land area devoted to urban uses in 1969. Finally, it should be noted that the entire project was completed in a very short time frame and that the project team has not had much time to carefully study the maps and data profiles. Therefore, our conclusions concerning future work may be more meaningful than our "conclusions" from the analytical exercise. There are at least three types of future work that we feel should be pursued. The first involves refinement and enlargement of the data base at the United States level. The second involves research into identified "eligible" areas and the third involves the development of varying resolution data base that utilizes existing Federal government data management systems and Landsat imagery. Initially, a number of the maps set forth in Section III need to be checked and perhaps altered. In particular, national grasslands need to be added to the national forests map, the topography unacceptable map needs to be considered in more detail, the windstorms map may be supplemented by other data, etc. In other words, while this initial effort collected some very good information in a very short time frame, additional information can be added to make this system more functional with respect to the rectenna siting requirements. Additionally, a more detailed description and analysis of the rectenna design should be requi red. Second, detailed research should be conducted in the "eligible" areas so that siting recommendations could be made on a state by state or region by region basis. An initial decision at this stage would be to determine which "eligible" areas map should be used. Our recommendation would be to alter the national maps according to the first future work suggestion and to then rerun syntheses using this new information. At this time, Summary Maps 7 and 8 would seem to be prime candidates for determining "eligible" areas, but a decision should not be made at this time concerning which "eligible" areas map to consider.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==