Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_2/V9_289.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 18KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.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/YY6YByy00UkZ4LQU4f>;
          Sun, 12 Mar 89 05:16:31 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 89 05:16:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #289

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 289

Today's Topics:
               Reminders for Old Farts
         Robot hands (Science News article).
           Re: Rats in Space (was Re: arf!)
             Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF
          Re: For the People of Planet Earth
               Re: the un/manned debate
          Re: The manned/unmanned debate, ESA policy
   Re: USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon
           Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)
    Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir
          National Space Council (from: What's New )
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 89 04:00:14 PST
From: Eugene Miya <[e-mail]>
Subject: Reminders for Old Farts

Hints for old users (subtle reminders) You'll know these.

Minimize cross references, [Do you REALLY NEED to?]
Edit "Subject:" lines especially if you are taking a tangent.
Send mail instead, avoid posting follow ups. [100 mail messages mean more than 1
follow-up.]
Read all available articles before posting a follow-up. [Check all references.]
Cut down attributed articles.  Summarize!
Put a return address in the body (signature) of your message (mail or
article), state institution, etc. don't assume mail works.

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

Date:     Thursday, 9 March 1989 1206-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject:  Robot hands (Science News article).

Some more fuel for the 'practicality of robot hands' debate:

The February 18th Science News has an interesting article on
a joint project between Columbia University and the Steinway
Piano Company.  The project's principle investigator is
Moshe Shoham, a mechanical engineer at Columbia.  His objective
is to build a robot capable of taking over the job of finishing a
Steinway:

  "By assembling existing robotic components in new ways and
   using novel computer control tactics, Shoham hopes to build
   a tireless, boredom-immune robot that finishes piano cases
   as finely as an experienced human worker but in far less
   time."

Sounds to me like a true leading edge *application* (as opposed to
research project).  A somewhat different problem from a
tele-operated rig, but the 'hand' technology involved is parallel:

  "...the robot must adapt to the subtle variations of each
   hand fashioned piano.  It must be dexterous enough to
   reach every part of each piano case, and sensitive enough
   to 'know' how much pressure it is applying to the flat,
   curved, and oddly shaped surfaces."

Dexterity and feedback are also primary requirements for a
tele-operation rig, I would think.

Building this robot is not going to be a trivial problem.  It is
certainly not 'off the shelf':

  "[Shoham notes that] good, reliable force control is a rare
   robotic skill. [...] Most current robots cannot respond fast
   enough to the force sensor's flow of information."

It sounds like he is using a more-or-less standard robot of some
sort, since it is described as coming with its own controller.
To this he adds another control computer to deal with the force
sensor data and to feed back information to the control computer.

Aside from the feedback/control problem, other problems are things like
how to deal with changing the sandpaper on a sanding block.  For these,
Shoham expects he may have to design 'robot friendly' finishing tools.
Presumably changing sandpaper is a hard problem because it is a task
with many complex variables; a problem in control that would not arise
if a human were directing the hand via tele-operation, assuming the
hand was dexterous enough.

A problem intrinsic to a force-feedback hand is that "the rubbing
machine's vibrations could 'confuse' the force sensor, causing
the robot to apply improper forces to the piano case."  What this
says to me is that force-feedback is by no means a 'solved problem';
if you want to deal with a wide variety of applications of the
hand there is a lot of work to be done on making the force sensing
reliable.

Overall I am encouraged by the article: a complex application of a
force-feedback robot is reasonably close to commercial application,
which puts us that much closer to 'off the shelf' force-feedback
tele-operation.  But it definitely looks like Henry is right as far
as the short term goes.  We need a lot more research and development
before tele-operated experiments in orbit can become routine.  Funny,
that sounds like a statement I've read recently about manned operations
in space . . .

We should be doing both.

-- R. David Murray    ([e-mail], [e-mail])

P.S.: I agree that unmanned space exploration is ridiculously under-
funded compared to manned space (insofar as you can separate the two
cleanly). It is criminal that experiments get dropped and maybe (if we're
lucky) replaced with something less capable as a 'cost savings measure'.
When you've already agreed to send the probe, you bloomin' well ought
to send along the best instruments you can get your hands on!

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

Date: 8 Mar 89 23:58:29 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rats in Space (was Re: arf!)

In article <[e-mail]> dietz writes:
>>... I don't think anybody's built an automatic
>>life-support system that can keep rats alive and healthy for long periods
>>in space, which is what you'd really like...
>
>The question about rats was in response to someone claiming that a
>space station is necessary to study *fetal* development...

The discussion was about both pre- and post-natal development, not just
fetal development.
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1989 10:59-EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: LANDSAT TO BE TURNED OFF

> of building and launching the satellites?  Indeed, what is the
> relevance of the asking price for Landsat tapes when their operation is
> subsidized?

As in many other areas of our economy, the distortion of the marker via
subsidies has become necessary to undo the damage caused by other
distortions.

The fact that EOSAT can not supply proprietary data, ie they can not
supply specific images to a company willing to pay for specific images,
somewhat limits they utility of the LANDSAT's.

Let's face it, the fact that LANDSAT's broadcast unencrypted data means
that the only thing EOSAT can really charge for is the image processing
and a premium for the pictures that doesn't exceed the cost and hassle
(and probable missing of a great deal of data) of someone putting up
their own earth station. Yes, for any small user this would be silly.
But it means that there is no one to charge real costs to Standard Oil
or someone else who might REALLY need the data. Push up the price on
SOCO and I'll bet they'd just put up their own dish.

So there is no way they can make enough money to build new satellites.
And on top of it, they got shnookered on the contract to start with.
Given the constraints (above) they were forced to accept, they
realistically insisted that the government subsidize the system to pay
for it's own stupidity. The ink was hardly dry before the government
welched on the deal. Had the people in government been subject to
normal contract law, EOSAT could have voided the contract and sued
the crooked butts off the US government.

This is very similar to the situation with foodstamps (and any of a
hundred other areas I could come up with, with a bit of research). We
subsidize poor farming practices, crop monocultures and soil
destruction by overfarming because the farmers have the clout to put
their hands in your wallet, and then have to pay again to subsidize the
poor who can afford the price supported food that we paid to price
support.

Don't you just LOVE government?

An extra quiz for 10 points:

    What do tax subsidized streets and tax subsidized rapid transit
have in common with the above?

    What about tax subsidized irrigation water and tax subsidized
efforts to do something about ecological problems caused by lowered
water tables and lake levels?

    What about tax subsidized grazing, mining and logging  and tax
subsidized environmental efforts to undo the damage?

    How about tax subsidized shuttles and stations and the need for
tax subsidies to private rockets and stations?

Anyone see a pattern?

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

Date: 7 Mar 89 15:01:00 GMT
From: texbell!merch!cpe!hal6000!trsvax![e-mail]
Subject: Re: For the People of Planet Earth


Thank you for this enlightening posting,
  now I'll finally be able to sleep peacefully in the knowledge
  that the benine space aliens will make it all better.

                  Lowly Three Dimensional Human Underling

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

Date: 9 Mar 89 01:19:17 GMT
From: tektronix!tekig5![e-mail]  (Robin Adams)
Subject: Re: the un/manned debate


It has just occurred to me, that if life on Earth is not an accident, then we
are just as likely to find Dinosaurs on another planet as we are intelligent
life.

...Maybe we 'should' send an unmanned probe.



                       o         o                o
                                              o                  o
                    o                  o            o
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            |       |
                            |       |   Robin
                           /---------\  Adams

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

Date: Thu, 09 Mar 89 11:14:55 SET
From: [e-mail]
Comment: CROSSNET mail via SMTP@INTERBIT
Subject: Re: The manned/unmanned debate, ESA policy

Date: 09 March 1989, 11:05:40 SET
From: Lutz Massonne             (+49 6151) 886.701   ESC1325  at ESOC
To:   [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The manned/unmanned debate, ESA policy

The february 1989 ESA bulletin contains an article from the French
minister of research and technology, Hubert Curien, why France chose
to support manned space activities, an overview of the
Hermes development programme and (as in every issue) an overview
of the status of all ESA space programmes.

The ESA bulletin can be ordered *free of charge* (at least in Europe,
I don't know about postal charges for US) from

ESA Publications Division
ESTEC, Postbus 299
2000 AG Noordwijk
The Netherlands

For somebody interested in the European space activities the ESA bulletin
may contain useful information.

Regards, Lutz

Standard disclaimer implied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lutz Massonne, mbp Software&Systems GmbH     [e-mail]
European Space Operations Centre
Robert-Bosch-Str. 5
D-6100 Darmstadt, FRG
------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 8 Mar 89 02:00:19 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!yunexus!geac!geaclib![e-mail]  (Reid Ellis)
Subject: Re: USSR's Phobos II probe takes second pictures of Martian Moon

[e-mail] (Glenn Chapman) writes:
|Also the surface of Phobos itself has been found to be 20 degrees
|hotter than expected (they do not say but I expect Celsius unites).

Most definitely.  Only the US and Burma use non-metric units.

|the press coverage has been rather small (the first photos were
|only shown in a few places).  Is this indicative of the
|public/press lack of interest in unmanned probes or only the
|East/West barriers?

I'd say the East/West barriers.  I have seen a number of 'spots'
abnout the upcoming Neptune encounter for Voyager [is it 1 or 2?]
but none for the far more interesting, spectacular Mars mission
[since it's much closer to its objective].  You would think that
all those nice pictures would bring in the advertising dollars and
thus networks would grab it, but nothing yet..
                    Reid
---
[e-mail] (Reid Ellis)
176 Brookbanks Dr, Don Mills ON, Canada, M3A 2T5, [phone]
Copyright 1989 Reid Ellis; you may redistribute only if your recipients may.

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

Date: 8 Mar 89 13:58:03 GMT
From: b.gp.cs.cmu.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Manned vs. Unmanned (again)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
}A good PR man can write a poll which has leading questions which make the
}result inevitably what he/she wants it to be.  Psychology in action.

And then there are phone-in polls, which are the worst kind, since only the
most motivated will self-select themselves to be in the sample.  And the most-
motivated are usually the ones who are unhappy with the status quo....

--
UUCP: {ucbvax,harvard}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf -=-=-=- Voice: [phone] (school)
ARPA: [e-mail]  BIT: ralf%cs.cmu.edu@CMUCCVMA  FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/31
            Disclaimer? I claimed something?
    You cannot achieve the impossible without attempting the absurd.

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

Date: 9 Mar 89 16:39:57 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USSR's Progress 40 performs interesting operations at Mir

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Paul Dietz) writes:
>... What, in particular, should we learn from the observation that
>even with a launcher 4 or 5 times cheaper than the shuttle (Proton),
>they have a space station only a fraction the size of Skylab? ...

Probably that they just haven't got around to launching the rest of it yet.

The US ("international") space station will also be smaller than Skylab.
(By internal volume, based on the last numbers I heard, which admittedly
are pretty old.)
--
Welcome to Mars!  Your         |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
passport and visa, comrade?    | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 8 Mar 89 18:45:51 GMT
From: att!chinet!mcdchg!ddsw1!corpane![e-mail]  (John Sparks)
Subject: National Space Council (from: What's New )

I found this on sci.physics. It has some relevance to this group so
I am posting the relevant parts here.

============================================================================

In article <2028@pur-phy>, piner@pur-phy (Richard Piner) writes:
 >
 > Posted: Fri  Mar  3, 1989   4:35 PM EST              Msg: EGIJ-3435-7606
 > From:   RPARK
 > To:     WHATSNEW
 >
 > WHAT'S NEW, Friday, 3 March 1989                   Washington, DC
 >
 > 2. A NATIONAL SPACE COUNCIL WILL BE ESTABLISHED BY PRESIDENT BUSH
 > to oversee the implementation of his space policy.  In a report
 > to Congress issued Wednesday, he gave the composition of the 10-
 > member council.  It will be headed by the Vice President and will
 > include several cabinet officers, the NASA Administrator, the
 > Director of the CIA, the Director of OMB, the National Security
 > Advisor and the White House Chief of Staff--but it will not
 > include the President's Science and Technology Advisor.  This
 > conspicuous omission suggests that the Science Advisor will be as
 > lightly regarded in this Administration as he was in the last.


READ: Boy are we in for it! What does the Director of the CIA have to do
with space? Oh, yea... spy satelites. Looks like they have all the
spy and defense deptartment bozos on the 'council' and no scientists
or space experts. This bodes very badly. Must mean that they are taking
SDI seriously, to the exclusion of anything else, like scientific
knowledge. There is more to this article, so here it is with no
more of my 'pithy' commentary: -jrs

 >
 > 3. SALARY IS THE MAIN OBSTACLE IN RECRUITING A SCIENCE ADVISOR,
 > according to Rep. Ritter (R-PA).  This is consistent with rumors
 > that only corporate executives are on the short lists for both
 > NASA Administrator and Science Advisor.  Clearly, the $71,700
 > salary would entail much less of a sacrifice for an academic.
 >
 > 4. PRIORITIES FOR THE AMERICAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY EFFORT were
 > discussed this week in two days of hearings before the Science,
 > Research and Technology Subcommittee of the House.  Several
 > witnesses commented on the disproportionate emphasis on Defense
 > R&D.  Bill Brinkman of Bell Labs remarked that although large R&D
 > expenditures on defense "may create technology spinoff, it also
 > creates a culture not oriented toward commercial product
 > realization.  Its net contribution to civilian R&D is small."
 > George Keyworth of the Hudson Institute commented on the relative
 > value of the SSC and the Space Station, "one of which represents
 > a national commitment to excellence and leadership in research,
 > and the other of which is an investment in neither excellent
 > science nor excellent technology."   Rep. David Price (D-NC)
 > asked which was which.  Keyworth responded that the space station
 > represents nothing new; "it is the past brought forward."
 >
 >
 > Robert L. Park  [phone]      The American Physical Society
 >

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

--
John Sparks      // Amiga  |  {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks
               \X/  UUCP   |  >> call D.I.S.K. @ 502/968-5401 thru 5406 <<

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #289
*******************