Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 2 Feb 91 02:25:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU 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 space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 29 Jan 91 22:01:35 GMT From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!crg5!szabo@uunet.uu.net (Nick Szabo) Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions In article <1991Jan29.133819.29954@engin.umich.edu> sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (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 szabo@sequent.com 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!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (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 | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | 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!lane@ucsd.edu (Lane Kagey) Subject: Re: Ultimate Weapon in article <1991Jan22.152955.4632@d.cs.okstate.edu>, rjs@d.cs.okstate.edu (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 lane@ast.com -or- ...uunet!legs!lane c/o AST Research Inc. Dept 670 fax: (714) 727-9358 16215 Alton Parkway P.O. Box 19658 Tel: (714) 727-8468 Irvine, California 92713-9658 -- Lane Kagey lane@ast.com -or- ...uunet!legs!lane c/o AST Research Inc. Dept 670 fax: (714) 727-9358 16215 Alton Parkway P.O. Box 19658 Tel: (714) 727-8468 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!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: nuclear rockets In article printf@cix.compulink.co.uk (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? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 91 21:32:27 GMT From: ucla-seas!curtiss!pisor@cs.ucla.edu (Robert D. Pisor/;093091;maugrad) Subject: Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait In article <1069@borg.cs.unc.edu> leech@homer.cs.unc.edu (Jonathan Leech) writes: > >In article <2332.27A5DF8A@ofa123.fidonet.org> 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 (leech@cs.unc.edu) > __@/ ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 91 16:23:20 GMT From: usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Satellite Imagery of Iraq/Kuwait In article <2332.27A5DF8A@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org (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? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 91 17:38:56 GMT From: swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Expendable vs Shuttle In article UNCSPL@UNC.BITNET ("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? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 91 01:20:42 GMT From: unisoft!fai!sequent!bills@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (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 bills@sequent.com 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!henry@ucsd.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Firm Fred Decisions In article <21051@crg5.UUCP> szabo@crg5.UUCP (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? | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 30 Jan 91 21:39:46 GMT From: sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!samsung!caen!engine.engin.umich.edu!sheppard@ucsd.edu (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 mvk@itsgw.rpi.edu -- =============================================================================== Ken Sheppardson Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office Phone: (804) 864-7544 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA FAX: (804) 864-1975 =============================================================================== ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V13 #107 *******************