danghungithp/text_dataset · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 2.94k
! TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched
! 8/10/92 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the
TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global
observations of the sea level for several years, substantially
increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also
diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.astronaut
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06465 Thu Apr 1 14:47:43 1993
--- FAQ.astronaut Thu Apr 1 14:46:52 1993
specific standards:
Distant visual acuity:
! 20/100 or better uncorrected,
correctable to 20/20, each eye.
Blood pressure:
140/90 measured in sitting position.
! 3. Height between 60 and 76 inches.
Pilot Astronaut Candidate:
specific standards:
Distant visual acuity:
! 20/150 or better uncorrected,
correctable to 20/20, each eye.
Blood pressure:
140/90 measured in sitting position.
! 3. Height between 58.5 and 76 inches.
Pilot Astronaut Candidate:
John Elson ([email protected]) wrote:
: Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?"
I remember those awful things. They were dry and crumbly, and I
recall asking my third-grade teacher, Miss G'Francisco, how they
kept the crumbs from floating around in zero-G. She had no clue.
I have not seen anything like them in today's space program.
Some Apollo technology is best forgotten.
-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
[email protected] (713) 483-4368
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Dave Jones) writes:
>Keith Mancus ([email protected]) wrote:
>> [email protected] (Bruce Dunn) writes:
>> > SI neatly separates the concepts of "mass", "force" and "weight"
>> > which have gotten horribly tangled up in the US system.
>> This is not a problem with English units. A pound is defined to
>> be a unit of force, period. There is a perfectly good unit called
>> the slug, which is the mass of an object weighing 32.2 lbs at sea level.
>> (g = 32.2 ft/sec^2, of course.)
>American Military English units, perhaps. Us real English types were once
>taught that a pound is mass and a poundal is force (being that force that
>causes 1 pound to accelerate at 1 ft.s-2). We had a rare olde tyme doing
>our exams in those units and metric as well.
American, perhaps, but nothing military about it. I learned (mostly)
slugs when we talked English units in high school physics and while
the teacher was an ex-Navy fighter jock the book certainly wasn't
produced by the military.
[Poundals were just too flinking small and made the math come out
funny; sort of the same reason proponents of SI give for using 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
[email protected] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
[email protected] (James Thomas Green) writes:
>If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone
>head and done some landings, but we also would have been more
>determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the
>Moon). Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend
>upon whether the Soviets tried to go. Setting up a lunar base
>would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think
>that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value
>of going to Mars (at least in the short run). Thus we would
>have concentrated on the moon.
Great speculation - I remember being proud on behalf of all the free
world (you think that way when you are seven years old) that we had
got there first. Now I'm almost sorry that it worked out that way.
I guess the soviets would have taken the victory seriously too, and
would almost certainly not have fallen victim to the complacency that
overtook the US program. Perhaps stretching to match US efforts would
have destabilized them sooner than it did in fact - and in the tradition
of Marvel Comics 'What If', this destabilization in the Brezhnev era might
have triggered the third world war. Hmm, maybe it was a giant leap after all.
Internet: [email protected] \| Accept Everything. \|
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete \| Reject Nothing. \|
In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>This system would produce enough energy to drive the accelerator,
>>>perhaps with some left over. A very high power (100's of MW CW or
>>>quasi CW), very sharp proton beam would be required, but this appears
>>>achievable using a linear accelerator. The biggest question mark
>>>would be the lead target chemistry and the on-line processing of all
>>>the elements being incinerated.
>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on
>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple
>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end,
>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power. Sounds almost like
>>perpetual motion, doesn't it?
>Fred, the honest thing to do would be to admit your criticism on
>scientific grounds was invalid, rather than pretend you were actually
>talking about engineering feasibility. Given you postings, I can't
>say I am surprised, though.
Well, pardon me for trying to continue the discussion rather than just
tugging my forelock in dismay at having not considered actually trying
to recover the energy from this process (which is at least trying to
go the 'right' way on the energy curve). Now, where did I put those
sackcloth and ashes?
[I was not and am not 'pretending' anything; I am so pleased you are
not surprised, though.]

! TOPEX/Poseidon - Joint US/French Earth observing satellite, launched

! 8/10/92 on an Ariane 4 booster. The primary objective of the

TOPEX/POSEIDON project is to make precise and accurate global

observations of the sea level for several years, substantially

increasing understanding of global ocean dynamics. The satellite also

diff -t -c -r1.18 FAQ.astronaut

*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06465 Thu Apr 1 14:47:43 1993

--- FAQ.astronaut Thu Apr 1 14:46:52 1993

specific standards:

Distant visual acuity:

! 20/100 or better uncorrected,

correctable to 20/20, each eye.

Blood pressure:

140/90 measured in sitting position.

! 3. Height between 60 and 76 inches.

Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

specific standards:

Distant visual acuity:

! 20/150 or better uncorrected,

correctable to 20/20, each eye.

Blood pressure:

140/90 measured in sitting position.

! 3. Height between 58.5 and 76 inches.

Pilot Astronaut Candidate:

John Elson ([email protected]) wrote:

: Has anyone ever heard of a food product called "Space Food Sticks?"

I remember those awful things. They were dry and crumbly, and I

recall asking my third-grade teacher, Miss G'Francisco, how they

kept the crumbs from floating around in zero-G. She had no clue.

I have not seen anything like them in today's space program.

Some Apollo technology is best forgotten.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office

[email protected] (713) 483-4368

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Dave Jones) writes:

>Keith Mancus ([email protected]) wrote:

>> [email protected] (Bruce Dunn) writes:

>> > SI neatly separates the concepts of "mass", "force" and "weight"

>> > which have gotten horribly tangled up in the US system.

>> This is not a problem with English units. A pound is defined to

>> be a unit of force, period. There is a perfectly good unit called

>> the slug, which is the mass of an object weighing 32.2 lbs at sea level.

>> (g = 32.2 ft/sec^2, of course.)

>American Military English units, perhaps. Us real English types were once

>taught that a pound is mass and a poundal is force (being that force that

>causes 1 pound to accelerate at 1 ft.s-2). We had a rare olde tyme doing

>our exams in those units and metric as well.

American, perhaps, but nothing military about it. I learned (mostly)

slugs when we talked English units in high school physics and while

the teacher was an ex-Navy fighter jock the book certainly wasn't

produced by the military.

[Poundals were just too flinking small and made the math come out

funny; sort of the same reason proponents of SI give for using 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

[email protected] - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.

[email protected] (James Thomas Green) writes:

>If they had beaten us, I speculate that the US would have gone

>head and done some landings, but we also would have been more

>determined to set up a base (both in Earth Orbit and on the

>Moon). Whether or not we would be on Mars by now would depend

>upon whether the Soviets tried to go. Setting up a lunar base

>would have stretched the budgets of both nations and I think

>that the military value of a lunar base would outweigh the value

>of going to Mars (at least in the short run). Thus we would

>have concentrated on the moon.

Great speculation - I remember being proud on behalf of all the free

world (you think that way when you are seven years old) that we had

got there first. Now I'm almost sorry that it worked out that way.

I guess the soviets would have taken the victory seriously too, and

would almost certainly not have fallen victim to the complacency that

overtook the US program. Perhaps stretching to match US efforts would

have destabilized them sooner than it did in fact - and in the tradition

of Marvel Comics 'What If', this destabilization in the Brezhnev era might

have triggered the third world war. Hmm, maybe it was a giant leap after all.

Internet: [email protected] | Accept Everything. |

UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete | Reject Nothing. |

In <[email protected]> [email protected] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>>This system would produce enough energy to drive the accelerator,

>>>perhaps with some left over. A very high power (100's of MW CW or

>>>quasi CW), very sharp proton beam would be required, but this appears

>>>achievable using a linear accelerator. The biggest question mark

>>>would be the lead target chemistry and the on-line processing of all

>>>the elements being incinerated.

>>Paul, quite frankly I'll believe that this is really going to work on

>>the typical trash one needs to process when I see them put a couple

>>tons in one end and get (relatively) clean material out the other end,

>>plus be able to run it off its own residual power. Sounds almost like

>>perpetual motion, doesn't it?

>Fred, the honest thing to do would be to admit your criticism on

>scientific grounds was invalid, rather than pretend you were actually

>talking about engineering feasibility. Given you postings, I can't

>say I am surprised, though.

Well, pardon me for trying to continue the discussion rather than just

tugging my forelock in dismay at having not considered actually trying

to recover the energy from this process (which is at least trying to

go the 'right' way on the energy curve). Now, where *did* I put those

sackcloth and ashes?

[I was not and am not 'pretending' anything; I am *so* pleased you are

not surprised, though.]