Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_107.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/gbeaZsa00WBw07mU4i>;
          Sat,  2 Feb 91 02:25:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  2 Feb 91 02:25:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #107

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
     Highway Mapping System Developed by NASA (Forwarded)
             Re: Ultimate Weapon
             Re: nuclear rockets
         Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait
         Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait
              Re: Expendable vs Shuttle
              Re: decimal to hexadecimal
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions
               Re: Firm Fred Decisions

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 91 22:01:35 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ken  Sheppardson) writes:
>
>   A lunar/mars initiative will require a significant amount of life
>   sciences research: life support system development and investigation
>   of the long-term effects of space flight (which can't be done on
>   a man-tended station).

Only the bloated, $400 billion "manned" version of lunar/Mars exploration
requires this.  Given the economic and political improbability of such
a project, not to mention its economic and scientific stupidity, we can
pretty much leave it out of the planning for Fred and other NASA projects.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 16:02:53 GMT
From: pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uwm.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Highway Mapping System Developed by NASA (Forwarded)

RELEASE:  91-16

HIGHWAY MAPPING SYSTEM DEVELOPED BY NASA COMMERCIAL CENTER


     Unreported deteriorating road conditions are believed to
cost the United States $16 billion a year in wasted fuel,
excessive vehicle repairs and often time lost on the job.

     The Ohio State University's Center for Mapping, Columbus,
one of 16 NASA Centers for the Commercial Development of Space
(CCDS), has developed a system that will reduce the amount of
time and money needed to gather information on highway
conditions.  After a pilot project is completed, it is expected
that a private company will be created to commercialize the
technology.

     Currently, the center is fine tuning a prototype vehicle
filled with specially designed equipment that automatically can
map and record transportation systems, including bridges,
railways, grass-mowing areas, equipment locations and secondary
roads.  The system also will be helpful in locating roadways
needing repair as well as other hazardous conditions, including
the location of fatal accidents.

     What makes this system remarkable is the fact that it is the
only one in the nation that uses both positioning data from the
Defense Department's Navstar Global Positioning Satellite System
and images taken from a pair of video cameras mounted in a
standard van.  As the cameras scan the local terrain, the GPS
receivers inside the vehicle record -- with an accuracy of plus
or minus 1 to 5 meters -- the location's latitude and
longitude.  The positioning data is then processed, stored in
digital format and eventually downloaded into computers used for
geographic purposes, called Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

     The 18-month project, called the Global Positioning System
for Transportation Planning, involves the Federal Highway
Administration, 38 state transportation departments and the
Canadian province of Alberta.  Corporate sponsors include Trimble
Navigation, Sunnyvale, Calif., which is donating two GPS
receivers and COHU Camera Co., San Diego, Calif., which is
supplying the system's digital video cameras.  The states have
contributed $565,000 to the project and NASA $280,000.

     Demonstration and performance evaluation projects have been
completed in New Orleans and in Albemarle County, Va., and are
planned for Colorado, Ohio, Florida and along the West Coast.

     In addition to providing a visual record of transportation
features, the system also is ideal for mapping.  This
application, alone, is expected to save highway departments a
great deal of time and money because almost all government
agencies that use maps are switching to electronic databases.
However, digitizing data is expensive, time consuming and in some
cases, the maps from which the information is taken are 40 years
old.

     With the mobile unit, the digitizing already is done.  The
data can be entered into the database and converted into a format
acceptable for processing in a GIS.

     The center also is involved in developing techniques for
using space technology to manage land and ocean resources,
monitor natural changes, such as erosion, and help in disaster
relief.
                            - end -

      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jan 91 23:51:08 GMT
From: swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!legs![e-mail]  (Lane Kagey)
Subject: Re: Ultimate Weapon

in article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Roland Stolfa) says:
> Xref: legs sci.astro:10710 sci.space:24964
>
> Fellow spacers, lend me your eyes for a few seconds...ok, minutes.
> I would like to ask a few questions about black holes.  As this progresses,
> you will see how it relates to my subject line.
>

have any of you read "the krone experiment", i don't remember the author.
it described a physicist who 'discovered' how to build a black hole and
contain it. i won't give the details cause it would spoil it.

it postulates several interesting effects and problems related to such a
situation.


Lane Kagey                          [e-mail] -or- ...uunet!legs!lane
c/o AST Research Inc. Dept 670      fax: [phone]
16215 Alton Parkway P.O. Box 19658  Tel: [phone]
Irvine, California 92713-9658

--
Lane Kagey                          [e-mail] -or- ...uunet!legs!lane
c/o AST Research Inc. Dept 670      fax: [phone]
16215 Alton Parkway P.O. Box 19658  Tel: [phone]
Irvine, California 92713-9658

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 17:11:19 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: nuclear rockets

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ian Stirling) writes:
>Have any nuclear powered rocket engines ever been operated?(the type
>in which you pas a cold gas through a very hot reactor to get
>thrust)...

Yes, experimentally, on the ground.  None has ever been flown.
--
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 21:32:27 GMT
From: ucla-seas!curtiss![e-mail]  (Robert D. Pisor/;093091;maugrad)
Subject: Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan Leech) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>|> I realize that the resolution would be on the order of meters, but
>|> I'm still surprised that we haven't seen any.
>
>    One of the networks subjected a Landsat image to analysis last
>week.  The analyst pointed out what he claimed were new supply roads
>in Kuwait.  I suspect the analyst was the only person who saw them,
>however.
>    Jon ([e-mail])
>    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 16:23:20 GMT
From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Perew) writes:
> As I recall when Chernobyl had its little "event" the media was
> displaying LandSat-style imagery within a couple of days of the
> "event".  However, we are now 13 days into Operation Desert Storm
> and I haven't seen any visible spectrum or IR imagery from the
> Persian Gulf area.

More or less as soon as the crisis blew up, Spot Image announced that
images of the Gulf area would be sold to friendly governments only.
Probably the Landsat people are doing the same.  Once you eliminate those
two sources, you're left with only the weather satellites, which have poor
resolution by comparison.  I've seen weather-satellite images in Aviation
Week, but they don't show a whole lot.

Policies change in wartime.
--
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 17:38:56 GMT
From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Expendable vs Shuttle

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] ("Scott P Leslie") writes:
>   Could someone list figures on the types of failures that
>the proposed expendable launchers have had. It would seem that
>they don't just explode like the Challenger, but rather veer off
>course or have some other failure that is escapable...

Not true, alas.  The last Titan failure was a truly spectacular explosion.

Actually, the Challenger breakup (it wasn't an explosion) would have been
survivable had the astronauts been in a tough little capsule with parachutes
rather than in a big fragile orbiter with wings.
--
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 01:20:42 GMT
From: unisoft!fai!sequent![e-mail]  (Bill Sears)
Subject: Re: decimal to hexadecimal

EW> Could someone give me a quick lesson ({r equation) on how
EW> to conver{ decimal numbers to hexadecimal? Thanx in advance!
>
>Basically, you have to do it iteratively - rather like making change for
>a purchase from a large bill.
>1) Find the largest power (p) of 16 that is less than the original number
...etc...
Actually, a simpler method (although it does require division) is to
repeatedly take n modulo 16 for the digit, then let n = n div 16 where
div is integer divide.  Compose the digits in reverse order.
>    5000                               3   1    4096          1XXX
>     904                               2   3     796          11XX <- error
>     136                               1   8     128          118X    should
>       8                               0   8       8          1188    be 1388
>
Using the same example:
    n = 5000
    5000 mod 16     =    8   n becomes 5000 div 16 = 312
     312 mod 16     =    8   n becomes  312 div 16 =  19
      19 mod 16     =    3   n becomes   19 div 16 =   1
       1 mod 16     =    1   n becomes    1 div 16 =   0
                         ^
             +- these are the digits in the number.

n = 0 is terminating condition.  Now assemble the above digits in reverse
order giving 1388.

  bills
--------
Bill Sears            Sequent Computer Systems            [e-mail]

Women and cats do as they please, men and dogs had best learn to live with it.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 17:13:04 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>   A lunar/mars initiative will require a significant amount of life
>>   sciences research...
>
>Only the bloated, $400 billion "manned" version of lunar/Mars exploration
>requires this...

No, any form of long-term space exploration requires it.  The only question
is when.  It is not too early to get started; this research is not something
that will show definitive results in a year or two.
--
If the Space Shuttle was the answer,   | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
what was the question?                 |  [e-mail]   utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 91 21:39:46 GMT
From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!samsung!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Ken Sheppardson)
Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions

In article <800^Z4&@rpi.edu>  writes:
>I have been reading with interest Ken's descriptions of the emerging
>space station design.  There is one point which puzzles me, however.  When
>did the idea of a robust station die?  What I mean is, when did we decide
>that Freedom was only going to be a limited station and that it would do
>only one type of research.

   There really isn't one right answer to your question, but I can give you
   my version:

   At one time the station was a large, stable platform with plenty of
   power and pressurized volume. The standard analogy is the large
   industrial park (or small city) with unlimited access to utilities,
   transportation, workforce, etc. The crew was large enough to support
   any type of experiments (life science and micro-g), there was plenty
   of power for material science experiments, the station bristled with
   robotics, etc.

   As problems arose and the station was continualy being descoped, rephased,
   restructured and turboed, things went away. The park got smaller. At a
   certain point the station was no longer a large, stable platform with
   plenty of power and pressurized volume;it became what some people might
   call "a skitish little anemic excuse for a space station" and what others
   call a station much more like what we needed to evolve into after Skylab.

   I don't think it's possible to put a finger on a specific time of death
   for the 'robust station' idea.

>     As of about 1.5 years ago, Freedom was going to consist of four parts.
>There was the permanently manned facility, orinially holding a crew of 8,
>there were both American and European man-tended free-fliers, co-orbiting
>with the manned facility and prividing "high quality" microgravity but still
>allowing for the exchange of equipment and experiments.  Finally, there was
>the American polar platform, an Earth-observing platform in polar orbit.
>This was transferred to EOS, as I understand.
>     My question: what happened to the man-tended free flyer and the Columbus
>co-orbiting platform?  It seems the permanently manned facility evolved into
>this -- why?

    I'm not really sure, but I'm fairly certain money had something to do
    with it.

>     If anyone has a timeline or a recent history of these changes, I'd
>greatly appreciate hearing from them.

    I'm sure I've got a timeline somewhere. It's probably buried in a
    few hundred pounds of presentations, but we're getting ready for our
    annual office move, so I may find it. If I do, I'll summarize and post
    it.

>Michael Kent                                           [e-mail]


--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: [e-mail]
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: [phone]
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   [phone]
===============================================================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V13 #107
*******************