, 1993 > > >2.  Magellan has completed 7225 orbits of Venus and is now 39 days from >the end of Cycle-4 and the start of the Transition Experiment. Sorry I think I missed a bit of info on this Transition Experiment. What is it?  >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 ??  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 :-)  ok that's it for now. See you guys around, Jurriaan.
In article <1radsr$att@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:       What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?  Their distribution is very isotropic and the intensity distribution, crudely speaking, indicates we're seeing an edge to the distribution.     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?     Now, in the good old days before GRO data, it was thought the gamma bursters were neutron stars in the galaxy, it was expected that GRO would confirm this by either showing they were a local population (within a few hundred light years) or that they were in the galactic halo. (Mechanism was not known but several plausible ones existed) (also to be fair it was noted that the _brightest_ burster was probably in the LMC, suggesting theorists might be wrong back then...) 	As the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy a halo population should show anisotropy (a local disk population is ruled out completely at this stage) - to avoid the anisotropy you have to push the halo out, the energy then gets large, the mechanism of getting NS out that far becomes questionable, and we should start to see for example the Andromeda's bursters. 	The data is consistent with either a Oort cloud distribution (but only just) - but no one can think of a plausible source with the right spectrum. Or, it can be a cosmological distances (hence isotropy) and the edge is "the edge of the Universe" ;-) If at cosmological distances you need very high energy (to detect) and a very compact source (for spectrum), ergo a neutron star colliding with another neutron star or black hole. Even then getting the spectrum is very hard, but conceivable.  	If we know anything about physics at that level, the bursters are not due to quantum black holes or cosmic strings, wrong spectrum for one thing.  The situation is further complicated by recent claims that there are two classes of sources ;-)  [in the colliding NS they'd actually probably fit relatively easily into the NS-NS and NS-BH collision scenarios respectively]     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.  If you can think of one, remember to invite me to Stockholm...
keithley@apple.com (Craig Keithley) writes: > > All in all, I'm not certain that the single goal/prize of staying on the > moon for a year is wise and/or useful.  How about:  A prize for the > first > non-government sponsered unmanned moon landing, then another for a > manned > moon landing, then yet another for a system to extract consumables from > lunar soil, another for a reusable earth/moon shuttle, and so forth.  > Find > some way to build civilian moonbase infrastructure...  Having a single > goal > might result in a bunch of contestents giving up after one person > appeared > to win.  And for those that didn't give up, I find something a little > scary > about a half dozen people huddling in rickety little moon shelters.  I'd > like to see as much a reward for co-operation as for competition. > > Lastly, about ten or fifteen years back I seem to recall that there was > an > English space magazine that had an on-going discussion about moonbases > on > the cheap.  I recalled it discussed things like how much heat the human > body produced, how much lunar material it'd need for protection from > solar > flares, etc.  Unfortunately I don't remember the name of this magazine.  > Does this ring a bell to anyone? > > Craig Keithley                    |"I don't remember, I don't recall,  > Apple Computer, Inc.              |I got no memory of anything at all" > keithley@apple.com                |Peter Gabriel, Third Album (1980) >  I love the idea of progressive developmental prizes, but the assumption has been all along that only the U.S. Gummint could fund the prizes.  It wouldn't and couldn't do such a thing ... BUT ...  An eccentric billionaire COULD offer such a prize or series of prizes.  Anyone know H. Ross Perot or Bill Gates personally?
In article <1993Apr26.152722.19887@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA]) writes: > I just posted the GIF files out for anonymous FTP on server ics.uci.edu. [...] > Sorry it took > me so long to get these out, but I was trying for the Ames server, > but it's out of space.  How ironic.
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:  >On 4 Apr 1993 20:31:10 -0400, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) said:  >Pat> In article <1993Apr2.213917.1@aurora.alaska.edu> >Pat> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>Question is can someone give me 10 examples of direct NASA/Space related >>research that helped humanity in general? It will be interesting to see..  >Pat> TANG :-) Mylar I think.  I think they also pushed Hi Tech >Pat> Composites for airframes.  Look at Fly by Wire.  >Swept wings--if you fly in airliners you've reaped the benefits.  Didn't one of the early jet fighters have these? I also think the germans did some work on these in WWII.  >Winglets.  Area ruling.  Digital fly by wire.  Ride smoothing.  A lot of this was also done by the military...  >Microwave landing systems.  Supercritical wings.  General aviation >air foils.  Weren't the first microwave landing systems from WWII too?  >-- >Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA >shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA > "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot  Egad! I'm disagreeing with Mary Shafer!
In article <1993Apr23.155313.4220@dazixco.ingr.com> jbreed@ingr.com writes: >|> [Pluto's] atmosphere will start to freeze out around 2010, and after about >|> 2005 increasing areas of both Pluto and Charon will be in permanent >|> shadow that will make imaging and geochemical mapping impossible. > >Where does the shadow come from?  There's nothing close enough to block >sunlight from hitting them.  I wouldn't expect there to be anything block >our view of them either.  What am I missing?  You're assuming that their normal rotation carries all areas of the surface into sunlight.  Not so.  Even on Earth, each pole gets several weeks without sunlight in mid-winter.  Pluto and Charon have much more extreme axial tilt and a much longer orbit.  Pluto's north pole, for example, gets over a century of darkness followed by over a century of perpetual light.  At the moment, we're in luck -- Pluto and Charon are just past their equinox, when the Sun was just on the horizon at both poles (of each). If we get probes there soon, only the immediate vicinity of one pole (on each) will be in long-term shadow.  This will get steadily worse the longer we wait.
From the article "What's New" Apr-16-93 in sci.physics.research:  ........ WHAT'S NEW (in my opinion), Friday, 16 April 1993  Washington, DC  1. SPACE BILLBOARDS! IS THIS ONE THE "SPINOFFS" WE WERE PROMISED? In 1950, science fiction writer Robert Heinlein published "The Man Who Sold the Moon," which involved a dispute over the sale of rights to the Moon for use as billboard. NASA has taken the firsteps toward this  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 side of the booster rockets.  Space Marketing Inc. had arranged for the ad to promote Arnold's latest movie. Now, Space Marketing is working with University of Colorado and Livermore engineers on a plan to place a mile-long inflatable billboard in low-earth orbit.  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. ..........  What do you think of this revolting and hideous attempt to vandalize the night sky? It is not even April 1 anymore. What about light pollution in observations? (I read somewhere else that it might even be visible during the day, leave alone at night). Is NASA really supporting this junk? Are protesting groups being organized in the States? Really, really depressed.               Enzo
In article <1993Apr22.180630.18313@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> pearson@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (N. Shirlene Pearson) writes: >jpw@cbis.ece.drexel.edu (Joseph Wetstein) writes: > > >>Hello. I am looking for a program (or algorithm) that can be used >>to compute sunrise and sunset times. > >Would you mind posting the responses you get? >I am also interested, and there may be others. > >Thanks, > >N. Shirlene Pearson >pearson@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu  There is an excellent software program called Astro.calc that does that and much more.  The latest address I have is  	MMI Corporation 	PO Box 19907 	Baltimore, MD  21211 	Phone (301) 366-1222   --  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Van E. Neie                                      ven@maxwell.physics.purdue.edu Purdue University                                neie@purccvm.bitnet
A brief political/cultural item.  Radio station WGMS in Washington is a classical music station with a large audience among high officials (elected and otherwise).   Imagine a radio station that advertises Mercedes Benzes, diamond jewelry, expensive resorts and (truthfully) Trident submarines.  This morning I heard a commercial for the space station project. Didn't catch the advertiser.  Guess they're pulling out all the stops.
In <1psg95$ree@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:  [On the issue of 'burning' nuclear wastes using particle beams...]  >How is it ever going to be an Off- the Shelf Technology if someone doesn't >do it?  Maybe we should do this as part of the SSF design goals. ;-)  >Gee fred.  After your bitter defense of 20 KHz power as a Basic technology >for SSF, Id think you would support a minor research program like >this.  I sometimes wonder if your newsfeed gives you different articles than everyone else, Pat.  Just a *few* corrections:  1) I never 'defended' 20kHz power, other than as something reasonable to GO LOOK AT.  2) I have also never opposed a *research project* into feasibility of the spalling reactor approach to 'cleaning' nuclear waste -- I simply doubt it could be made to work in the Real World (tm), which ought to become clear fairly quickly during a research program into feasibility (sort of like what happened to 20 kHz power -- it proved to have a down-side that was too expensive to overcome).  I figure 2 things wrong in a single sentence is a high enough fault density for even you, Pat.    --  "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 how to size cold gas roll control thruster tanks >for sounding rockets?  Well, first you work out how much cold gas you need, then make the tanks big enough.  Working out how much cold gas is another problem, depending on vehicle configuration, flight duration, thruster Isp (which couples into storage pressure, which may be a factor in selecting tank wall thickness etc.)
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.
In a message of <Apr 19 04:55>, jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:   >In article <1993Apr19.020359.26996@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader)   >writes:  MB>                                                             So the MB> 1970 figure seems unlikely to actually be anything but a perijove.  JG>Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language.  Couldn't we just say periapsis or apoapsis?