Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_3/V10_381.ZIP/V10_381

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 32766
Received: from beak.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/kZeX4X200VcJ810k48>;
          Tue,  9 Jan 90 13:44:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </usr/spool/ViceMsgQueue/QF.EZdNI=G00VcJI7b09S>;
          Sat,  6 Jan 90 01:49:48 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat,  6 Jan 90 01:45:02 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #381

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 381

Today's Topics:
              Photographer of the decade
               Re: Antigravity
      Information sources for frequent space questions (1 of n)
            Re: Pegasus situation?
              Re: Techno-welfare
              Re: Techno-welfare
NASA designates 4 additional space grant colleges/consortia (Forwarded)
         Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 89 17:33:26 GMT
From: phoenix![e-mail]  (David Anthony Kramer)
Subject: Photographer of the decade

The editors of the magazine 'American Photo' nominated Voyager 2 as
the photographer of the decade, although they leave the final award
of the title to their readers. In the January/February 1990 issue
they define their criteria " the winner would have to have produced
truly astonishing pictures of sights we had never seen before -
pictures that had an impact both wide and deep." ".. it (Voyager)
carried off
its assignment with a kind of aplomb and consistency the best pro
shooters on earth could only dream of. Voyagers pictures have gripped
us enlightened us, showing how beautiful our universe must be- and
how alone we are on our own tiny fragile planet..."

The article comparing the best photos of the decade leads off with a
two page false color picture of Saturn, taken by Voyager 2.



David Kramer
Department of Electrical Engineering
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544

Internet,Bitnet: [e-mail]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life can be modelled as a hidden Markov process with infinite states and
no a-priori knowlege of the probabability density functions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 30 Dec 89 22:10:38 GMT
From: helios.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!puzzle!khijol![e-mail]  (Edwin R. Carp)
Subject: Re: Antigravity

This thread is being well covered in sci.physics.

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

Date: 1 Jan 90 12:01:53 GMT
From: amelia![e-mail]  (Eugene Miya)
Subject: Information sources for frequent space questions (1 of n)

Rec.travel: one of the best news groups, let's keep it that way.
Considerations to minimize needless repetitive postings:

If you want travel information, consider traditional sources such as
the auto club and travel agents, because they can give info the net
can't, like maps.  SEEK them BEFORE posting.  These sources are usually
free and quite detailed.  Try the Yellow Pages (finger walking).
Phone are much faster.

If you are uncertain about posting, ask someone on the net by mail
before posting, this will minimize flames and not burn out oldsters.
Many network mentors will gladly help by email.

Minimize cross-posting.  Also consider posting to more specialized
groups than travel.

By all means, if you have really bizzare kinds of questions,
like the time of the next solar eclipse at the South Pole, do post.
Everyone would enjoy it.  The net is best used for discussions,
but queries are best answered by mail.
Many space activies center around large Government or International
Bureaucracies.  In this country that means NASA.  If you have basic
information requests: (e.g., general PR info, research grants, data,
limited tours, and ESPECIALLY SUMMER EMPLOYMENT (typically resumes
should be ready by Jan. 1), etc.), consider contacting the nearest
NASA Center to answer your questions.

EMail typically will not get you any where, computers are used by
investigators, not PR people.  The typical volume of mail per Center is
a multiple of 10,000 letters a day.  Seek the Public Information Office
at one of the below, this is their job:

NASA Headquarters (NASA HQ)
Washington DC 20546

NASA Ames Research Center (ARC)
Moffett Field, CA 94035
[Mountain View, CA, near San Francisco Bay, you know Silicon Valley 8-) ]

Ames Research Center
Dryden Flight Research Facility [DFRF]
P. O. Box 273
Edwards, CA  93523

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)
Greenbelt, MD 20771
[Outside of Washington DC]

NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC)
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135

NASA Johnson Manned Space Center (JSC)
Houston, TX 77058

NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center (KSC)
Titusville, FL 32899

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSC)
Huntsville, AL35812

NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC)
Hampton, VA 23665
[Near Newport News, VA]

Not a NASA Center, but close enough:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory [JPL/CIT]
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109

There are other small facilities, but the above major Centers are set up
to handle public information requests.  They can send you tons of information.

Specific requests for software must go thru COSMIC at the Univ. of Georgia,
NASA's contracted software redistribution service.  You can reach them
at [e-mail].  If this gives you problems, tell me.

NOTE:  Foreign nationals requesting information must go through their
Embassies in Washington DC.  These are facilities of the US Government
and are regarded with some degree of economic sensitivity.
Centers cannot directly return information without high Center approval.
Allow at least 1 month for clearance.  This includes COSMIC.

EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY        (O) 202/488-4158
955 L'Enfant Plaza S.W., Washington, D.C.  20024

 Arianespace Headquarters
 Boulevard de l'Europe
 B.P. 177
 91006 Evry Cedex
 France

ARIANESPACE, INC. (O) 202/728-9075
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 875, Washington, DC  20006

SPOT IMAGE CORPORATION           (FAX) 703/648-1813    (O) 703/620-2200
1857 Preston White Drive, Reston, VA 22091

National Space Development Agency (NASDA), 4-1 Hamamatsu-Cho, 2 Chome
          Minato-Ku, Tokyo 105, Japan

SOYUZKARTA
45 Vologradsij Pr., Moscow 109125, USSR

SPACE COMMERCE CORPORATION (U.S. agent for Soviet launch services)
504 Pluto Drive, Colorado Springs, CO  80906   (O) 719/578-5490
69th flr, Texas Commerce Tower, Houston, TX 77002  (O) 713/227-9000

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

Date: 20 Dec 89 15:34:07 GMT
From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpindda![e-mail]  (Matt Burdick)
Subject: Re: Pegasus situation?

> I just checked all the recent SPACE Digests and see no mention of
> "Pegasus" in the ones since #347. The following was from #344, and
> inspires a query (below). I've seen absolutely nothing in local media on
> the results of the test and would have been surprised to have seen
> anything, actually. Info on things like this *should* be posted to SPACE;
> people can't expect to get info on such things out of the general media
> these days. So was it a successful test?

I just read a small note about it in the paper (the San Jose Mercury News)
this morning.  Apparently, the second captive test had "problems" (they
didn't elaborate) and the DoD is asking for a third captive test.  If this
happens, Pegasus probably won't be launched until Feb. some time.

                            -matt
--
Matt Burdick                    | Hewlett-Packard
[e-mail]      | Information Technology (IND/IT)

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 17:15:23 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer (OFV))
Subject: Re: Techno-welfare

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lou Adornato) writes:

>> In fact, I don't see why space R&D wouldn't be >more< productive than
>> civilian.  By law, NASA research is available to the public (with the
>> _major_ exception of that which is determined to be sensitive to
>> National Security).

>Industry has a strong incentive to do R&D in areas that will lead to
>valuable products and services that can be sold for a profit.  NASA
>does not.

Like swept-wing aircraft?  Supercritical airfoils?  NASA/NACA innovations
that make airline flights faster and cheaper.

Winglets?  Fly-by-wire?  Highly-integrated engine control?  NASA

There aren't many _private_ hypersonic wind tunnels.  In fact, there
aren't many private transsonic tunnels.

Wake turbulence research?  We help keep your airplane from being thrown
out of the sky, with our flight safety research.  Downbursts?  Wind shear?

NASA research is of great economic value.  It's just that others get
the value.  For example, NASA doesn't build airliners but the people
who do use NASA's research.

BTW, the printed circuit was first used in proximity fuses for shooting
down V-1s, so here's yet another example of NASA/Defense innovation that
really affected "real life."

Small, but hot little blue flame:
NASA is not just space!  The first A is aeronautics and don't you forget
it!  Even if Headquarters sometimes does, I expect more from you-all.

Happy Holidays, Space Cadets!
--

Mary Shafer  [e-mail] or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
         NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
                   Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 18:31:33 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Techno-welfare

Mary Shafer points out that NACA/NASA always has, and still does, excel
at real honest-to-God aeronautical research like winglets, fly by wire,
rain effects etc.

Hurrah!  Anyone can see this is NASA doing what it does best.

Now where does space fit in.  NASA is currently spending more time
trying to do the end users' jobs FOR them, than researching how they
can do it better themselves.

Let NASA spend its time researching how to build better spacecraft,
while science, industry and the military use the research results
thus obtained to build and use the craft they need.

Then we will get our money's worth.
--
War is like love; it always      \%\%\%   Tom Neff
finds a way. -- Bertold Brecht   %\%\%\   [e-mail]

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

Date: 21 Dec 89 18:55:53 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA designates 4 additional space grant colleges/consortia (Forwarded)

Terri Sindelar
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  December 21, 1989


RELEASE:  89-184

NASA DESIGNATES 4 ADDITIONAL SPACE GRANT COLLEGES/CONSORTIA


     NASA today announced the selection of four additional
universities and consortia as Designated Space Grant
Colleges/Consortia in the National Space Grant College and
Fellowship Program, bringing the total to 21.

     NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly said, "As a result of
Congress appropriating additional funds to expand the Space Grant
Program, NASA is now able to designate the remaining 4 qualified
consortia from the original competition.  I strongly believe the
investment in these four new consortia will broaden geographic
representation and nourish the growing aerospace education programs
of the nation.  In light of the President's recently announced
space exploration initiative, this program will be key to
attracting and developing future generations of the most talented
engineers and space scientists."

     The four newly designated universities and consortia, listed
in alphabetical order, are:  University of Hawaii at Manoa, Iowa
Space Grant College Consortium, New Mexico Space Grant Consortium,
and Tennessee Valley Aerospace Consortium.

     In fiscal year 1990, the 21 designated Space Grant
Colleges/Consortia each will receive up to $225,000 per year, for
at least 5 years, and are expected to obtain, as a minimum,
matching non-federal funds.  In addition, these designated
institutions will receive $100,000 funding from NASA to support
fellowships for undergraduate and graduate students.

     The selection of the first 17 universities and consortia as
Designated Space Grant Colleges/Consortia was announced Aug. 31,
1989.  Selection was based on a competitive evaluation of the
institutions' existing aerospace activities as well as the quality
of their plans to strengthen the national educational base for
science, math and technology.


     Designated Space Grant Colleges/Consortia will provide
leadership and form partnerships with other universities,
government and industry to better understand, develop and use space
resources through research, education and public service functions.

     The National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program
comprises three elements:  (1) designation of Space Grant
Colleges/Consortia which will provide for a national network of
universities and colleges; (2) awards to support space grant
programs at other institutions that will expand participation of
colleges/universities/consortia that have not been as extensively
involved in aeronautics and space research and education; and (3)
space grant fellowships that will be made available to students at
institutions selected in the first two elements.  The first of the
elements is the subject of this announcement.  The second and third
elements of the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program
will be initiated in fiscal year 1990.

     A complete list of Space Grant institutions can be obtained by
phoning the NASA Headquarters Newsroom on XXX/YYY-ZZZZ.

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

Date: 22 Dec 89 14:08:56 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watcgl!watsnew![e-mail]  (Mark Earnshaw)
Subject: Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jay Skeer) writes:
>Some "space mail" proposals:
>
>A) one way
>  1) Burial.
>As a currently offered service Burial, or ash disposal is lucrative.  What
>about Burial in space?  At $2000/lb (Current rates?) disposal of ash (I guess
>about 2.5 lbs worth) is rather expensive ($5000) but I bet there would be
>buyers.  At $200/lb disposal of ash is more reasonable ($500), of a body it is
>still extravagant ($40000).  At $20/lb disposal of ash is probably
>competitive with current dumping at sea or in the air ($50); and disposal of a
>body at $20/lb ($4000) would be more competitive with other funeral services.

Where exactly would this ash end up?  We already have lots of junk in earth
orbit without putting more up there.  I suppose you could either dump it in the
upper atmosphere where it would disperse fairly quickly (of course, it might
destroy the ozone layer :-) ) or fire it out of orbit.  In the latter case, you
still have to make sure that it's going to land somewhere so that we don't have
all these commemorative urns flying around the solar system with unknown
trajectories.

--
Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering      {uunet,utai}!watmath!watsnew!mark
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada        [e-mail].{edu,cdn}

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #381
*******************