Date: Thu, 20 May 93 05:27:27 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #597 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 20 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 597 Today's Topics: Billboards in Space Billsats, Peacocks, and other ads. Cassini (Was Re: Galileo) FTP Sites for Planetary Maps Wanted!? murder in space Need satellite ephemerides Over zealous shuttle critics Pat's plan Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Questions for KC-135 veterans SDIO kaput! Space Billboards and Low-Cost Access to Orbit Space Marketing would be wonderful Space Marketing would be wonderfull. (3 msgs) user information Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 19:52:00 GMT From: Jason LaBranch Subject: Billboards in Space Newsgroups: sci.space greer@utdallas.edu (Dale M. Greer) writes: > gun." There seem to be more anti-billsat people and they seem to be > willing to make great sacrifices to fight against billsats. I doubt > that the pro-billsat people are willing to fight as hard for their > point of view. Amen. -- Jason LaBranch | To find your way, Look within! labranch@netcom.com | -- Road Atlas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 93 17:39:13 EDT From: 18084TM@msu.edu Subject: Billsats, Peacocks, and other ads. Magnus Redin sez; >>: I realy like this idea, it would be wonderfull to see such a >>: big bright satelite on the night sky. I will even promise to >>: try to buy whatever product it advertises to help this project. >>: Please write to Space Marketing and encourage this project. >>: I sadly dosent have enough money to invest in it. Daniel Mahoney replies; >>Personally, I would be disgusted to see an orbiting billboard when I >>looked up at the night sky. When I gaze into the sky, I want to see >>stars and other heavenly bodies, not a large corporate advertisement. >>I would gladly organize a large-scale boycott of any company foolish >>enough to advertise through such a medium. Daniel Juliano suggests: >Or a large-scale effort to destroy any such monstrosity! This last suggestion really does remind me of Bugs' Martian pal. That story may be more illustrative than it was meant to be. The big question for the objectors is this: What quality would an orbiting billsat posess that makes it a monstrosity, disgusting, or whatever pejorative term you prefer? Or, why would a billsat be uglier than, say, Jupiter. One colored dot is a planet, the other an ad, but neither has much detail, even in telescopes. Do some protesters think male peacocks are ugly, since they advertise? Haven't you ever noticed that ads (unlike the programs) during prime-time are slick, nicely tracked, well filmed, and designed to make interesting viewing? Who would spend millions to create ugly ads, when they could just as easily make pretty ones (like the peacock)? (I am assuming that the light pollution would be of little effect, which I figure those protesters using an aesthetics line are doing.) -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \ They communicated with the communists, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 20:47 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: Cassini (Was Re: Galileo) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article , alien@acheron.amigans.gen.nz (Ross Smith) writes... >Is Cassini still a viable project then? I had the impression that NASA's >budget was being cut to the point that Cassini, while not formally >cancelled yet, had essentially zero chance of eventually going ahead. >I'll be very happy to hear that I was wrong! Cassini is alive and well. The Critical Design Review was done last December, which paved the way to the start of the construction of the spacecraft. Various components of the spacecraft are already in the bread board stage and testing is progessing well. Cassini is fully funded under NASA's FY 1994 budget. The project is running about 5% to 10% under budget. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Never laugh at anyone's /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | dreams. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 15 May 93 07:15:02 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: FTP Sites for Planetary Maps Wanted!? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May13.182102.12198@dunix.drake.edu>, tel002@dunix.drake.edu (Tim "Spock" Larson) writes: > Thanks for all the help and information. You guys are great! > > Tim > TEL002@acad.drake.edu > (looking forward to having a cool map soon) > Any FTP sites with GIF or other grafix formats with MAPS of earth and other worlds?? Ames? or where else?? == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 20:12:15 GMT From: fred j mccall 575-3539 Subject: murder in space Newsgroups: sci.space In <1tdnfd$smc@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> sean@gomez.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Sean Barrett) writes: >In article mgemmel@cs.vu.nl (Martin Gemmel) writes: >>Anselm Lingnau (lingnau@math.uni-frankfurt.de) writes: >> >>} Wouldn't Discovery (with nobody on board besides HAL, a computer) be an >>} abandoned vessel which anybody could pick up for its scrap value? >> >>No, because HAL is still on board. >Nonsense. Only a person (or a corporation) can own something. Nonsense. The original statement apparently refers to salvage laws, which state that an abandoned vessel at sea may be taken and salvaged by anyone who boards it. It has nothing to do with the 'owner' being aboard or not. I would question whether this rule would ever apply to object in space, unless it could be demonstrated that the 'object' was clearly not in communication and was out of the control of its 'owner'. Even then, it would be pretty iffy. -- "Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 May 1993 20:17:04 GMT From: Richard Murphy Subject: Need satellite ephemerides Newsgroups: sci.space I'm looking for a network source of ephemerides for the NOAA satellites. I would also like to acquire the TBUF files for the sats as well. I've heard the only source is on OMNET, but I thought it would be worth a chance to ask. Please e-mail to me directly! Many thanks. Richard Murphy ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 21:52:18 GMT From: "David M. Palmer" Subject: Over zealous shuttle critics Newsgroups: sci.space mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >In <1tb1re$s3n@access.digex.net> prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes: >>In article pgf@srl03.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes: >>>The shuttle will share another with the R-101. >>What's teh R-101. >There were a pair of airships built by the British. One was a private >concern, was built, and flew well. The competitor was the government >built R-101, which was a disaster. And, in response, the British government ordered the private blimp scrapped. Obviously if a blimp made under the close scrutiny of hordes of government officials isn't safe, a privately built blimp would probably annihilate London. Read Nevil Shute's biography 'Slide Rule' for an interesting account of this episode. -- David M. Palmer palmer@alumni.caltech.edu palmer@tgrs.gsfc.nasa.gov ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 93 18:12:40 EDT From: Tom <18084TM@msu.edu> Subject: Pat's plan I said; >>When I have to page through 150 lines of flame to get to one or two >>lines of actual discussion... Fred replies; >Perhaps things would cool out if you could keep your fine Italian hand >out of it. Not like you're exactly an unbiased observer, is it, >Tommy? How's that? I'm not sure what's more confusing here, that you think I'm Italian (a reference I've missed, apparently) or that your actions depend so heavily upon mine. I'm trying to be an unbiased observer. All I said was that it would be a lot easier, if there was a greater discussion/emotionalism ratio. -Tommy Mac ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom McWilliams 517-355-2178 wk \ They communicated with the communists, 18084tm@ibm.cl.msu.edu 336-9591 hm \ and pacified the pacifists. -TimBuk3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 93 19:05:52 GMT From: Dan Williams Subject: Philosophy Quest. How Boldly? Newsgroups: sci.space Gary Coffman (gary@ke4zv.uucp) wrote: : In article <4470@uswnvg.uswnvg.com> djwilli@uswnvg.com (Dan Williams) writes: : >: : >Shells also provide protection from gravity, and also from loss of precious : >water. Large variable tides would subject a variety of sealife to the rigours : >of a duo-environment. : : In the real world, the race between the tortoise and the hare was won : by the hare. A shell limits movement and the rejection of waste heat : to the environment. Thus shelled creatures are less active foragers. : In the arms race between armor and speed, armor seems to have lost : most frequently. The large armored creatures are no more while the : agile endoskeletal creatures seem to have prospered. The design of the : largest armored amphibian, the turtle, seems to have been frozen early. : It has changed little in millions of years. I think rapid evolution is : necessary for intelligence to develop, and that a hard shell tends to : freeze evolution before it can advance enough. : My idea is more that evolution drives creatures for speed mainly and in a different enviroment an amphibious squid on a sled could be a viable alternative and provide the basis for an intelligent non-upright tool user without an internal skeleton. : >I would argue that Nature has worked with several successful bus designs in : >creating different species. Insects do walk on a double tripod base, : >I know of no three legged species but 5 limbs are common amoung some : >groups, {Elephants, and new world monkeys} How about snakes? Crustaceans, : >clams, or slug. The squid might be a good base design. Grow a shell to provide support, use large tentacles to pull the body along and retain the smaller : >tentacles as manipulators combined with the mandibles to provide leverage. : >Of course this creature requires either wheels under the shell, or a natural : >environment of a thick algal mat to ease the drag on its shell. :-) : : I was suggesting that bipedal locomotion requires a more complex brain : than more stable bases. Whether one forces development of the other is : subject to debate. I suspect a feedback occurs. If we want to end up with : intelligence, we should prefer forms that encourage development of complex : brains. Neither 2 nor 4 limbs offer unconditional stability in motion : while the double tripod of the insect does. : Good point, but most birds are bipedal and don't seem to require more intelligence than your average dinosaur. Elephants are fairly intelligent 4 leggers but they have that 5th manipulator attached. So maybe a multi- leged creature grown large enough with specialization in some limbs would drive a species for intelligence. : >I would consider it to be a falacy to expect life to have evolved under rules : >simular to what guided life on this planet. Materials taken advantage of : >could be diferent, as could base structures. What if the intelligent creature : >is some form of communal organism. : : I suspect carbon chemistry forces common structures for life. I don't : expect a creature to have titanium bones or Kevlar skin simply because : the creation of such things isn't compatible with the energetics of carbon : life chemistry. Life tends to fill every available niche, and the Earth : offers a very wide variety of niches, yet most creatures follow a common : pattern of material usage in their construction. I don't think this is : accidental. I suspect this is the only way the chemistry allows. Silicon : creatures breathing a fluorine atmosphere seem far fetched. : Creatures that excrete poisonus calcium and use it as structural material is unusuall also. Plants have found a different route to achieving great size. I am not suggesting wildly varied biology myself but maybe some different material use and processing by alien life forms will allow a different focus to their rules of evolution. I don't feel that all options have been exhausted in the development of life on Earth. We have developed some life forms with unusual characteristics ourselves. Microbs that eat oil, potatoes that grow plastics, etc. And we are just rearranging what is already here. How about using spider silk as a structural material rather than calcium? Light, easy to work with and stronger than steel. How about a life form that instead of secreting calcium secretes iron from it's environment? : As to intelligent communal organisms, I suspect that inter-unit communications : would be too slow and too limited to make that work. : A common characteristic in intelligent mamals is a complex social structure. Inter unit communications may not be required for most common interactions with the environment. Only in the later stages of the evolution of an intelligent life form does communication really develope. Insect evolution drives species to work as communal organisms that are suprizingly successful without being slowed down too much by communication. : >: Thermodynamic considerations of surface/volume relationships would : >: seem to dictate that active complex creatures stay in a size range : >: similar to what we see about us. 6 inch tall intelligent aliens : >: seem unlikely, as do those much larger than the elephant. : >: : >Giants were not unknown in this world and given a little longer development : >time may have produced intelligent tool users. Our own species ranges from : >7 foot giants to under 3 feet tall. It might have been harder to survive : >outside that range, but we really don't have enough of a sample to say it : >is impossible to be intelligent tool users on either end of the scale. : : I think we can be fairly confident of the lower bounds due to the : necessity for complex brains and the need to regulate temperature. : The top end is less clear. I'll concede that intelligent dinosaurs : may be a possibility. But I don't think they'd succeed in competition : with creatures in our size range. As I said above, life seems to actively : fill all possible niches, so it's highly likely that such competition : would exist. The thermodynamics favors the smaller creature when high : activity is required. I suspect that "monkey curiosity" is a prerequisite : for intelligence of high order to develop. A large sluggish creature wouldn't : be able to sustain that. : Giants were selected against by asteroids.:-) The same fate may still befall us. Intelligence did not develope in the giants. All this tells us is that intelligence is not a necessary biproduct of evolution, or at least it is not allways successful. Speed on the other hand is selected for, as is flexability in an organism. Large creatures need not be sluggish. "Monkey curiosity" is shown by most highly intelligent creatures. They explore their enviroment, investigate novelty, play. We don't know what came first, its a chicken and egg type of problem. The more we learn about intelligence the closer we find ourselves to the other animals in our world. We are not so much unique as extreamists/specialists. I do not belive intelligent tool use is only to be found in medium large upright bipeds. I think we were in the right place at the right time to develope as we did. Life is easy and common on our planet, but we are the only species so far to have made it to the point where we could leave this planetary environment and seek out new niches in our solar system to exploit. If we ever do make it to another solar system with intelligent life forms I think we should keep an open mind as to what they will look like. The biggest suprise I could think of would be to find myself. -- -------------------/\/\__/\/\------------------------------------- Daniel J. Williams \/0~__~0\/ These opinionated statements are mine! Email: ( /oo\ ) and no-one elses. djwilli@uswnvg.com |/VVVV\| 450-8569 \_**_/ Sometimes the Dragon Wins. ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 20:01:49 GMT From: Brad Whitehurst Subject: Questions for KC-135 veterans Newsgroups: sci.space In article <3d2A02WA43kX01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> haw30@ras.amdahl.com writes: >In article <17MAY199318160445@zeus.tamu.edu> i0c0256@zeus.tamu.edu (IGOR) writes: >> >> computer equipment. I know the operational limit of 2.5 G downward >> >> during operation, but I get long pauses out of computer company reps >> >> when I ask them if their hardware (esp. hard drives) can take that. >> >> >> >> If anyone has experience with the KC-135, planning or designing hardware >> >> for it, and would be willing to answer a few questions, please contact >> >> me email. Many thanks. >> >> >> > >> >You might also want to talk to some of the memory/chip manufacturers >> >directly about the possibility of getting your hands on a flashram box. >> >It'll give you storage that's just as invulnerable to G as the board it's >> >mounted on. >> > >> >Of course, it's still a little experimental.... >> FWIW, I just got a catalog from Industrial Computer Source (I've never bought from them, so I make no recommendation) which has solid state IDE drives from 2.5 to 80 MB of flash EPROM operating in a FAT file emulation mode, allowing you to boot, with 512 byte sectors (don't have to bulk erase like the Microsoft Flash File System). Uses standard IDE interface. Operating environment is 0-65 C, 5 to 95% humidity, 0-40,000 ft. altitude, 50G 11mS shock tolerance; 15G, 5 to 2000Hz vibration tolerance. They start at $1000 for the 2.5 MB and go to $10,000 for the 80 MB. The picture shows a metal housing that bolts into a standard 3.5" half-height drive bay. Pricey, but should be more rugged that a disk drive, by a long shot. -- Brad Whitehurst | Aerospace Research Lab rbw3q@Virginia.EDU | We like it hot...and fast. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 17:20:18 GMT From: boimare@rs1.tcs.tulane.edu Subject: SDIO kaput! Newsgroups: sci.space As I recall, Eisenhower committed "advisors" to Vietnam, although all of the Presidents involved in the "war" are responsible for keeping it going to some extent. Nixon did not end the "war." The majority of the Vietnamese people wanted to farm rather than die and the governments on both sides offered them a better chance at the latter than the former. Wars end swiftly when the people for whom they are being fought have no vested interest in them. Let's spend the money on making this world and the next few we inhabit better places to live. Down with war and up with space technology and exploration! (Slowly peeping out from behind a surplus heat shield...) Frank Boimare boimare@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 93 16:50:39 From: Brian Yamauchi Subject: Space Billboards and Low-Cost Access to Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space One thing that seems to have been left out of this discussion is that each of these billboards will last only a couple weeks before it is pulled out of orbit by atmospheric drag. So either this is going to be a _very_ short-lived fad or replacement billboards will need to be launched on a regular basis. In the latter case, suppose we have a dozen billboards in LEO which have to replaced every two weeks -- that's nearly one launch per day, enough business to support a (small) fleet of Delta Clippers. If DC-1s are built and drastically reduce cost-to-orbit, they will open up other markets as well -- possibly including space tourism. So, the question I would put the anti-billboard people is whether they would be willing to put up with a dozen of these things, each visible for a few minutes during twilight, in exchange for the ability to personally visit LEO some time in the next 10-20 years... -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Brian Yamauchi Case Western Reserve University yamauchi@alpha.ces.cwru.edu Department of Computer Engineering and Science _______________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 19:33:05 GMT From: Paul Dietz Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderful Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro The idea of an inflatable space billboard seems pretty lame -- the things are just too damn small. However, we *can* produce large displays visible from the ground. Vapor clouds (barium and other metals) from sounding rockets do it all the time (you can occasionally see one from Wallops Island, or at least you could some years ago). How about this sort of super-pyrotechnic display, in the form of a company logo? Sort of the space equivalent of skywriting. Another variation would be stimulation of luminescence in the upper atmosphere by irradiation from the ground (say, pulsed VHF or microwaves). Kind of an artificial aurora. Or, combine the two, say with a dust cloud in low orbit and some hefty raster scanned lasers or microwave beams. But I suspect the power level required would be too high. Paul F. Dietz dietz@cs.rochester.edu ------------------------------ From: Jim Peroulas Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,misc.consumers,misc.invest,sci.astro,talk.environment,talk.politics.space,sci.space,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,misc.headlines,k12.chat.teacher Sender: NNTP Poster Nntp-Posting-Host: cory.berkeley.edu Organization: University of California, at Berkeley References: <1tc7gs$ef1@access1.speedway.net> Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 18:32:16 GMT Lines: 16 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU In article <1tc7gs$ef1@access1.speedway.net> dmahoney@speedway.net (Daniel Mahoney) writes: >Personally, I would be disgusted to see an orbiting billboard when I >looked up at the night sky. When I gaze into the sky, I want to see >stars and other heavenly bodies, not a large corporate advertisement. >I would gladly organize a large-scale boycott of any company foolish >enough to advertise through such a medium. > >Daniel Mahoney >dmahoney@speedway.net >dan@smoggy.speedway.net I'm curious, how often do you "gaze into the sky and look for stars and other heavenly bodies?" jim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 18:30:58 GMT From: Frank Crary Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.headlines,misc.invest,sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment,rec.backcountry,misc.rural,talk.environment,talk.politics.space In article <1tda1f$94b@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ddaye@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (David C Daye) writes: >Now I'm pretty conservative, which means anti-free-market, when it comes >to commercializing entire classes of the environment. Even so I'm *lots* >more concerned about commercialization of the net than of the sky. >[I'm sure there's a grammatical sentence in there somewhere....] Commercialization of the net? Isn't that what ".com" in everyone's e-mail addresses stands for? Frank Crary CU Boudler ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 19 May 1993 22:04:08 GMT From: Nick Haines Subject: Space Marketing would be wonderfull. Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.astro,sci.space In article <1tdpk5$8i2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bx711@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeffrey L. Cook) writes: My point, which your posting so eloquently proves, is that people are getting upset over an issue that has _nothing_ to do with "light pollution" or interference with astronomical observations. It also has nothing to do with objects in space: Nobody's complaining about the prospect of looking up and seeing huge space stations or other structures in the sky. I happen to largely agree with your point (that the reason people are getting upset has little or nothing to do with astronomy or light pollution). But I completely disagree with this following statement, which I think you should reconsider: The _only_ difference between this structure and any other proposed space structure is that this one would contain a commercial message. It might say "Coke" instead of "NASA". I have never seen, here or on any other forum, any proposal from NASA or any other space agency to place mile-scale objects in very low earth orbits. Such objects are in fact _bad_ ideas technically, because of the extreme drag they would suffer and the consequent orbital decay. They are only financially justifiable if they can recoup their substantial launch costs in a very short time span. No scientific or commercial application except advertising seems to fit this description. Most proposals from NASA or other space agencies for mile-scale structures in space (such as power satellites, or `colonies') place them in geostationary or other very high orbits (such as the lunar Lagrange points). Geostationary orbit is about twenty times as distant as the LEO orbits proposed for this billboard; objects would have to be proportionally larger to be as visible (and once we are putting twenty-mile structures into GEO I think we may be able to put the visible light telescopes somewhere else, such as the backside of the moon). The only possible exception to this general rule is the CIS proposal for mirrors to improve lighting in northern areas; even those mirrors are proposed for a much higher (and more eccentric) orbit than LEO. Note that very vocal objection was also heard when those mirrors were first proposed. Also, I happen to think that astronomers have a valid point: if this billboard is not visible enough to be a problem to them, nobody will buy space on it. Bear in mind that their observations would be badly affected even by unilluminated large objects in LEO, because of the power of their instruments: scattered light reflecting from a billboard would be enough to badly affect their observations. Existing satellites are already a problem to them. If the billboard were in a very highly inclined orbit such that it were only overhead at twilight (following twilight around the Earth, as another poster has suggested), that would largely answer the astronomers' complaint (but not the complaint of others who wish the night sky to remain largely pristine). To summarize: 1. yes, people are hiding behind the astronomers' complaint to some extent 2. no, nobody other than advertisers is going to put up anything that visible 3. no, the CIS is not an exception to 2. (and anyway people objected even to the CIS proposal) 4. no, the astronomers' complaint is not clearly bogus Nick Haines nickh@cmu.edu ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 93 19:25:07 GMT From: Sanjai Bhargava Subject: user information Newsgroups: comp.compression,sci.image.processing,sci.astro,sci.geology,sci.meteorology,sci.physics,sci.space Distribution: world X-Newsreader: mxrn 6.18-4 Followup-To: comp.compression Reply-To: sanjai@ctd.comsat.com (Sanjai Bhargava) Organization: COMSAT Labs Subject: user information Keywords: I would like to hear from actual users of space, atmosphere and earth image data i.e. - space physicists, geologists,metereologists etc.. on their thoughts on using compression ( lossy and lossless ) on their datasets. Some of the obvious issues are - system response. ( In some cases compression might improve response times due to reduced bandwidth requirements ) - loss of fidelity for post processing of data ( segmentation, identification, etc. ) - reduced storage requirements. Any other issues? E-mail responses are preferred, and if there is sufficient response I will summarize. ------------------------------ Date: 19 May 1993 16:03:35 -0400 From: Jon Leech Subject: Weekly reminder for Frequently Asked Questions list Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.space.shuttle This notice will be posted weekly in sci.space, sci.astro, and sci.space.shuttle. The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for sci.space and sci.astro is posted approximately monthly. It also covers many questions that come up on sci.space.shuttle (for shuttle launch dates, see below). The FAQ is posted with a long expiration date, so a copy may be in your news spool directory (look at old articles in sci.space). If not, here are two ways to get a copy without waiting for the next posting: (1) If your machine is on the Internet, it can be obtained by anonymous FTP from the SPACE archive at ames.arc.nasa.gov (128.102.18.3) in directory pub/SPACE/FAQ. (2) Otherwise, send email to 'archive-server@ames.arc.nasa.gov' containing the single line: help The archive server will return directions on how to use it. To get an index of files in the FAQ directory, send email containing the lines: send space FAQ/Index send space FAQ/faq1 Use these files as a guide to which other files to retrieve to answer your questions. Shuttle launch dates are posted by Ken Hollis periodically in sci.space.shuttle. A copy of his manifest is now available in the Ames archive in pub/SPACE/FAQ/manifest and may be requested from the email archive-server with 'send space FAQ/manifest'. Please get this document instead of posting requests for information on launches and landings. Do not post followups to this article; respond to the author. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 597 ------------------------------