September 2005 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] boots on the ground. (was Quite an admission from NASA head).
by Michael Carnes 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

>I hate to admit it, but I agree with Mike Carnes on >this one. I don't know if I should be happy you agree or sad that you hate to admit it ;-) -Michael

1 0

boots on the ground. (was Quite an admission from NASA head).
by daniel turner 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

I hate to admit it, but I agree with Mike Carnes on this one. I would further add that what has really happened is that manned space flight is an idea whose time is past. Consider the state of technology when JFK made his Âgo to the moonÂ speech. At that time a computer was the size of a refrigerator. ThatÂs just the CPU. Random access memory was done with tiny magnets and a kilobyte was considered a lot, a megabyte was undreamed of. Since then we have had integrated circuits and decades of MooreÂs Law racing along at the speed of compound interest. We can now make really smart machines and we donÂt have to send people into harms way to do what we want done. Consider how much more advanced the Spirit and Opportunity rovers are compared to Pathfinder rover of a decade ago and the Viking Landers of three decades ago. We have gotten a whole lot better and we arenÂt through improving yet. We should also consider that for commercial use, there is nothing really out there beyond the geo-synchronous orbit. Scientific research is nice but we donÂt need people to do it. The cold war reasons for sending man into space are no longer valid and we are left with circular arguments about how we need manned space flight in order to study the effects of space flight on human beings. The current and near future prospects for space tourism are not much more than a scaled version of skydiving. This is not a popular notion but other explorers have managed to figure it out. Some one went to great expense to transport a marine biologist to the deep ocean floor to study life at the thermal vents. The commander of the submersible noticed that the biologist was refusing to look out the window because the view was much better at the monitor for the camera on the extension arm. The obvious question was, ÂWhy am I risking both our lives down here?Â Now we use robot submersibles with cameras. The pilot and biologists are safe and warm on the surface ship. What are keeping manned space flight going are the Boomers (my generation) who have grown up with the promise that we would be going into space. But that was a promise made when our technology was weak and the dangers werenÂt fully appreciated. To use a clichÃ© against this old idea I would have to say, ÂItÂs dead JimÂ Clear Skies DT __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Too good to be true?
by Dale Hooper 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

I have the original and the new version. I haven't had a chance to use the new version yet. But, you can't beat a deal like this - a great text with all the mathematical principles of image processing PLUS a great software package for image processing. I was able to upgrade for $60. But, even at $100 it's a fantastic deal. They have made major updates to nearly every section of the code. Plus, they have a great yahoogroup where Burnell & Berry are very good at answering any questions (AIP4WIN). Clear skies, Dale. > -----Original Message----- > From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com > [mailto:utah-astronomy- > bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu(a)mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of > Canopus56 > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:38 PM > To: Utah Astronomy > Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Too good to be true? > > Anyone have any feelings about API4Win in Burnell and > Berry's book from Willman-Bell. Version 2.0 just came > out. I picked up a copy but have not had the time to > install it. > http://www.willbell.com/AIP/Index.htm > > - Canopus56(Kurt) > > --- Patrick Wiggins <paw(a)trilobyte.net> wrote: > > > http://www.buysusa.com/index.htm > > Photoshop for less than 1/5 retail sounds like great > > news for > > astroimagers, but the prices look way too good to be > > true. > > > > Anyone know what the catch is? > > > > Patrick > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Quite an admission from NASA head
by Michael Carnes 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

>This guy needs to line up behind FEMA's Mike Brown. >"O'yah, it was all those other prior administrations >that did it." Don't agree with you at all Kurt. The shuttle is certainly too old now, but it was misguided from the start. It was the height of foolishness to put all of our heavy lift options into one basket. It meant that people had to risk their lives simply to launch large satellites. It also meant we had a craft that was a compromise in every way: Its size and shape forced unnecessary restrictions on large payload. It was a disaster for human space flight, never able to go more than a few hundred miles up, lugging around a lot of empty space. Many of us felt that way from the beginning, and I wouldn't be surprised if Mike Griffin had been among them. He's first and foremost an engineer and only secondarily a bureaucrat.

3 2

RE: [Utah-astronomy] Quite an admission from NASA head
by Lambert, Aaron 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

> > NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake > I certainly agree with that statement, but I thought > he wouldn't say it so bluntly. But he's an engineer, > and we engineers aren't always known for our subtle > way of putting things. After reading the article it sounds more like media spin than anything (no offense intended, Joe). Here is the USA Today spin: "NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake" The space shuttle and International Space Station - nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades - were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday. Here is some text from the actual interview in the article: In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth. "It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can." And some more article text: Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, "My opinion is that it was. ... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible." Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in." It seems to me that Griffin is saying that limiting space flight to low Earth orbit was the biggest part of the mistake, not the Shuttle itself, though because it was pushing the envelope technologically it was probably riskier than it needed to be. The Shuttle was basically a really expensive fork lift to take civilian, govt, and military payloads into LEO. Since all of NASA's eggs where in one LEO basket, that really hampered the development of the space program for years. Sadly, NASA has only been able to act like the FedEx of space and throwing some science in on the side when they get a chance. He also basically says that he agreed with the ISS, but would have put it in a different orbit. I don't get where USA Today comes up with the statement that Griffin thinks the entire ISS was a mistake. From other things I've read, Griffin is probably referring to putting the station in a lower inclination orbit, like 28.5 degrees, that of JSC in Florida. It would have added several thousand pounds usable payload to each shuttle flight. On the down side, it would also make it much more difficult for the Russians to get there, which is probably why the ISS is not in that orbit. Aaron

1 0

Quite an admission from NASA head
by James Cobb 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

> NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake > > By Traci Watson > USA TODAY > > > > The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the > whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — > were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/ 20050928/1a_bottomstrip28.art.htm Jim

2 1

Too good to be true?
by Patrick Wiggins 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

http://www.buysusa.com/index.htm Photoshop for less than 1/5 retail sounds like great news for astroimagers, but the prices look way too good to be true. Anyone know what the catch is? Patrick

4 3

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Quite an admission from NASA head
by Michael Carnes 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

> NASA administrator says space shuttle was a mistake I certainly agree with that statement, but I thought he wouldn't say it so bluntly. But he's an engineer, and we engineers aren't always known for our subtle way of putting things.

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Too good to be true?
by Michael Carnes 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

I've actually spent time with the GIMP in the hopes of not spending any money on Photoshop. While it can do many things, it's years behind Photoshop. It also feels awfully kludgy to me. -----Original Message----- From: William Fenton <billyfenton(a)gmail.com> Sent: Sep 28, 2005 9:53 AM To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Too good to be true? Long time listener, first time poster. Why not try some of the free tools that are available. The Gimp is a nice, free alternative for photoshop. In many ways it's more scriptable in terms of running changes on a batch of images. Gimpshop is a derivative of the Gimp that is supposed to clone the menu configuration of photoshop that runs on os x and possibly windows. www.gimp.org http://www.gimpshop.net/ pyraf is a python wrapper to the IRAF that the pros use. It adds some GUI functionality and is also free. http://www.stsci.edu/resources/software_hardware/pyraf -Bill Fenton _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Tom Tole's riff on intelligent design
by Michael Carnes 28 Sep '05

28 Sep '05

Still laughing. Thanks for the link. Intelligent Hurricanes: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.…

1 0