waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <C5xp0K.G79@brunel.ac.uk>, mt90dac@brunel.ac.uk (Del Cotter) writes: > <1993Apr21.205403.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >> Sorry if I do not have the big degrees >>and such, but I think (I might be wrong, to error is human) I have something >>that is in many ways just as important, I have imagination, dreams. And without >>dreams all the knowledge is worthless..  >  > Oh, and us with the big degrees don't got imagination, huh? >  > The alleged dichotomy between imagination and knowledge is one of the most > pernicious fallacys of the New Age.  Michael, thanks for the generous > offer, but we have quite enough dreams of our own, thank you.  Well said.   > You, on the other hand, are letting your own dreams go to waste by > failing to get the maths/thermodynamics/chemistry/(your choices here) > which would give your imagination wings. >  > Just to show this isn't a flame, I leave you with a quote from _Invasion of  > the Body Snatchers_: >  > "Become one of us; it's not so bad, you know"  Okay, Del, so Michael was being unfair, but you are being unfair back.   He is taking college courses now, I presume he is studying hard, and his postings reveal that he is *somewhat* hip to the technical issues of astronautics.  Plus, he is attentively following the erudite discourse of the Big Brains who post to sci.space; is it not inevitable that he will get a splendid technical education from reading the likes of you and me? [1]  Like others involved in sci.space, Mr. Adams shows symptoms of being a fledgling member of the technoculture, and I think he's soaking it up fast.  I was a young guy with dreams once, and they led me to get a technical education to follow them up.  Too bad I wound up in an assembly-line job stamping out identical neutrinos day after day... (-:  [1] Though rumors persist that Del and I are both pseudonyms of Fred McCall.
In article <1993Apr20.120311.1@pa881a.inland.com> schiewer@pa881a.inland.com (Don Schiewer) writes: >What is the deal with life on Mars?  I save the "face" and heard  >associated theories. (which sound thin to me)  The "face" is an accident of light and shadow.  There are many "faces" in landforms on Earth; none is artificial (well, excluding Mount Rushmore and the like...).  There is also a smiley face on Mars, and a Kermit The Frog.  The question of life in a more mundane sense -- bacteria or the like -- is not quite closed, although the odds are against it, and the most that the more orthodox exobiologists are hoping for now is fossils.  There are currently no particular plans to do any further searches for life.  >Are we going back to Mars to look at this face agian?  Mars Observer, currently approaching Mars, will probably try to get a better image or two of the "face" at some point.  It's not high priority; nobody takes it very seriously.  The shadowed half of the face does not look very face-like, so all it will take is one shot at a different sun angle to ruin the illusion.
Amruth Laxman <al26+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: > Hi, >     I was reading through "The Spaceflight Handbook" and somewhere in > there the author discusses solar sails and the forces acting on them > when and if they try to gain an initial acceleration by passing close to > the sun in a hyperbolic orbit. The magnitude of such accelerations he > estimated to be on the order of 700g. He also says that this is may not > be a big problem for manned craft because humans (and this was published > in 1986) have already withstood accelerations of 45g. All this is very > long-winded but here's my question finally - Are 45g accelerations in > fact humanly tolerable? - with the aid of any mechanical devices of > course. If these are possible, what is used to absorb the acceleration? > Can this be extended to larger accelerations?  are you sure 45g is the right number? as far as i know, pilots are blackout in dives that exceed 8g - 9g. 45g seems to be out of human tolerance. would anybody clarify this please.  lan
In article <1993Apr27.174622.1@stsci.edu> hathaway@stsci.edu writes: >In article <C65LJ5.5Az@fs7.ece.cmu.edu>, loss@fs7.ECE.CMU.EDU (Doug Loss) writes: >>    I didn't want to quote all the stuff that's been said recently, I >> just wanted to add a point. >>  >..  >> 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 > >These seem hardly like the groups to discuss this in, but HUH???  >All legitimate power to enforce these rights derives from the consent  >of the governed, not from no steenkin' piece of paper. >    We don't disagree on this.  All I said was that a right is whatever you or somebody acting for you can enforce.  The Bill of Rights didn't come into effect until it was ratified by the states (and indirectly, the people); from that point it defined legal rights.  "Common law" rights are vague and situational; that's why the people insisted on a Bill of Rights in the Constitution, spelling out exactly what they demanded from the government.  Legitimate or illegitimate, power is power.  That's why the federal government can force states to grant their citizens rights they don't wish to: In a slugging match, the feds win.  Period.     And you're right, this doesn't belong in sci.space.  I've said my peace.  No more frome me on rights (at least not here).  >Most gracious regards,  >WHH
I am sure  Mary or Henry can describe this more aptly then me. But here is how i understand it.  At Speed,  Near supersonic.  The wind behaves like a fluid pipe. It becomes incompressible.  So wind has to bend away from the wing edges.   AS the wing thickens,  the more the pipes bend.  If they have no place to go,  they begin to stall,  and force compression, stealing power from the vehicle (High Drag).  If you squeeze the fuselage,  so that these pipes  have aplace to bend into,  then drag is reduced.     Essentially,  teh cross sectional area of the aircraft shoulf remain constant for all areas of the fuselage.  That is where the wings are subtract, teh cross sectional area of the wings from the fuselage.
In article <1993Apr18.224414.784@head-cfa.harvard.edu> jcm@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Jonathan McDowell) writes:     My understanding is that the 'expected errors' are basically    known bugs in the warning system software - things are checked    that don't have the right values in yet because they aren't    set till after launch, and suchlike. Rather than fix the code    and possibly introduce new bugs, they just tell the crew    'ok, if you see a warning no. 213 before liftoff, ignore it'.  Good grief. And I thought the Shuttle software was known for being well-engineered. If this is actually the case, every member of the programming team should be taken out and shot.  (given that I've heard the Shuttle software rated as Level 5 in maturity, I strongly doubt that this is the case).
In article <1993Apr28.002214.16544@Princeton.EDU> richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU (Stupendous Man) writes: >   Henry, if I read you correctly, you may be asking "If I put a blackbody >in interstellar space ('disregarding the Sun and nearby large warm objects'), >what termperature will it reach in thermal equilibrium with the ambient >radiation field?"  Basically the right question, although I was interested in cases closer to home where the Sun is behind either a natural object or effective shielding.  >   If that's the case, let me point out that interstellar dust and  >molecules provide many instances of things that are, well, not-too-far >from being blackbodies... >   Inside the disk of the galaxy, the temperature varies quite a bit >from place to place...  Good point (and thanks for the references).
In article <1so442$3qm@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat)   writes: > >Adaptation Trainer (PAT).  Dr. Harm here at MSC (oops, I mean JSC) >  >  > Now is that an aptly named person or what? When I went thru all the spinning chair tests at JSC the PhD in charge  was Milt Reshke but the technician who strapped me in and, on occasion, inserted the "probe" (needle) was named Bev Bloodworth.
steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:  >In article <1993Apr27.132255.12653@tpl68k0.tplrd.tpl.oz.au> keithh@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Keith Harwood) writes:    >   In article <1rbl0eINNip4@gap.caltech.edu>, palmer@cco.caltech.edu (David M. Palmer) writes: >   > prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes:  >   > >  What  evidence  indicates that Gamma Ray bursters are very far away?  >   > >Given the enormous  power,  i was just wondering,  what if they are >   > >quantum  black holes or something  like that  fairly close by?  >   > >Why would they have to be at  galactic ranges?     >   . . . David gives good explaination of the deductions from the isotropic, >   'edged' distribution, to whit, they are either part of the Universe or >   part of the Oort cloud.  >   Why couldn't they be Earth centred, with the edge occuring at the edge >   of the gravisphere? I know there isn't any mechanism for them, but there >   isn't a mechanism for the others either.  >What on Earth is the "gravisphere"? >Anyway, before it's decay the Pioneer Venus Orbiter >had a gamma ray detector, as does Ulysses, they  >detect the brightest bursts that the Earth orbit detectors >do, so the bursts are at least at Oort cloud distances. >In principle four detectors spaced out by a few AU would >see parallax if the bursts are of solar system origin.  >_The_ problem with Oort cloud sources is that absolutely >no plausible mechanism has been proposed. It would have >to involve new physics as far as I can tell. Closest to >"conventional" Oort sources is a model of B-field pinching >by comets, it's got too many holes in it to count, but at >least it was a good try...  >*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	* >*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	* >*  The laws of gravity are very,very strict			* >*  And you're just bending them for your own benefit - B.B. 1988*
It is interesting to note in the past few days' correspondance that some believe that poor old New Mexico is not capable of hosting a commercial space launch business.  For many reasons, it can, and we here on the front lines see no reason why it should not.  The 'spaceport political publicity' referred to the other day had its intended effect - the state of New Mexico did establish the start of the necessary government infrastructure to back a commercial space port.  The commanding general at WSMR is in full support of dual-use for the facilities.  The WSMR location also has some strategic advantages in the form of necessary infrastructure and controlled air space to support the project.  Just because the folks involved have not done the traditional aerospace-equivalent of vapor-ware by inviting folks out to kick non-existent tires but have been merely doing their job to prepare for launch, don't think that nothing has happened.  From my interactions with the MACDAC folks, I get the impression that they want to set a firm, believable launch date based on vehicle readiness and not just some fiction to plug a space on a calendar.  I believe that all will happen this summer and don't worry, the locals here are planning to let everyone know when it does occur. Stephen Horan shoran@nmsu.edu
If this man Clark is a NASA administrator then god save NASA. Of course the Shuttles record is unrivaled !  There is only one Shuttle. Furthermore, there is only likely to be one Shuttle now that Hermes and Boron are  effectively cancelled.  These officials should spend more of their time explaining to their European and Asian partners how we are expected to believe in them when their paymasters change their minds on major international projects everytime a new US administration takes office (considering the major impacts this has on the European and Asian (Japanese) industry). It is also appreciated how this affects American industry. I am of course talking about Space Stattion Freedom.
In article <Cohen-150493082611@q5022531.mdc.com> Andy Cohen, Cohen@ssdgwy.mdc.com writes: > I just uploaded "DCXart2.GIF" to bongo.cc.utexas.edu...after Chris Johnson > moves it, it'll probably be in pub/delta-clipper.  Thanks again Andy.  The image is in pub/delta-clipper now. The name has been changed to  "dcx-artists-concept.gif" in the spirit of verboseness. :-)  ----Chris  Chris W. Johnson  Internet:   chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu UUCP:       {husc6|uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!chrisj CompuServe: >INTERNET:chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu AppleLink:  chrisj@emx.cc.utexas.edu@internet#
In article F00001@permanet.org, Mark.Prado@p2.f349.n109.z1.permanet.org (Mark Prado) writes: >Please go just one step further: >How has the word "Clementine" been associated with mining? >  Could be the (folk?) song "Clementine".  If memory serves, part of it goes:     In a cavern, by a canyon,    Excavating for a mine,    Dwelt a miner, forty-niner,    and his daughter, Clementine.  Anyone who watched Huckleberry Hound can sing you the chorus :-)  Is there a story/real person behind the song?
In article <1qn4bgINN4s7@mimi.UU.NET> goltz@mimi.UU.NET (James P. Goltz) writes: >  Would this work?  I can't see the EM radiation impelling very much >momentum (especially given the mass of the pusher plate), and it seems >to me you're going to get more momentum transfer throwing the bombs >out the back of the ship than you get from detonating them once >they're there.  The Orion concept as actually proposed (as opposed to the way it has been somewhat misrepresented in some fiction) included wrapping a thick layer of reaction mass -- probably plastic of some sort -- around each bomb. The bomb vaporizes the reaction mass, and it's that which transfers momentum to the pusher plate.
In article <1993Apr21.170817.15845@sq.sq.com> msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > >> > > Also, peri[jove]s of Gehrels3 were: >> > >  >> > > April  1973     83 jupiter radii >> > > August 1970     ~3 jupiter radii > >> > Where 1 Jupiter radius = 71,000 km = 44,000 mi = 0.0005 AU. ... > >> Sorry, _perijoves_...I'm not used to talking this language. > >Thanks again.  One final question.  The name Gehrels wasn't known to >me before this thread came up, but the May issue of Scientific American >has an article about the "Inconstant Cosmos", with a photo of Neil >Gehrels, project scientist for NASA's Compton Gamma Ray Observatory. >Same person?  Neil Gehrels is Prof. Tom Gehrels son.  Tom Gehrels was the discoverer of P/Gehrels 3 (as well as about 4 other comets - the latest of which does not bear his name, but rather the name "Spacewatch" since he was observing with that system when he found the latest comet).    >--  >Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto	"Information! ... We want information!" >utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com				-- The Prisoner  --------------------------------------------- Jim Scotti  {jscotti@lpl.arizona.edu} Lunar & Planetary Laboratory University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 USA
Forwarded from the Mars Observer Project                         MARS OBSERVER STATUS REPORT                              April 23, 1993                               10:00 AM PDT  Flight Sequence C8 is active, the Spacecraft subsystems and instrument payload performing well in Array Normal Spin and outer cruise configuration, with uplink and downlink via the High Gain Antenna; uplink at 125 bps, downlink at the 2 K Engineering data rate.  As a result of the spacecraft entering Contingency Mode on April 9, all payload instruments were automatically powered off by on-board fault protection software.  Gamma Ray Spectrometer Random Access Memory was successfully reloaded on Monday, April 19.  To prepare for Magnetometer Calibrations which were rescheduled for execution in Flight Sequence C9 on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, a reload of Payload Data System Random Access Memory will take place this morning beginning at 10:30 AM.  Over this weekend, the Flight Team will send real-time commands to perform Differential One-Way Ranging to obtain additional data for analysis by the Navigation Team.  Radio Science Ultra Stable Oscillator testing will take place on Monday .  The Flight Sequence C9 uplink will occur on Sunday, April 25, with activation at Midnight, Monday evening April 26.  C9 has been modified to include Magnetometer Calibrations which could not be performed in C8 due to Contingency Mode entry on April 9.  These Magnetometer instrument calibrations will allow the instrument team to better characterize the spacecraft-generated magnetic field and its effect on their instrument. This information is critical to Martian magnetic field measurements which occur during approach and mapping phases. MAG Cals will require the sequence to command the spacecraft out of Array Normal Spin state and perform slew and roll maneuvers to provide the MAG team data points in varying spacecraft attitudes and orientations.
In article <1993Apr20.223807.16712@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:     In article <STEINLY.93Apr20145301@topaz.ucsc.edu> steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes:     > Why Paul, it's obvious.    > Once chlorine chemistry has been banned on Earth,    > as is being advocated by some groups, Ti prices will     > :-) :-) :-)      Well, there already is a sulfate process for TiO2 purification.  The    chlorine process is cleaner, however, and for that reason is achieving    dominance in the marketplace.  Darn, caught by the white hot heat of technological progress again...     Most Ti is used in pigment, btw (as the oxide), where it replaced    white lead pigment some decades ago.  Very little is reduced to the    metal.  Spoilsport. Hence the need for increasing fashion emphasis on anodise Ti jewelry...     > Seriously, I'd say there is a flaw in Gary's analysis    > in that he assumes an export oriented economy, maybe    > the lunatics will just want some native Ti for local    > use...     Which merely evades the issue of why those lunatics are    there at all (and, why their children would want to stay.)  I did not evade the issue at all. I clearly stated that this would be from diabolical foresight in establishing a sheltered industrial base for the upcoming Great War ;-) Very cost effective if you use the right accounting method :-)
In article <1qve4kINNpas@sal-sun121.usc.edu>, schaefer@sal-sun121.usc.edu (Peter Schaefer) writes: >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! >  Feasability study??  What a wimp!!  While you are studying, others would be doing.  Too damn many engineers doing way too little engineering.  "He who sits on his arse sits on his fortune"  - Sir Richard Francis Burton
In article <25228@ksr.com>, jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes: >nanderso@Endor.sim.es.com (Norman Anderson) writes: >>jmcocker@eos.ncsu.edu (Mitch) writes: >>>effect that one of the SSRBs that was recovered after the >>>recent space shuttle launch was found to have a wrench of >>>some sort rattling around apparently inside the case. >>I heard a similar statement in our local news (UTAH) tonight. They referred >>to the tool as "...the PLIERS that took a ride into space...". They also >>said that a Thiokol (sp?) employee had reported missing a tool of some kind >>during assembly of one SRB.  It was a test of the first reusable tool.  > >I assume, then, that someone at Thiokol put on their "manager's hat" and said >that pissing off the customer by delaying shipment of the SRB to look inside >it was a bad idea, regardless of where that tool might have ended up. > >Why do I get the feeling that Thiokol "manager's hats" are shaped like cones?  Pointy so they can find them or so they will stick into their pants better, and be closer to their brains?
In <1993Apr27.072512.439@bby.com.au> Gregory N. Bond writes: >I wouldn't even begin to expect that >in Australia, and we don't have institutionalised corruption like you >do.  Wanna bet ??? You must be too young to remember Bob Askin :-) Read the Costigan commision report if you want to know about corruption in OZ.
In article <1993Apr21.141824.23536@cbis.ece.drexel.edu> 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.  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.  -- Rouben Rostamian                          Telephone: 410-455-2458 Department of Mathematics and Statistics  e-mail: University of Maryland Baltimore County   bitnet: rostamian@umbc.bitnet Baltimore, MD 21228, USA                  internet: rouben@math.umbc.edu ====================================================================== Definitions:  z = the tilt of the axis of the planet away from the normal to its orbital plane.  In case of the Earth z is about 23.5 degrees, I think. I do not recall the exact value.  In case of Uranus, z is almost 90 degrees.  u = latitude of the location where the length of the day is measured. Paris is at about 45 degrees.  North pole is at 90.  a = angular position of the planet around the sun.  As a goes from 0 to 360 degrees, the planet makes a full circle around the sun. The spring equinox occurs at a=0.  L = daylight fraction = (duration of daylight)/(duration of a full day). On the equator (u=0) L is always 1/2.  Near the north pole (u=90 degrees) L is sometimes one and sometimes zero, depending on the time of the year.  Computation: Define the auxiliary angles p and q by: sin p = sin a sin z cos q = h ( tan u tan p ),       (0 < q < 180 degrees)  Conclusion: L = q / 180   (if q is measured in degrees) L = q / pi    (if q is measured in radians)  Wait!  But what is h? The cutoff function h is defined as follows:  h (s) = s    if  |s| < 1       = 1    if   s > 1       = -1   if   s < 1  As an interesting exercise, plot L versus a.   The graph will shows how the length of the daylight varies with the time of the year. Experiment with various choices of latitudes and tilt angles. Compare the behavior of the function at locations above and below the arctic circle.