Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/pc/text/spacedig/v15_2/v15no206.txt

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 35KB

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 05:02:29
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V15 #206
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed, 16 Sep 92       Volume 15 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
                       Ethics of Terra-forming
              Ion for Pluto Direct was Re: Pluto Direct
Ley and *Engineers' Dreams* (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
                     NASA working on Apollo rerun
    Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars)
                   Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
      Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Part II: The Silly Season
                              Population
               QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options (2 msgs)
                            RL-10 (2 msgs)
                        Sisal meeting schedule
                     space news from Aug 10 AW&ST

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:20:54 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ethics of Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

We don't know if there is or if there isn't any life on Mars.

We know that in one spot there isn't the sot of life we expected
to be there if it was there.

What is to prevent there being some sort of life-form analogous to
the vent creatures of the deap oceans living subterrameanly at
some depth at which water, heat and chemical sustanance is available
from interior heating?

What ever life there might be on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter,
at least has the right to exist. Is man God, to destroy other life-forms
without much measured forethought? Besides you never know the full extent
of what you might do by changing some significant variable in any given
environment. Or in other words -- saving some Martian bunny rabbit may
retain the planet's only-somewhat-hostile environment rather than having
an actively hostile environment. (Slinging trillion ton gobs of water/ice
at Mars might not do what you would think it would do.)

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

Date: 15 Sep 1992 16:40 EDT
From: Greg Macrae <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ion for Pluto Direct was Re: Pluto Direct
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes...
>Nobody wants to say that their mission REQUIRES ion drive, because of the
>very real potential for cost overruns and schedule slippage, due to the
>technological developments that must take place to make it feasible for
>such a mission.  Since nobody needs it, no money is being spent on further
>development, but further development is exactly what is needed before
>people feel safe choosing it as their preferred propulsion method.
>
>Chemical rockets can get us to Pluto, and quite fast, so ion drive has
>limited appeal.  And as someone else correctly pointed out, using such
>a drive for a orbital mission, as opposed to a flyby, would require that
>you start to slow down after reaching roughly the halfway point.  Flight
>times would be much longer, and there is a sense of urgency to get there
>as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons.

Well, you're actually wrong on all counts.  The biggest problem that ion
thruster technology faces is being unproven in the field.  In a mission
that is such high risk as planetary robotic exploration, no one want to
be the first to use ion propulsion.  For a Pluto mission, ion thrusters
enable the mission.  The Aerospace Analysis Office here published a study
that showed ion thrusters could place twice the payload in orbit (or on)
Pluto that chem. rockets could fly past Pluto and ion did it in less than
1/2 the time with the same Leo mass!  The study assumed a Jupiter slingshot
for the chem. system and not for ion.  In general, ion has time and mass
advantages for all missions beyond the asteroid belt.  At Pluto's orbit,
the advantage is very significant.  As for on-going work with ion thrusters,
the focus is currently on station keeping and other near earth satellite
applications in hopes of establishing the track record of success required
for serious consideration for interplanetary missions.  Research is funded at
fairly low levels at both Lewis Research Center and JPL.  Hughes is marketing
flight qualified ion thrusters for station keeping use.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     MacRae                  |       Friend, that open mouth
                             |     Reveals your whole interior
  [e-mail]  |         Silly hollow frog!
                             |                      -Anon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:07:46 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Ley and *Engineers' Dreams* (was Re: Terraforming needs to begin now)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:

>See Willy Ley's 1954 book *Engineers' Dreams*, a tome to make any good
>Nineties environmentalist shudder.  Ley, of course, was the great
>correspondent and historian of early rocketry, which provides a slim
>connection to this newsgroup, but his principal career was pop-science
>author.  His strengths were spaceflight, astronomy, and paleontology,
>but this book was a foray into the Big Ideas of civil engineering--
>what Frank Davidson later called "macroengineering."

>Did you know that the Mediterranean loses more water to evaporation
>than is replaced by the rivers flowing into it?  The difference is
>made up from Atlantic waters.  Dam the Straits of Gibraltar and the
>Med will gradually shrink, revealing new farmland all around its
>shores.

I've been meaning to review a book by Lowell Ponte called
_The Cooling_ on this forum for a while, since it deals with
environmental modification and we seem to get large threads
on that subject every couple months... it does seem to have
some dubious science, but what really bugs me is this guy
has advised Claiborne Pell on science policy in the past,
and Pell seems to have a record of seeking science advice
from dubious characters that far outweighs any forgivable
doubts I might have about the book itself.

>Swell book, but hardly p.c. these days!  Since it deals with
>engineering projects on a sub-continent scale, it might be worth
>study by young terraformers before they tackle those planet-sized
>jobs.  Jim Oberg's *New Earths* is of course obligatory, and Frank
>Davidson's *Macro* might be of interest too.

_The Cooling_ deals with the great environmental Jabberwocky of
the 70's: The Coming Ice Age, And The Need To Prepare For It.
The nice part is where it deviates from being politically correct,
and talks about manmade climate modification on a global scale,
to help stave off the cooling.

You know, stuff like damming the Bering Straights, and pumping
water the other way to melt the north polar ice cap...

[Trick question: how much does this raise the sea level?]

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:43:17 GMT
From: Edmund Hack <arabia!hack>
Subject: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Newsgroups: sci.space

You know Nick, to borrow a phrase from Ren Hoek - "Your wealth of
ignorance astounds me." Fortunately, ignorance is (usually) curable.

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Those expecting a lunar base out of NASA's proposed "return to the
>moon" are in for a big disappointment, according to a recent Aviation
>Week article.  It describes FLO, which stands for "First Lunar
>Operations", apparently because it repeats in form and function
 ^^^^^^^^^ That's Outpost, not Operations.

>our first lunar operations, Apollo.
>
>The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
>an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
>the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
>costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the
>equator.

How can you be sure that it increases costs? What is the cost for an
orbiting return vehicle that can stationkeep for 45 days, vs. a lander
that contains all the things needed for a return, as well as the cargo
to be delivered?  In addition, direct descent and ascent can save fuel
in some cases, further increasing payload.

>  The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
>size of Saturn 5!
>
>The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.  Geology
>treks using an Apollo-style rover (again made larger to hold four
>astronauts) would be the main justification.

Without major increases in space activities, science and exploration are
the only justification for human return to the Moon and going to Mars.

>  They would try out
>tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to
>those who want a real lunar base.  No production plants, no
>mass driver, and no biosphere.

Note the name above - FIRST Lunar OUTPOST. Unfortunately, the article
did not make it clear that this is seen as the first step towards really
understanding what is needed for a major base. Do you know how to design
a LOX plant for the lunar surface that is efficient, reasonable in mass
and maintainable? Nobody I know of does, at least not enough to bet a
gigabuck on. Plans for all that stuff are further down the line.

>Most time at the "base"
>would be spent by the astronauts huddled in their capsules,
>studying each other.  There would be no revenue or commercial
>interest in the project.

Most of the time, the scientists at the South Pole huddle in their
trailers studying each other - not! The astronauts probably will have
some telerobotics capability and will use that while not on EVA. They
also will be running experiments, making meals, sorting and classifying
samples for return to earth, doing maintenance, etc. Hardly
unproductive. As for revenue or commercial interest - well, you
Libertarians are like the old saw about cynics - you know the cost of
everything and the value of nothing.

>
>Like Apollo, these missions would be utterly dependent on Earth for
>food, water, and shelter.  The lander would consist both of LOX/LH
>propellants and storable propellants for the return trip, a rather
>expensive, kluged combination.

Storing H2 and O2 for long periods on the lunar surface (two days and a

night) is expensive and kludgy. Best estimates  by JSC and MSFC are that
storable propellants are required for safety and cost reasons. H2/O2 was
looked at for the return vehicle and rejected for now. By the way, the
lander will use RL-10 engines (the new throttled version - thanks
SSRT!).

>The space suits would be designed
>from scratch instead of using those from Apollo or STS.

Neither of which can be used for EVAs every other day for 45 days.
Neither of which are suitable for long term surface ops (8-10 hrs) on a
long mission. Both of which require extensive maintenance. Both of which
would have problems with lunar dust - the Apollo suits had problems with
the seals due to dust on the multi-EVA flights. Lunar dust is a major
design problem for any lunar base - imagine very hard and fine sandpaper
grit getting all over and into everything with great adhesive
properties. NASA wants to do something sensible - learn from past
experience and improve on what has been done.

>
>No estimate of cost was given, and perhaps none is needed, given
>the political unviability of the project.

Cost is expected to be several billion a year. NASA intends to ask for
the money when the DOD/Domestic budget wall comes down. However, another
more fundamental reason exists as to why costs are not given - this was
a systems engineering study not a project plan. Given the severe
constraints that the project had, it was intended to come up with what
could be done and to derive a comprehensive set of requirements. At the
reviews I have been to, it has been clearly stated that all the pretty
pictures and diagrams are not final, are just strawmen and are only to
give the staff a point of departure to debate from. Griffin intends to
do as much commercial procurement as possible, releasing a set of
requirements and asking companies to bid on it. Innovative solutions are
welcome.

Studies were done of bases that supported 25-100 crew, had LOX
production, food production, etc. All are simply impractical now - we
don't know enough to make informed decisions. All had significant
engineering challenges - i.e. moving tons of regolith. Do you know how
deep the regolith is? What the rock size distribution is? We don't, and
until things like that are known, it is hard to design tools and
equipment that can do the job, even with extensive use of automation.

>The project requires
>a new upper stage, a new habitation capsule, a new 4-propellant lander,
>a new rover, new spacesuits, along with the various experiments.

This is called designing to meet requirements, based on good systems
engineering. There may be extensive use of SSF subsystems (such as the
Hab module, thermal control, and parts of the life support system).
Also, the descent stage of the lander will be commmon for the base and
the crew lander, and will be used on the followup trips, so the cost
will be amortized over "n" missions (1-2 a year, initially).

>They propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5, which
>would not be used by anybody outside NASA.

The stretch Energia would work and is considered a good candidate.
Griffin is not interested in the boosters except that they be reliable
and affordable. He has stated in public that XSSR boosters are fine if
the political problems can be worked out. (MSFC may have different
thoughts, however.)

>Thus, I would give a
>conservative guestimate of the cost of Apollo plus the cost of SSF,
>or $270 billion.  In an attempt to mollify Congress, NASA proposes
>to take the money out of other NASA projects, but this cost is 19
>times the entire annual NASA budget, and NASA already admits to having
>more projects than it can fund. NASA has already cut the planetary exploration
>budget down to $300 million per year, one-one-thousandth (1/1,000) the
>cost of this project to study the geology of one body.  No doubt clever
>accountants will give us a lower number in an attempt to make the project
>politically viable, but that number will deserve a critical look.  As will
>the rationale for repeating the exciting-once but dead-end missions of
>Apollo.

The lunar science community is excited, because they are getting to set
some priorities on the experiments to be taken. There will be some nice
astronomy and physics packages taken, so the science return will be
substantial.  A few notes and disclaimers - I have worked part time on a
few aspects of FLO. This is my opinion only, based on reading documents
and attending some meetings. The flavor of the group dynamics of this
project is interesting - the right kinds of questions are being asked up
front, there are lively debates, and real requirements are being
written. The requirements are not designs, but real requirements.

--
    Edmund Hack - Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co. - Houston, TX
  [e-mail] - I speak only for myself, unless blah, blah..
   Papoon for President - You Know He's Not Insane! - Endorsed by the
  American Friends of the Martian Space Party, League of Winged Voters

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:04:55 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:


>There's an exhibit of Soviet Hardware in St. Louis.  Has anyone seen it yet?
>Bill, would you like to join us on a trip?

Is there anyone down in this direction interested in going I could
possibly split costs with?


--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 17:20:02 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Dave Tholen) writes:

>...And as someone else correctly pointed out, using such
>a drive for a orbital mission, as opposed to a flyby, would require that
>you start to slow down after reaching roughly the halfway point.  Flight
>times would be much longer, and there is a sense of urgency to get there
>as soon as possible, for a variety of reasons.

I was thinking of it for an accelerated flyby, but I've said that already
by now, so I'll just slip back into lurker mode again for a short
--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 17:14:10 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Pluto Direct Propulsion Options Part II: The Silly Season
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:


>>pgf:
>> Lithobrake!

>Believe it or not, this has actually been proposed for the Moon, I
>think by Kraft Ehricke.  See his "Lunar Slide Lander" proposals, in
>early-80s *Acta Astronautica*, among other places.

It's been done before on the moon, we just don't get radio signals
back very well afterward ;-) (Ranger probes)...

Heck, Lithobreaking has been done time and time again on Earth.
By a variety of airborne vehicles. It's a time-honored way of
stopping a flying vehicle, although it's helpful if everyone jumps
out of it first (and aerobrakes)...

>Moira Higgins on entertainment:      Bill Higgins
>"The effects on the new              Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
>*Star Trek* make the old one         Internet: [e-mail]
>look like a Sixties TV show!"        Bitnet:   [e-mail]

Yah, but the new one doesn't have anyone with pointy ears.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:06:01 GMT
From: "Thomas H. Kunich" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Population
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:
>
>First, I'd like to point out that I'm not the same person who wrote the follow
>up to my post, nor do we agree on all things.

Josh, you also got my quotes incorrectly :-). I agree that this has been getting
more and more involved with three, four and more quotes all in the
same message.

I see that population is a serious problem. Without a concentrated effort
on everyone's part it _can_ become an incredably sad (even sadder than now)
problem in the future.

I have pointed out that there are options, but that it is necessary
to start exercising these options while there is still cheap
and available energy resources.

Unfortunately I do not see this happening. I am not talking about a Manhattan
Project, but some serious planning to control population, cultivate in
some serious manner those third world countries that can sustain
themselves with modern agricultural varieties (it turns out to be incredably
difficult to get subsistance farmers to convert to newer crops because
their experience tells them that they have to do things _exactly_ one
way if they are to survive -- they need lots of support during the
conversion period.)

And we need to work out some arrangement for those areas of the world
that are presently overcrowded beyond the capacity to support.

 Without these accomodations we will have brushfire wars running out of
control forever and threatening the erst of us continuously.

The various solar technologies offer energy at reduced costs and sustainable
rates, but hoping that the market will support the conversion is asking
too much. It is likely that oil, when it runs out will do so at a very
accelerated rate -- much faster than it was developed -- because of
the growing world wide demand for petroleum and all of it's modern by
products. Falling back on coal and natural gas may sustain us for awhile
but in a world energy shortage these will grow scarce too.

Remeber, the Donner parties were separate and while many starved to death
in grusome manners (complete with cannibalism) there were others that
survived the winter with surplus food. So unless food is abundant and
very cheap there will always be starvation pressures to cause wars.

If we can put these sorts of controls in place then we _can_ look forward
to expanding space explorations, even some sorts of colonization. But
unless we get our own house in order there will never be enough surplus
energy or political will to do much.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:48:35 GMT
From: Frank Crary <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes:
>Is it the case that, by the time a probe could be readied, we would have
>just missed the launch window?  Or is there some other objection to this
>method this time?

If they can't get funding for a Titan, they plan to launch on an Atlas
and make a single Jupiter flyby. This makes the cruse slightly longer
(compared to direct Titan launch.) Also, if Congress delays funding for
a year, they would miss the launch window.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder


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

Date: 15 Sep 92 17:51:00 GMT
From: "Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth" <[e-mail]>
Subject: QUERY Re: Pluto Direct/ options
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mark Brader) writes...
>Several slingshot trajectories have been proposed as alternatives to the
>direct Pluto flight, but not the one that I would have thought obvious:
>a simple Jupiter slingshot.  Jupiter should be in the right position
>for a period of, I would guess, some weeks or months, at intervals of
>about 12 years.
>
>Is it the case that, by the time a probe could be readied, we would have
>just missed the launch window?  Or is there some other objection to this
>method this time?
>
Yes, it's too slow.  Also, windows for a Jupiter flyby are available every
13 months, but the trajectory through the Jovian system will depend on the
relative angle between the Earth-Jupiter line and the Jupiter-Pluto line,
and in some years would require a gravity assist manuever that would fly
into the Jovian atmosphere (which isn't the way to do it :-).  But basically,
the problem is that any gravity assist trajectories would be too slow for
this particular mission.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Horowitz                        |
Astronomy Department                  |"Whoever heard of a female astronomer?"
California Institute of Technology    |--Charlene Sinclair, "Dinosaurs"
[e-mail]                |
[e-mail]                 |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:43:18 GMT
From: "Edward V. Wright" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RL-10
Newsgroups: sci.space

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Mohney) writes:

>>Because "astronauts are national treasures", and if you kill one, your
>>program grinds to a halt for a couple of years.  If you kill a test pilot,
>>you name a street after him at Edwards, and carry on flying.

>Probably more astronauts now than test pilots, if you include the mission
>specialists.

>Of course, "national treasure" is a strange way to put it.

Oh?  You think so?  Do you remember the test pilot who was killed
returning from space in his X-15 back in the 1960's?  I bet not.
Compare him to the Challenger astronauts or Grissom, White, and
Chaffee.

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:03:31 GMT
From: Jerry Matulka <[e-mail]>
Subject: RL-10
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>Oh?  You think so?  Do you remember the test pilot who was killed
>returning from space in his X-15 back in the 1960's?  I bet not.
>Compare him to the Challenger astronauts or Grissom, White, and
>Chaffee.
>

Yes I do, the pilot was Michael Adams.

_____________________________________________________________________________
|Jerry Matulka       Phone: [phone]         Email: [e-mail] |
|3000 Waterview Parkway, P.O. Box 833851, Richardson, Texas USA 75083-3851  |
|___________________________________________________________________________|

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

Date: 15 Sep 92 16:17:39 GMT
From: Tom DeBoni <[e-mail]>
Subject: Sisal meeting schedule
Newsgroups: sci.optics,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics,sci.research,sci.space

                 A N N O U N C E M E N T

            The Second Sisal Users Conference

                   Hyatt Islandia Hotel

                      San Diego, CA

                 October 4-6, 1992


                   Presented by

              Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

                with support from

              the US Department of Energy


Sisal (Streams and Iterations in a Single-Assignment Language) is a general-
purpose functional language that supports the development of determinate,
machine-independent parallel software. The Sisal project has achieved
significant successes over the past nine years, in many areas of computer
science and parallel computing. Among these are the development of the Sisal
language and the IF1 intermediate dataflow graph representation, the
implementation of a runtime system for parallel execution on conventional
shared memory computers, optimizations for functional languages, the
achievement of Fortran-like performance, and the establishment of the Sisal
Scientific Computing Initiative. The latter of these has involved researchers
from many areas of science and engineering in the use of Sisal as an
application programming language. In this meeting we will discuss uses of the
language, the current state of the project, and its future directions.

Who Should Attend?

All Sisal users, implementers, and researchers, and those who are interested
in the Sisal language or functional programming are invited to attend this
meeting. We also welcome those involved in the various other aspects of
parallel computing.

Cost

The cost of this conference is $150, and includes lunches both days and a
reception the first night. Guest lunch tickets are available.


Accomodations

Lodging is available at a special rate of $70 (US) per room, single or double
occupancy, at the Hyatt Islandia Hotel, phone [phone]. ATTENDEES MUST
ARRANGE THEIR OWN LODGING.


Transportation

Shuttle service is available between the San Diego airport and the Hyatt
Islandia Hotel.


                        Tentative Conference Program

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, October 4, 1992

Registration - 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm

Reception - 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, October 5, 1992

Session 1 - 8:30 am to 10:00 am

John Feo, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Introduction

James McGraw, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Keynote Address

Break - 10:00 am to 10:30 am

Session 2 - 10:30 am to 12 noon - Session Chair: Richard Wolski

Dae-Kyun Yoon and Jean-Luc Gaudiot, University of Southern California
"Programming and Evaluating the Performance of Signal Processing Applications
in SISAL Programming Environment"

Dean Engelhardt and Andrew Wendelborn, University of Adelaide
"Investigating the Memory Performance of the Optimising SISAL Compiler"

Patrick J. Miller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"TWINE: A Portable, Extensible SISAL Execution Kernel and Debugger"

Lunch - 12 noon to 1:30 pm

Session 3 - 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm - Session Chair: Walter Cedeno

Jesus Novoa, Flor Sanmiguel, and Jaime Seguel, University of Puerto Rico at
Mayaguez
"A SISAL Code for Computing the Fourier Transform on Sn"

Wim Bohm, Colorado State University
Greg Egan, Swinburne University of Technology
"Five Ways to Fill Your Knapsack"

Arun K. Arya, David Woods, and Charles Murphy, Dr. Arun Arya and Associates
"Mathematical Syntax for SISAL"

Break - 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm

Session 4 - 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm - Session Chair: Chris Frerking

Marc Pantel, Marcel Gandriau, and Patrick Salle, Ecole Nationale Superieur
d'Electrotechnique d'Electronique d'Informatique et d'Hydraulique de
Toulouse
"FOL: An Object Oriented Extension to the SISAL Language"

David J. Raymond, New Mexico Tech
"Candis as an Interface for SISAL"

Steven M. Fitzgerald, University of Lowell
"An Approach for Optimizing Recursive Functions"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, October 6, 1992

Session 1 - 8:30 am to 10:00 am - Session Chair: Tom DeBoni

A. L. Cricenti and G. K. Egan, Swinburne University of Technology
"Parallelisation and Performance of the Burg Algorithm on a Shared Memory
Multiprocessor"

Walter Cedeno, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"Genetic Algorithms in SISAL"

Dorothy Bollman, Flor Sanmiguel, and Jaime Seguel, University of Puerto Rico at
Mayaguez
"Implementing FFT's in SISAL"

Break - 10:00 am to 10:30 am

Session 2 - 10:30 am to 12 noon - Session Chair: James McGraw

R. R. Oldehoeft, Colorado State University
"Implementing Arrays in SISAL 2.0"

Srdjan Mitrovic, ETH Zurich
"An IF2 Code Generator for the ADAM Architecture"

David Andrews, University of Arkansas
"An Approach for Performing Application Specific Analysis of Parallel
Computing Systems"

Lunch - 12 noon to 1:30 pm

Session 3 - 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm - Session Chair: Patrick Miller

Richard Wolski, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"Program Partitioning for NUMA Architectures"

Santosh S. Pande, Dharma P. Agrawal, and Jon Mauney, North Carolina State
University
"Mapping Functional Parallelism on Distributed Memory Machines"

Paul Roe and Andrew Wendelborn, University of Adelaide
"Explicit Copying and Updating in Functional Languages"

Break - 3:00 pm to 3:30 pm

Session 4 - 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm - Session Chair: John Feo

Michael Strailey and Patrick Tibbits, Indiana Institute of Technology
Tom DeBoni, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
"Simulating Material Strain Dislocation Motion in Sisal"

C. Yoshikawa, U. Ghia, and G. A. Osswald, University of Cincinnati
"SISAL and Von Neumann-Based Languages: Translation and Intercommunication"

Vivek Sarkar, International Business Machines
"SISAL vs. FORTRAN '90 --- Contradictory or Complementary Approaches?"

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


                       The Second Sisal Users Conference
                               October 4-6, 1992
                               Registration Form

Name ___________________________________________________________________

Affiliation ____________________________________________________________

Address ________________________________________________________________

        ________________________________________________________________

        ________________________________________________________________

Badge Name _____________________________________________________________

Email Address __________________________________________________________

Telephone ______________________________________________________________

Fax ____________________________________________________________________

Fees: Conference Attendance (X $150) ___________________________________

         Extra Lunch Tickets (X $15) ___________________________________

                               Total ___________________________________

Preregistration is due by September 18th, 1992
Payment is due by September 26th, 1992

Payment by check or money order, in U.S. dollars and drawn on U.S. banks should
be made payable to:
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

We are unable to accept credit cards.

Send registration and payment to:
    Judy Michels
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    P.O. Box 808, L-316
    Livermore, CA, 94551
    [phone]
    [e-mail]

Lodging can be arranged through:
    Hyatt Islandia Hotel
    1441 Quivira Road
    San Diego, CA 92109-7898
    Telephone: [phone]
    FAX: [phone]
    Telex: 697844

For more information contact:
    John Feo or Tom DeBoni
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    P.O. Box 808, L-306
    Livermore, CA 94550
    [phone] or [phone]
    FAX: [phone]
    [e-mail] or [e-mail]

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

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:26:43 GMT
From: "Phil G. Fraering" <[e-mail]>
Subject: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Frankly, it's not
>clear to me how much they're going to learn from this.  Air drag is going
>to dominate sail thrust at that altitude; conventional solar sails are
>pretty useless below about 1000km.]

They'll have at least tested a deployment mechanism... and remember, the
CIS people are just as if not more interested in "Lunettas" for
ground-side illumination as in solar sails.

--
Phil Fraering [e-mail] where the x is a number from 1-5.
Phone: [phone] SnailMail: 2408 Blue Haven Dr., New Iberia, La. 70560
"NOAH!"
"Yes Lord?"                          - Bill Cosby
"HOW LONG CAN YOU TREAD WATER?"

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

End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 206
------------------------------