Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 32766 Received: from beak.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 ; Tue, 9 Jan 90 13:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via qmail ID ; Sat, 6 Jan 90 01:49:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU 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!dakramer@princeton.edu (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: dakramer@olympus.princeton.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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!erc@ucsd.edu (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!eugene@ames.arc.nasa.gov (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 cosmic@uga.bitnet. 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!burdick@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (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 burdick%hpda@hplabs.hp.com | Information Technology (IND/IT) ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 89 17:15:23 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) Subject: Re: Techno-welfare In article <1989Dec20.150503.27019@cs.rochester.edu> dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes: >In article <8912181657.AA01075@aldrin.cray.com> lfa@VIELLE.CRAY.COM (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 shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov 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!tneff@uunet.uu.net (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 %\%\%\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET ------------------------------ Date: 21 Dec 89 18:55:53 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (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!mark@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Earnshaw) Subject: Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive In article <330@hermix.UUCP> jay@hermix.UUCP (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 mark@watsnew.waterloo.{edu,cdn} ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #381 *******************