Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V08/V8_379.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/andrew.cmu.edu.13307.0.0>;
          Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:08:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from andrew.cmu.edu via qmail
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/service/mailqs/q003/QF.andrew.cmu.edu.2340492b.8c633e9>;
          Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:06:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by andrew.cmu.edu (5.54/3.15) id <AA13270> for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:05:27 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13016; Tue, 27 Sep 88 19:07:54 PDT
    id AA13016; Tue, 27 Sep 88 19:07:54 PDT
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 19:07:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: SPACE Digest V8 #379

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 8 : Issue 379

Today's Topics:
     Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.
     Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.
           Re: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB
                Israeli spysat
             Israel joins the space club
             space news from Aug 29 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 88 03:22:48 GMT
From: att!cbnews![e-mail]  (William B. Thacker)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.

Sender:
cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Keywords:

mtwain.dec.com (CUP/ML, MLO5-2/G1 8A, 223-3283) writes:
>
>        The Soviet news agency TASS today announced that communications
>    with the Mars probe PHOBOS 1 have been lost due to human error.
>    The wrong code was sent up to PHOBOS 1, and it appears there is no
>    possibility of getting signals back from the probe.  This is sadly
>    reminiscent of the code error sent to the VIKING 1 lander in 1982
>    which accidentally shut it down permanently.
>

Why is this "feature" present in unmanned probes ?  I guess I can
understand why you might want to shut the thing down permanently, if
for no other reason than you're tired of listening, or you don't want
someone to eavesdrop or take control of the bird. But why wouldn't the
thing  1) have a fail-safe (Are You Sure ? (y/n)) or 2) stay "live" on
batteries for a few hours in case it was a mistake ?




------------------------------ valuable coupon -------------------------------
Bill Thacker                        cbosgd!cbema!wbt
    "C" combines the power of assembly language with the
     flexibility of assembly language.
Disclaimer: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !
------------------------------- clip and save --------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 88 07:09:19 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!tut!santra!kolvi![e-mail]  (Kaj Wiik)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mars probe PHOBOS 1 communications lost enroute.

Original_From:  VTTINS::LEPPELMR






      Phobos I news
      G.W. Leppelmeier  12.9.88

      At the last session of the meeting of the International
      Science Committee of the Spectrum-X-Gamma project,
      Friday, 9.9.88, Prof. R. Sagdeev gave a presentation of
      "all we know at present about what has happened to
      Phobos I".  These are my notes from that presentation.

      A few weeks ago it was decided to move the control of
      Phobos I from the Crimean Space Center to a Center near
      Moscow.  Among other things, this involved using a new
      computer with a different keyboard.  Traps were
      installed in the new operating system to catch
      characteristic operator errors, including one wherein an
      operator now had to insert a particular character at the
      end of a command.  If he failed to do so, a reminder
      would come on the screen asking him if he had forgotten
      to do so, and the computer would not continue unless
      the character were included, OR the operator
      specifically overode the computer.

      On 29.8.88 a very long message was being prepared for
      transmission to Phobos I.  At one point, near the end of
      the message, the operator failed to add the character,
      the computer stopped, but failed to display the question
      on the screen.  The operator thought it was a computer
      error and overode the stop.  The absence of the
      particular character changed the bit pattern of the
      following instruction, into a bit pattern, not on the
      list of accepted commands, but which did call an area of
      the onboard ROM which had a list of possible commands,
      used in development and left there for possible future
      use.  Unfortunately, the particular pattern created in
      this error translated into turning off the attitude
      control thrusters.

      Two days later the Control Center sent a message to
      Phobos I and received no answer.  It is now believed
      that as the spacecraft slowly changed orientation it
      lost power, because the solar panels no longer faced the
      sun, and everything turned off.  The serious concern is
      that many items [from private conversations I gather
      both in spacecraft support and instruments] need
      electrical power to avoid becoming too cold, and will
      be permanently damaged if they get too cold.

      Sagdeev listed the following points as links in the
      chain:
           - error on operator's part
           - computer failure
           - operator decision to circumvent computer
           - absence of cross checks
           - actual command sent able to enter ROM
           - The OB computer must be programmed to prevent
      suicide.  [I beleive RS said the OBCPU was 8-bit.  You
      can't do much checking with such a small cpu on such a
      large spacecraft.]

      This is the first failure of a Soviet deep space spacecraft
      since 1972.


Added 14.9:  This is what I wrote when I returned from Moscow.
 Looking at my notes, I realise that the move of control center
 may have taken place on 29.8 and the transmission error later.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 21 Sep 88 09:27:49 PST
From: Peter Scott <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Watching Shuttle Land at Edwards AFB
X-Vms-Mail-To: EXOS%"[e-mail]"

>apple![e-mail]  (Dan Allen) writes:

>Does anyone know the scoop on being able to go on base at Edwards AFB
>for the Shuttle landing in October or whenever it is going to land?  I
>went to a landing in 1982 there but did not make any of the details.  I
>have heard a rumor that the public is not allowed on base any more for
>landings.  Any truth to this rumor?

If this message makes it to you before the shuttle lands, you could try
calling the Edwards Public Information Office at [phone].

Peter Scott ([e-mail])

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 13:17:48 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!erix![e-mail]  (Howard Gayle)
Subject: Israeli spysat

From articles in the 19 and 20 September 1988 issues of Dagens Nyheter...

Israel has launched an experimental satellite that is a step
toward an advanced spysat to be launched within 2 years.  The
decision to build a spysat was made several years ago, when the
Israeli government realized that the US was not going to share
imagery.  The launcher is to be a Jericho II medium-range
missile.  The main motivation is that Irak and Syria have
acquired medium-range missiles.  The Israelis want advanced
warning if these missiles are deployed, to give time for air
strikes.

Howard Gayle
TN/ETX/TX/UMG
Ericsson Telecom AB
S-126 25 Stockholm
Sweden
[e-mail]
{mcvax, uunet}!enea!ericsson.se!howard
Phone: [phone]
FAX  : [phone]
Telex: 14910 ERIC S

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 88 16:04:47 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (David Palmer)
Subject: Israel joins the space club

Israel launched a satellite today on their own booster, according to a report
on NPR.  In the LA Times (in an article written pre-launch), the Israeli
government was quoted as saying, in response to reports that it was a spysat,
that "We never said it was a spy satellite, what makes you think
it's a spy satellite?"  (quoted very roughly from memory).

But at least we have a good chance of beating Andora back into space.

        David Palmer
        [e-mail]
        ...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
            "Flowers -- Just say NO!!"
                    - Mighty Mouse

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 88 03:19:39 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Aug 29 AW&ST

Arianespace completes technical negotiations with major contractors for
a block order of 50 Ariane 4s, being done in hopes of driving costs down.

Mitsubishi Electric to supply Japan's ETS-6 experimental satellite with
a xenon-ion thruster, to replace conventional hydrazine station-keeping
thrusters and increase the satellite's life.

NASA braces itself to point the finger at Sept 29 for STS-26 launch.

Revised shuttle manifest expected to show two fewer missions in 1989.

Interest in small, lightweight satellites, and vehicles to launch them,
grows.  Potential uses are mostly classified, but major ones include
scouting for Soviet mobile missiles, and tactical intelligence.  John
Pike of the Federation of American Scientists, after studying US spysat
work, believes that DARPA's Lightsat project is primarily meant to
provide a cheap replacement for the KH-12 for tactical intelligence.
He says that US satellite-intelligence users split into three camps --
tactical commanders in the field, strategic planners, and arms-control
verifiers -- with three different sets of requirements -- tactical
real-time imaging of central Europe, quick imaging of the Soviet Union to
find mobile strategic missiles, and ultra-high-resolution imaging of the
Soviet Union in peacetime for missile counting -- and the three groups
are going three separate ways in replacing the KH-12.  The KH-12 was
meant to serve all three groups, but this would create irreconcilable
differences in priorities in a time of crisis.  The final nail in the
KH-12's coffin was the shuttle problems.  So the CIA and friends are
pushing for a big new satellite for arms control, the USAF wants a
different big-satellite system for targeting Soviet mobile missiles
for the B-2, and the tactical users are pushing Lightsat.

In addition to DARPA's Lightsat, which is currently fighting to keep its
budget, both the USN and the USAF recently started small-satellite projects.
DARPA has awarded a contract to Defense Systems Inc to build a small
constellation of experimental comsats; one or more of them will go up
on the first Pegasus launch.  DARPA has paid OSC+Hercules $6.3M for
the first Pegasus launch, and has an option on another at the same price.
These are firm fixed prices; "we're buying the services, not developing
the vehicle", they say.  DARPA *is* funding development of a small
conventional launcher, with a major contract award due in Sept.  DARPA
says that it is not going to be a bulk customer for small launches on
either launcher, since its job is to demonstrate technology for use by
other military agencies.

Discovery is pretty much ready to go.  The shaft-travel problem in one
of the pumps is now known to have been a false alarm (measurement error).
The fix for the nitrogen-tetroxide leak is in place and is being pressure
tested (succesfully, so far).  The trace hydrogen leak in the orbiter/ET
umbilical cavity is still a bit of a mystery, but it may have been there
from the beginning -- this is the first time the cavity has been instrumented
during an engine firing.  The leading theory is that the seals in an
auxiliary hydrogen line leak momentarily when they are suddenly chilled
by the start of hydrogen flow.

Amsat, the US amateur-radio satellite group, will deploy a US-built small
satellite from Mir late next year.  The satellite's job will be medical
communications in remote areas; the ground side of it is a joint project
of Soviet scientists and a Harvard group.  The satellite will weigh less
than 10 kg, and will go up on a Soyuz or Progress launch for deployment
during an EVA.  This is basically a demonstration mission; if more are
built, they will go up in more orthodox ways on expendable boosters.
The Soviets have agreed to do the deployment at no charge; approval for
the project has come from very high levels.  The satellite will need US
export clearance, but it is hoped that this will not be a major problem.
The US government is lukewarm about the whole thing because the Harvard
group is on the wrong side of the political fence.

NASA picks TRW to build AXAF (the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility,
the Hubble telescope's X-ray counterpart).  NASA is trying to learn from
its mistakes on Hubble, which had no single prime contractor (leading to
coordination problems) and some extremely tight technical requirements,
the result being a huge budget overrun.  The AXAF approach is to build
the high-risk parts first, before getting the bulk of the program rolling.
AXAF is meant for shuttle launch.  Charles Pellerin (NASA astrophysics
boss) says he prefers the shuttle over expendables:  he has no tight
launch windows, he wants the most reliable launcher possible, and he
values on-orbit servicing.

Morton Thiokol settles out of court with Jane Smith, widow of Challenger's
pilot.

Reagan signs appropriations bill giving NASA $10.7G for FY89, $800M less
than requested.  The space station is well funded, but much of its funding
is on hold until the next president okays it.

Two Navy navsats launched from Vandenberg by Scout Aug 24.

Big story on the Phobos missions and their landers:  a fixed-base lander
on each Phobos, and the "hopper" on Phobos 2.  [Just as well it's on P2,
since P1 is out of touch and believed defunct due to a command error that
switched off its attitude-control system.]  The lander missions are rather
high-risk, because Phobos is rather irregular and its surface is not well
known.  For example, if the fixed lander is partly in shadow this will
cut its life short, since it has little power to spare and there wasn't
time to develop software for "smart" power management.

Soviets study use of a satellite to deploy balloons into the middle of
typhoons and hurricanes.  [In itself unimportant, but it points out once
again that the Soviets have what we lack:  routine access to space.  They
can use space-based systems whenever it's convenient, not just when it's
absolutely necessary.]

Soviets studying Western suggestion to use Energia to put a multipurpose
satellite network into Mars orbit for navigation and communications relay
for landers, rovers, etc.  Unfavorable comparisons made between Soviet
willingness to listen to such notions and NASA's we-know-what's-best
attitude.  The Soviets had proposed a choice between heavyweight landers
etc using Energia and medium-weight ones using Proton.  The Westerners
suggested staying with medium landers but using Energia's heavylift
capability for a satellite network.  The network's support services
could make it possible for Japan or ESA (or even -- horrors! -- the US)
to mount effective Mars missions using their smaller launchers.
--
NASA is into artificial        |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
stupidity.  - Jerry Pournelle  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V8 #379
*******************