Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 28 Sep 89 04:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8Z8RGuW00VcJE6xE4S@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 04:22:19 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #84 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 84 Today's Topics: Re: How the "Face" imaging data was processed NASA Headline News for 09/18/89 (Forwarded) Re: NASA forced to photo Cydonia Re: Edgar Rice Quayle on Mars. Re: Neptune images - help with MAC-II data format Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? Re: Saturn V- Were they ever in production? Galileo RTGs Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1 Atlas/Centaur launch, news conference delays (Forwarded) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 09:41:36 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: How the "Face" imaging data was processed >[Describes pixel-weighting algorithm for increasing apparent >resolution of an image] Aha. Computer graphics fans will recognize this as a close variant of a tiling algorithm in solid object modelling. It has the same effect in that field, viz, to make an object look as though it is being represented at a higher resolution than you actually have. Say you model a Volkswagen with polygons, shade them wrt some light source, then display the result. Of course you get a VW that looks like it's covered with flat facets. Then you tile the facets by altering the shading on each facet according to the shading on the neighboring facets (there are several algorithms). The end result looks like a smooth VW, although you only modelled the thing at a much coarser resolution. All that's happening is that the algorithm assumes that the object you're looking at has smooth, even curves, and removes the aliasing effect of the square pixels. Like all image processing algorithms, it merely makes it easier for the human eye/brain to process the image, and does *not* add information. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 19:10:33 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 09/18/89 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- NASA Headline News Monday, Sept. 18, 1989 Audio: 202/755-1789 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Monday, September 18..... Officials at Kennedy Space Center are closely watching Hurricane Hugo as it churns west-northwesterly in the southern Carribean. The Class Four storm could threaten the East Coast of the U.S. with extremely high winds and heavy rains. If the storm zeros in on Florida it could force NASA to roll the Atlantis back from the launch pad to the Vehicle Assembly Building. Cape personnel are developing a contingency schedule in the event the storm heads for Florida. The White House has approved the launch of the Galileo spacecraft aboard the Atlantis. The Executive Office decision was required because Galileo carries Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators...RTGs...that use nuclear material to generate electrical power for the spacecraft. A coalition of anti-nuclear activists says it will file suit to stop the launch. They claim a catastrophic launch failure could release nuclear material that would endanger the health of people in central Florida. The protest group says they will carry their protest all the way to the launch pad, if necessary. Following completion of the Terminal Countdown Demonstration Test last week, the crew of the Atlantis flew to Washington, Saturday, for a breakfast visit with Vice President and Mrs. Quayle. Mr. Quayle, Chairman of the National Space Council, said he will be at the Cape for the launch of the Atlantis to underscore the fact that there is no danger from the RTGs during launch. On Capital Hill....the Senate expects a floor vote on the NASA appropriations bill either today or tomorrow. Friday, the Senate appropriations committee released a report saying that a descoping of the Space Station Freedom was "unacceptable" and they eliminated funding for the National Aerospace Plane to protect the station. The HUD, Veterans and Independent agencies bill is now expected to go to a joint House-senate conference later this week to iron out differences. And...a FltSatCom satellite is scheduled for launch from the Cape this coming Friday. The launch window opens at 4:15 A.M., Eastern time, for 30 minutes. A pre-launch briefing will be conducted at the Kennedy Space Center, Wednesday, at 2:00 P.M., Eastern time. It will be be carried on NASA Select TV. * * * * ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA Select television. All times are Eastern. Wednesday, September 20...... 2:00 P.M. Briefing on launch of FltSatCom aboard an Atlas-Centaur from KSC. Thursday, September 21..... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted. Friday, September 22...... 3:00 A.M. NASA Select programming begins for FltSatCom launch at KSC. Launch window opens at 4:15 A.M. All events and times are subject to change without notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------- These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon, Eastern time. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A service of the Internal Communications Branch (LPC), NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 16:00:59 GMT From: ames.arc.nasa.gov!mike@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mike Smithwick) Subject: Re: NASA forced to photo Cydonia In article <14679@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: < klaes@wrksys.dec.com writes: > > In an August 11 interview on Cable Network News, the head of the > National Space Council, Vice President Dan Quayle, explained why the > United States should undertake a manned mission to Mars: "Mars is > essentially in the same orbit. Mars is somewhat the same distance > from the Sun, which is very important. We have seen pictures where > there are canals, we believe, and water. If there is water, there is > oxygen. If oxygen, that means we can breathe." Yes, Dan Quayle is a bit lacking in mental quickness. But I found his statement to make perfect sense to me! His translation into lay terms is a bit lacking, but I'll bet there's lots of you folks out there that have trouble telling your parents (or kids) what it is you do all day. Here's my translation: If you look at the orbits of all nine planets, Mars and Earth are essentially in the same orbit. For this reason, and others, Mars is more like the Earth than any other planet in the solar system, which is very important. We have seen pictures where there are very deep canyons, and we believe that water ice exists at the bottom of those canyons. If there is water, then we can produce oxygen. If we can produce oxygen, then we can breathe it. [Every translation needs a good summary...] The upshot of all this is that Mars lends itself to permanent human habitation, and the United States should be leading this inevitable colonization of Mars. Yeah, well, this is a bit lame. But I don't think Quayle is too far off the mark. The thing that bugs me is not Quayle's poorly worded statements, but Bush's almost total lack of interest. Kendall Auel | kendalla@pooter.WV.TEK.COM Tektronix, Inc. | P.O. Box 1000, m/s 61-028 Visual Systems Group | Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 Interactive Technologies Division | (This message composed on a TEK w/s) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Sep 89 09:50:08 PDT From: Peter Scott Subject: Re: Neptune images - help with MAC-II data format Cc: oliveb!tymix!opus!thomson@apple.com oliveb!tymix!opus!thomson@apple.com (Bruce Thomson) writes: >Does the value of the byte represent a "grey-scale" density? If this is >the case, the file sizes are too small. I think that I remember the >images where something like 640 by 480 pixels. This would result in a >file size of 307200 bytes. The files vary in size, but some are far too >small if this is the case. The images that JPL receives are 800*800 by 8 bits. These are rebroadcast at 1/4 that resolution so they can be fitted into a standard video frame, which also includes other stuff around the edges, e.g. text and histograms. According to the original poster, these images you are talking about were digitized off a TV signal, which one would expect to yield what you say, frames of about 640*480 by 8 bits; however, if the poster then edited out everything except the image, you'd have less. Furthermore, considering transmission noise, and NTSC limitations, I'm afraid you really can't trust more than 4 or 5 bits per pixel by the time you've received the TV picture. Don't take this as gospel; I'm not an image processing wizard. Peter Scott (pjs@grouch.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 89 13:45:00 GMT From: hsi!mfci!rodman@uunet.uu.net (Paul Rodman) Subject: Re: Galileo Jovian atmospheric probe -- is it sterilized??? In article <6491@hubcap.clemson.edu> mage@hubcap.clemson.edu (Steve L Vissage II) writes: >If some Earth bugs actually do have the tenacity to travel sevaral hundreds >of millions of miles to Jupiter, is it not likely that most life on Jupiter >will have the tenacity to survive it? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Most life??!?? You mean _some_ won't?!?!? And that doesn't bother you? Sheeesh. Everyone agrees the probability of wiping out any possible Jovian life is small. The question is: at what level is the "risk" acceptable? IMHO, the risk is very, very, small, but the _possible_ is quite horrific (although we'd probably never know it). I think some sort of planetary Golden Rule applies here: I would like the earth to be treated the same way by any other life forms, please. Also, IMHO, I tend to think the probability of Jovian life is at least as great as Martian life. Jupiter has a lot more interesting raw materials and sources of energy, granted the chemistry would be different. Given that we don't know much about the origins of life, we really should have sterilized the probe. Is that really a lot to ask? Should our decision be influenced by the fact that the probe is already built and ready and it can't be done now? I guess its Que Sera time....... ------------------------------ Date: 20 Sep 89 02:20:57 GMT From: galaxy.rutgers.edu!andromeda.rutgers.edu!ruane@rutgers.edu (Michael T Ruane Sr) Subject: Re: Saturn V- Were they ever in production? Greetings Net-folk! Concerning all the recent talk about the Saturn V, I believe that 2 posters said that the S5 production line was shut down by NASA. I didn't think that S5 ever went into *production*. I thought that they were still pretty much custom built. Any engineers out there able to set me straight? How about Henry or Tom? Thanks in advance- Mike ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 89 16:51:16 GMT From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Galileo RTGs In article <8909181630.AA14589@aristotle.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> pjs@ARISTOTLE-GW.JPL.NASA.GOV (Peter Scott) writes: >>> How would the RTGs handle an extreme high velocity reentry ... >> >>This is actually considered the worst reasonably-likely accident (since >>it takes pretty unlikely ones to break the RTGs open during launch). > >Not clear here if you are talking about the *really* worst reasonably-likely >accident, since you use the term "re-entry", implying that this is happening >after orbit and hence SRB and ET separation. The worst case I have seen >studied seriously is loss of control shortly after launch resulting in the >entire stack diving back into the ground. The velocity would confine the >ET propellant explosion enough to create an explosion of about 10kT. >Of course, this suggests that the shuttle somehow manages to get back over >land before the RSO can (wait for it) blow his stack... NASA may goof off, but the USAF range-safety people don't... which is why I don't class this as a "reasonably-likely" accident. >Considering the >other toxics on board the shuttle, I think RTG breakage would be a minor >component of the total disaster... The other toxic stuff on the shuttle is mostly (I *think* entirely) the nitrogen tetroxide and various flavors of hydrazine, for the small engines and the assorted APUs. That stuff isn't fun if you're at close range, but since it's all volatile liquids, it disperses into the atmosphere and does not present a long-range hazard. Apart from the scare value of the name, the plutonium in the RTGs is legitimately a bit more of a concern; droplets of volatile fuels evaporate, but solid particles don't. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 18 Sep 89 22:17:04 GMT From: hpda!hpcuhb!hpcllla!hpclove!campbelr@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Bob Campbell) Subject: Re: Re: Saturn V & F-1 >>Of course, the main competition to the S5 would be the shuttle-C. The main >>engines for the shuttle-C are flying today. By your own argument, it must >>be cheaper to build shuttle-C using existing components than to reconstruct >>the Saturn V from rusting originals. > >It might indeed be cheaper to do this if an industrial consortium hired >the engineers and said, "do it." If we wait for NASA to do it, however, >it will cost much more. > >A good rule of thumb is: whatever NASA finally does ends up costing more >than anything else they might have done. Like I said, two of my favorite R&D idols had the same first step. 1. Get the money first. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Campbell Some times I wish that I could stop you from campbelr@hpda.hp.com talking, when I hear the silly things you say. Hewlett Packard - Elvis Costello ------------------------------ Date: 19 Sep 89 17:34:21 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Atlas/Centaur launch, news conference delays (Forwarded) Jim Cast Headquarters, Washington, D.C. September 19, 1989 N89-65 NOTE TO EDITORS: ATLAS/CENTAUR LAUNCH, NEWS CONFERENCE DELAYS Launch of Atlas Centaur-68/FLTSATCOM, is now scheduled for no earlier than 4:13 a.m. EDT, Sunday, September 24. Accordingly, the planned L-2 day prelaunch news conference has been delayed until 2:00 p.m., Friday, September 22. The delays are due to Hurricane Hugo. Precautionary measures are being taken on the launch pad in case it becomes necessary to demate the FLTSATCOM spacecraft from the launch vehicle and transport the spacecraft to safety. In preparation for such a move, RP-1 fuel was detanked from the Atlas last night. Operations at Launch Complex 36B are now on hold pending updated weather forecasts. The Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle, itself, is capable of withstanding winds as high as 125 mph. The Sunday launch date assumes normal resumption of activities on the pad beginning tommorrow. Updates on the launch status of A/C-68 will be made as soon as information becomes available. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #84 *******************