Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V09_5/V9_594.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from corsica.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/IYrzP:600UkVQ1305I>;
          Wed,  9 Aug 89 05:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed,  9 Aug 89 05:17:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #594

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 594

Today's Topics:
 Re: Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)
         Re: Color displays for space station
               Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552
           Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)
            Re: Questions about Apollo 11
                 Re: Modules
          Re: Computers on the space station
                 Re: Modules
              Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 89 17:02:00 GMT
From: att!mtuxo!mtgzz!drutx!druhi![e-mail]  (Sue Hendrix)
Subject: Re: Russian Mars probe (was Re: Possible evidence for life on Mars.)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes:
> I caught a bit on the CBC news a few weeks ago about a recent U.S.S.R. probe
> to Mars - sorry I don't remember the name.  Apparently the probe suddenly
> went dead as it entered the planet's orbit.  According to the news piece,
> the Russians have been very closed mouthed about what happened to the probe
> but have made comments about something "extaordinary" which "shouldn't have
> been there".  They have refused to release the final pictures taken by the
> craft which apparently sparked these comments but were planning to show
> them at an upcoming scientific conference.  There was no mention of this
> being evidence of life on Mars or of alien life but that seemed to be the
> suggestion of the piece.

I tried for an email reply, but my mailer died on this.

Well, I DO have some details, but they come from a fantasy role playing
game.

We are playing a modern day GURPS game set at JPL.  Our characters have
discovered that the Phobos probe is still active, has been taken over
by some group of people and is sending back pictures which include human
looking skeletons on Phobos.

Of course this is all fantasy,  but our GM has been known to be
prescient on occasion...

Your article was a source of amusement and chills among our group.

Cheers.
--
                                      Sue Hendrix, net.goddess
                                      att!drutx!druhi!suelh

"Grenades in the halls?  I don't think I can get that authorized."

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

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 89 15:13:35 EDT
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Color displays for space station


>From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
>Subject: Re: Procurement and future computers

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Roberts) writes:
>>>      with ~32 bits per pixel to handle color, intensity and
>>>      transparency.
>>How would you allocate the bit fields? Many display designers regard 24 bits
>>(8 each of RGB) as being fully satisfactory for both color and intensity.

>Those designers obviously have never talked to remote-sensing people,
>who do *not* consider 8 bits per color really adequate.  Said folks would
>really prefer 10 or 12 (although of course they have to take what they
>can get...).  And this is a lot more relevant to the space station than
>arguments about how many thousands of dots per inch you need to reproduce
>fine art well enough to satisfy museum experts...

I suspect the area of interest is not so much increasing the number of colors
as increasing the dynamic range of the image. I don't know how many colors
and shades the ideal human eye can resolve, but I doubt that it is more than
~16 million, the number possible using 8 bits each of RGB. On the other hand,
the human eye can make use of many orders of magnitude of brightness. I
haven't been able to find the numbers, but I believe the maximum usable range
is over 10 orders of magnitude, while 24 bits RGB only allows 2-3 OM, and a
full RGB implementation of 10+ OM would require >70 bits/pixel. Ideally, you
would want to look at an image of a sunlit spacecraft against a black
background, and be able to read pale blue lettering on a white panel on the
sunlit side, and at the same time see dark brown lettering on a black panel
on the shady side :-) In practice, a tradeoff reducing the total number of
colors but increasing the dynamic range would probably be preferable. For
the example of 32 bits per pixel, a good compromise might be 8 bits each
of RGB, plus 8 bits representing the overall brightness of the pixel (with
the multiplying factor determined by the total brightness range needed and
the required gradation of colors.)
                                    John Roberts
                                    [e-mail]

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

Date: 27 Jul 89 18:48:28 GMT
From: pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!milano!kepler![e-mail]  (Charlie Richter)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V9 #552

> >(either Armstrong or Aldrin, I'm not sure which) say "Contact Light";
>
>
> Nope. They said "Contact!"

From Aldrin, MEN FROM EARTH:

  "Drifting right," I called, watching the shadow of a footpad
  lightly touching the surface.  "Contact light."  The horizon
  seemed to rock gently and then steadied.

And from Collins, CARRYING THE FIRE:

  "Contact light!" sings Aldrin, and then a bunch of gibberish
  concerning shutting down their engine.
--
Charlie Richter   MCC   Austin, Texas
  uucp: [e-mail]     arpa: [e-mail]
"The panic ... was not due to anything fundamentally weak in either business
   or finance.  It was confined to the market itself."   - WSJ, Oct. 31, 1929

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

Date: 27 Jul 89 20:38:02 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]  (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Don't Mess with NASA (afterburners)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Neal Woodall) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mary Shafer) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrik Andreasen) writes:

>>>(Various postings about how you can't by a fighter as your own personal toy)

>>>But howzabout a F-20 Tigershark? After all the USAF didn't want it, and
>>>there are 3 (or two?) prototypes that Northrop built on their own money.

>>One.  The other two were destroyed in crashes--one in Canada, one in
>>Korea (I think)--during flight demonstrations.  Probably G-LOC, maybe
>>the T-38/F-5 inverted pitch hang-up.

>I thought the Pentagon had given permission to Nothrop to sell the F20 to
>foreign cusomers, as long as the plane had a wimpy engine and no good
>avionics.

>What is the ture story if this is incorrect?

The F-20 Tigershark was designed (like the F-5) as an export fighter
and was never intended for domestic use.  It had simpler (not
necessarily poorer) systems and fewer maintainence requirements than
some of the older aircraft that it was competing against.  It was
designed for what might be called less-technically-developed
countries.

It had a non-wimpy engine and very good avionics.

We (NASA Dryden) were very interested in acquiring some of these for
chase aircraft, since our F-104s were eating us alive on maintainence
and the F-20s were such great airplanes.  Alas, this came to nothing,
because we didn't have the money.

There were several factors involved in the non-success of the program.
I think that the biggest factor was the active hostility of the U S
Air Force.  They wanted GD to sell F-16s to keep their price down, so
they denigrated the F-20 and offered subsidies for F-16s to countries
considering the F-20.  They also played on national pride, asking why
such an advanced country would want an aircraft designed for less
advanced countries.  There's a lot more status in F-16s!

Another factor was concern about buying an untested aircraft.  Look at
all the aircraft that never met the glowing promises made before
introduction.  Since the commitment had to be made before the F-20 was
in production, there was a certain hesitancy.

I think that the two crashes were really quite a minor factor.  They
came late in the program, when the F-20's fate had pretty much been
sealed.

Northrop wouldn't begin production before getting some minimum number
of orders.  They did get some orders, but only about half what they
needed to open the line, so they cancelled the program.

I think it's a real shame because this was a superior aircraft.  It
had extremely good performance, excellent flying qualities, vastly
reduced maintainence.  But it got shot down for political reasons.

--

M F Shafer                          [e-mail]
NASA Ames Research Center           arpa!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
Dryden Flight Research Facility
                Of course I don't speak for NASA

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

Date: 27 Jul 89 00:20:56 GMT
From: mailrus!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!attcan!ncrcan!ziebmef![e-mail]  (Matthew Francey)
Subject: Re: Questions about Apollo 11

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>                                    The thing I wonder about is why no-one
> caught Bean's error before it was too late. It took about 25 or 30 seconds
> before it was killed, plenty of time for someone on the ground to say
> "hey you idiot, aim the camera down!!".
> [...]
> The Apollo 12 crew was known to be rather clumsy.

  HA!  Clearly what we have here is a coverup attempt.  The true purpose of
the Apollo 12 flight was to meet with the space aliens on their own turf!
Just think... it all makes sense now.  Bean "accidently" leaves the camera
pointed at the Sun, and the people in Houston never "notice" it until its
too late and just to make things like this a bit more plausible, Bean et al
put on a clumsy act in the simulators before launch..
--
Name: Matthew Francey             Address: N43o34'13.5" W79o34'33.3" 86m
[e-mail]          uunet!utgpu!{ontmoh!moore,ncrcan}!ziebmef!mdf

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

Date: 28 Jul 89 01:58:14 GMT
From: bfmny0![e-mail]  (Tom Neff)
Subject: Re: Modules

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jonathan McDowell) writes:
 [amongst an exhaustively complete list of US manned spacecraft nicknames]
>Apollo    CSM        LM
>11    Columbia    Eagle
    ^^^^^^^^
>15    Endeavour    Falcon
    ^^^^^^^^^
          ^^^ note same vowels
>17    America        Challenger
                ^^^^^^^^^^

>Shuttle:
>MPTA-098 Main Propulsion Test Article

    what was this?  I would like more info.

>OV-099    Challenger
>OV-102    Columbia
>OV-105    Endeavour
>
>Howzat?

Once again J. McD. kicks butt.  (No flames for praising you, please J! :-) )

This makes a great trivia question:  Which Shuttle names are new?
Answer: Just Discovery and Atlantis! (Omitting the landing test vehicle.)
Not immediately obvious, huh.

Have you noticed how important nicknames are to us.  From little
Chris-Craft to rustbucket tramp steamer to zillion dollar high tech
orbital thoroughbred, sailors want to serve a lady, not a number.
--
"My God, Thiokol, when do you     \\    Tom Neff
want me to launch -- next April?"  \\    uunet!bfmny0!tneff

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

Date: 27 Jul 89 18:03:00 GMT
From: apollo![e-mail]  (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Computers on the space station


  Ralf Brown posts...
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (d. scott hess) writes:
>}[QUOTE]
>}From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix![e-mail]  (Bob
<>} Pendleton)
>}9 bits of RGB is needed. For a true 3D display you also need something
>}like a z buffer. 16 bits of z isn't always "good enough."  I've met
>}people who will not be happy until they can get a 32 bit floating
>}point z buffer. And of course, if you want stereo you need double
>}buffering.
>}
>}Lets see, that's 27 bits of color, times 2 for stereo, plus 16 for
>}window bits plus 24 for z is 94 bits per pixel. It doesn't look that
>}hard to come up with a frame buffer design that uses more than 100
>}bits per pixel.
>}[ENDQUOTE]
>}
>}Come now!  Nobody on Earth has that yet!
>
>That's right, YET.  My officemate programs a Silicon Graphics "Personal IRIS"
>workstation which has 56 bit planes (24-bit color, 24-bit Z, 8-bit control)
>with about 1200x900 resolution.  We're over halfway there already....

   I'm always amazed when I see such a future-oriented group as
   sci.space unaware of current technology.

   For years now, at least since the mid-80's, top-end graphics workstations
   have been 1280 X 1024, 80 bits per pixel.   Actually, some companies are
   starting to move beyond 1280 X 1024 to higher res., but the monitor
   costs are wicked, the electronics has to run a lot faster and the
   visual improvements are modest.   Typically, the 80 bits are organized
   as 8 bits each of R, G, and B and 16 bits of Z  multiplied by two for
   double buffering.   I expect that the numbers in the future will go to
   over a hundred bits per pixel as 24 or 32 bit Z becomes more common
   and people want additional planes for overlays, special LUT bank selecting
   and other stuff.
                                                     ---Peter

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

Date: 27 Jul 89 19:02:44 GMT
From: frooz!cfa250![e-mail]  (Jonathan McDowell)
Subject: Re: Modules

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Christopher Davis):
> Anyone have a complete list of the callsigns (codenames?) for the Apollo
> LMs and CSMs?  Bonus points for the Gemini & Mercury capsules...
> +5 for listing all shuttle orbiters by OV-num (spelling counts :-).

OK, I'll bite

MR-3    Freedom Seven
MR-4    Liberty Bell Seven
MA-6    Friendship Seven
MA-7     Aurora Seven
MA-8     Sigma Seven
MA-9    Faith Seven
GT-3    Molly Brown (unofficial)
GT-4 to GTA-12 not named
Apollo 7,8 not named
Apollo    CSM        LM
9    Gumdrop        Spider
10    Charlie Brown    Snoopy
11    Columbia    Eagle
12    Yankee Clipper    Intrepid
13    Odyssey        Aquarius
14    Kitty Hawk    Antares
15    Endeavour    Falcon
16    Casper        Orion
17    America        Challenger

Skylab SL-2,3,4 not named
ASTP not named

Shuttle:
MPTA-098 Main Propulsion Test Article
STA-099 Static Test Article, later converted to OV-099
OV-099    Challenger
OV-101    Enterprise
OV-102    Columbia
OV-103    Discovery
OV-104    Atlantis
OV-105    Endeavour

Howzat?


- Jonathan

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

Date: 25 Jul 89 01:19:59 GMT
From: uhccux!munnari.oz.au!otc!metro!basser!usage!ccadfa!csadfa![e-mail]  (Phil Clark)
Subject: Re: S-Band Beacon on Moon

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Bill Chiarchiaro):
>
> In the last year or so, I read about a radio transmitter that was left
> on the Moon by one of the Apollo missions and that is still operating.
> Its frequency is somewhere around 2.3 GHz and is used as "beacon of
> opportunity" by some radio amateurs who conduct moonbounce operations
> on the amateur 13-cm band.
>

The ALSEP transmitters in the "S" band (2200-2300Mhz) were commanded off
about 9-10 years ago by ORRORAL VALLEY tracking station (R.I.P.) in Australia.
The signal level was quite low (about -150 to -155 DBm) so you would have
needed a damn good setup to get anything! I know they were turned off, because
I verified some of the commands myself. The ALSEP packages were left by several
missions, at one stage there were about 5 operating. From memory, I believe thatthey were powered by small thermonuclear packages. There were several other
scientific spacecraft orbiting the moon at various times transmitting in the
136Mhz, 400MHz and 2200MHz bands, I believe that all of these have now expired.
Incidentally, The Honeysuckle creek tracking station, over the hill from
Orroral valley, in Australia was a prime station for the Apollo 11 moon landing.
Both of these stations were closed as a result of budget considerations and
now are decaying relics in the southern Australian Capital Territory.

P. Clark,
VK1PC
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #594
*******************