From: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Subject: Skunk Works Digest V4 #66 Reply-To: skunk-works-digest@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Errors-To: skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu Precedence: bulk Skunk Works Digest Thursday, 18 November 1993 Volume 04 : Number 066 In this issue: Groom Photo Project NBC Today Show Re: Groom Photo Project Groom Lake photo buy Re: Groom Lake photo project Groom Lake photos? Good luck! Recce photo of Groom? See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the skunk-works or skunk-works-digest mailing lists and on how to retrieve back issues. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 12:13:07 -0800 Subject: Groom Photo Project Tim Tyler writes: > Even before that is done, do we know that once you purchase the >image, we could do whatever we want with it, or would we still be obligated >to any SPOT licensing/contractual agreements? Depends on what SPOT says. Testors informed them up front of their intentions to reproduce the photo in the model's instruction sheer. SPOT actually said OK but DON'T use our name. Testors replied: "Too Late!". In the later models (SR-75 + XR-7) instruction sheet you will see SPOT's name missing, and another companies name inserted in its place. Rick Pavek writes: >I'll check to see what is actually available from Goodall. > >All that money for one photo is a tad high, when you might be able to spend >that and get your own large sized photo from the Defense fund... > >Can you say 3 x 16x20 prints? > >They look ok, I've seen them. It would be good to see what Jim can do for us here, thanks Rick! Some additional information: I just verified with John Andrews again that Testors paid $1400 for a negative and a color positive of that 1988 Groom photo. Not $2000. SPOT would most probably charge us the same, if they allowed us to duplicate the photos. Also, the photos, when they arrived at Testors were 9X9. Testors has paid to have them blown up quite a bit. You can count me in for $100 also, if it works. Larry \O/ m _____--<>--_____ / \__|___|__/ \ / \ ------------------------------ From: KELLEHER@hobbes.consilium.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 12:36:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: NBC Today Show For those interested, this week's Today show is featuring a series of shorts about Inside the CIA. They actually filmed inside Langley and got into some areas I was astounded to see on television. This morning's episode included some pretty interesting shots involving reconnaissance imagery and some of the perspective imagery developments there. The questions were answered pretty well, although the individuals getting questioned occasionally had to look to an off-camera source and follow up with "I'm afraid I can't answer that one." All in all, it was quite a show. Wish they would do a full-length version now! John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com ------------------------------ From: Rich Thomson Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 15:44:49 MST Subject: Re: Groom Photo Project In message <9311172013.AA22153@pdx097.intel.com> larry@ichips.intel.com writes: > Also, the photos, when they arrived at Testors were 9X9. Testors has paid > to have them blown up quite a bit. There wouldn't be any need to enlarge them photographically (which is expensive) if we just scan the 9"x9" negative/positive at high resolution. I have gotten excellent full-screen images from scans of 3x5 prints without difficulty. Chances are that only a small portion of the actual print is of interest to Groom Lake fans. -- Rich - -- Between stimulus and response is the will to choose. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IRC: _Rich_ Rich Thomson Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com Fractal Freak ------------------------------ From: Rich Thomson Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 15:57:50 MST Subject: Groom Lake photo buy Here are the "pledge" totals so far: Bruce Henderson $100 Rich Thomson $100-$200 Michael Matthew Guslick $20 Dave Cox $100 Total $320-$420 So, we are roughly 1/4 - 1/3 of the way towards meeting the "total" needed to buy the SPOT photos. Given that there is obviously enough interest, I will pursue a query of the USGS aerial photograph database for the Groom area and see what pops up (most likely nothing). USDA aerial photography cameras are turned off when the planes fly over "restricted" areas. -- Rich - -- Between stimulus and response is the will to choose. ------------------------------------------------------------------ IRC: _Rich_ Rich Thomson Internet: rthomson@dsd.es.com Fractal Freak ------------------------------ From: larry@ichips.intel.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 14:58:41 -0800 Subject: Re: Groom Lake photo project larry writes: >> Also, the photos, when they arrived at Testors were 9X9. Testors has paid >> to have them blown up quite a bit. Rich Thomson responds: >There wouldn't be any need to enlarge them photographically (which is >expensive) if we just scan the 9"x9" negative/positive at high >resolution. I have gotten excellent full-screen images from scans of >3x5 prints without difficulty. Yes, for a screen image I agree. Personally, I want a wall sized blow-up. >Chances are that only a small portion of the actual print is of >interest to Groom Lake fans. Possibly. OK, I will call SPOT and get the poope from them on this. I will also call another company that the photos should be available from. I'm also curious what it would cost for rights to do a poster. Not that I said I would do such a thing, I'm just curious. I'll also ask if there are newer photos available, and if they expect newer ones later (after open skies say). Rick can continue to check what's available from Goodall. Maybe we can get the full story then. Larry ------------------------------ From: KELLEHER@hobbes.consilium.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 16:09:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Groom Lake photos? Good luck! Those of you who are ready to toss in on the photo opportunity, don't forget some of the problems you might encounter. Whenever a particular target is fragged or photo request is otherwise entered, there are several parameters you have to incorporate. These include such items as corner coordinates, time of day, date, interpretability rating (a numeric system for defining how good the photo is for identifying objects on the ground), camera angle, nadir proximity for panoramic shots, percentage of cloud cover acceptable, etc. Depending on how you word the request, you could end up easily running into non-availability problems strictly based on the parameters you require. And you won't believe the number of times that you have 99% cloud-free coverage and the only cloud there is blocking out the one thing you need to see. If I had a dollar for every time that happened I could probably buy a set of photos of the western hemisphere! Of course you could always ask the folks to include a pint of Cloud Eradicator and see what happens. As for who is handling the XSSR recce photos, it used to be an arm of Glavkosmos. I'll try to check my records for the precise office. Be aware that the agency might well have an agreement with the US State Department regarding the sale of space sensor data of the US. Photo enlargement quality will depend on the imagery source. Film original is generally much more detailed and is best enlarged using conventional photo enlargement processes. Digitally relayed information normally lacks some of the detail, but is subject to better enhancement techniques. You'll have to determine which format you will want from the provider. (9"x9" is pretty standard photo negative size.) It all sounds very interesting nonetheless. Good luck! John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com ------------------------------ From: "DISNEY::KELLEHER"@hobbes.consilium.com Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 17:49:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Recce photo of Groom? Those of you who are ready to toss in on the photo opportunity, don't forget some of the problems you might encounter. Whenever a particular target is fragged or photo request is otherwise entered, there are several parameters you have to incorporate. These include such items as corner coordinates, time of day, date, interpretability rating (a numeric system for defining how good the photo is for identifying objects on the ground), camera angle, nadir proximity for panoramic shots, percentage of cloud cover acceptable, etc. Depending on how you word the request, you could end up easily running into non-availability problems strictly based on the parameters you require. And you won't believe the number of times that you have 99% cloud-free coverage and the only cloud there is blocking out the one thing you need to see. If I had a dollar for every time that happened I could probably buy a set of photos of the western hemisphere! Of course you could always ask the folks to include a pint of Cloud Eradicator and see what happens. As for who is handling the XSSR recce photos, it used to be an arm of Glavkosmos. I'll try to check my records for the precise office. Be aware that the agency might well have an agreement with the US State Department regarding the sale of space sensor data of the US. Photo enlargement quality will depend on the imagery source. Film original is generally much more detailed and is best enlarged using conventional photo enlargement processes. Digitally relayed information normally lacks some of the detail, but is subject to better enhancement techniques. You'll have to determine which format you will want from the provider. (9"x9" is pretty standard photo negative size.) It all sounds very interesting nonetheless. Good luck! John Kelleher johnk@consilium.com ------------------------------ End of Skunk Works Digest V4 #66 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest in the body of a message to "listserv@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to either "skunk-works-digest-owner@harbor.ecn.purdue.edu" or, if you don't like to type a lot, "prm@ecn.purdue.edu". A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from harbor.ecn.purdue.edu, in /pub/skunk-works/digest/vNN.nMMM (where "NN" is the volume number, and "MMM" is the issue number).