Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_147.TXT

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/EZzTP1K00VcJ42Ok5D>;
          Wed, 14 Mar 90 02:46:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 02:45:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #147

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
        Observations of STS 36 and its Payload
           Re: Solar System Questions from a Novice
              Re: Funding IS The Problem
          Re: Subscription to AW&ST in UK ?
             Voyager VICAR Label question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 90 17:48:44 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu![e-mail]  (Ted Molczan)
Subject: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload


                    Observations of STS 36 and its Payload
                    --------------------------------------

                       (C) T.J. Molczan, Toronto, Canada

                                 March 13, 1990


In mid-February, I circulated a report called "STS 36 Observation Guide".  It
was an invitation to observe the secret DoD mission.  It is doubtful that many
USENET subscribers had a good visibility window this time, so I was not
surprised at the small number of responses.  Fortunately, an observation
network was organized, and the following is a summary of its activities and
major findings.  I am providing it in an effort to build interest in satellite
observation.


1.0  Tracking and Observing the STS 36 Mission
     -----------------------------------------

1.1  The Observation Network
     -----------------------

A network of astronomers, mostly amateurs, observed the shuttle on each of
the five days that it was in orbit.  The network consisted of one very
experienced satellite observer in Scotland and a group of about two dozen
observers in five communities in Canada's North West Territories and Yukon,
and Alaska in the U.S.A.

I organized the North American group when it became clear that most of the
world's experienced satellite observers would not have the shuttle's orbit in
a visibility window during the mission.  None of the members of the group were
satellite observers, however many were fairly experienced amateur astronomers.
They were given instructions by phone and fax on how to make the required
observations.  Throughout the mission I supplied them with predictions for
the next day's passes, collected their observations, adjusted the orbital
elements when necessary and then distributed new predictions.

The network performed splendidly.  During the mission, the orbiter made three
manoeuvers, and the payload made one manoeuver, all of which were detected
through the network's observations.  Despite their inexperience, the North
American group produced very good observations.  I envied their being able to
observe the mission first hand, however I did not envy the -20 C to -30 C
temperature they had to endure!  The team in Yellowknife also assisted CBS
News in obtaining video tape of the orbiter's pass over the city on the second
day of the mission.  The video was taped and processed by local CBC (Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation) personnel for CBS.


1.2  Sequence of Events
     ------------------

The following table shows the major events of the mission, based on the
network's observations and de-classified shuttle orbital elements.  Note
that the REV column is the revolution number.  NASA's rev numbering method
was used.  NASA calls the portion from liftoff to the first ascending node
(north bound equator crossing) rev 1.  Rev 2 starts at the first ascending
node.  The rev numbers below are the position within the current rev, not
the elapsed number of revs.  To obtain the latter, subtract 1.


   DATE     UTC   dd hh mm   REV    Alt  km              Event
---------  -----  --------   ----   -------   ----------------------------
28 Feb 90  07:50  00 00 00    1     zero      Lift-off

           08:50  00 01 00    1     204x216   From NORAD elset.

           10:45  00 02 55    3.0   207x216   From NORAD elset.

           12:32  00 04 42    4.2   250x261   OBS at Yellowknife, NWT.
                                              Obs indicated that orbit had
                                              been raised after rev 3.

           14:00  00 06 10    5.2   250x261   OBS at Whitehorse, Yukon.
                                              OBS at Yellowknife, NWT, 2 min
                                              later.

           15:10  00 07 20    6.0   250x261   From NORAD elset.

           15:31  00 07 41    6.2   250x261   OBS at Fairbanks, Alaska.

01 Mar 90  10:41  01 02 51   19.1   248x260   From NORAD elset.

           12:23  01 04 33   20.2   248x260   OBS at Yellowknife, NWT.
                                              Only orbiter seen.

           13:54  01 06 04   21.2   248x260   OBS at Yellowknife, NWT.
                                              Only orbiter seen.

           15:23  01 07 33   22.2   248x260   OBS at Whitehorse, Yukon.
                                              Only orbiter seen.

           18:01  01 10 11   24.0   248x260   From NORAD elset.

           19:10  01 11 20   24.8   245x249   From NORAD elset. Note result
                                              of burn to separate from
                                              payload.

02 Mar 90  06:18  01 22 28   32.3   245x249   OBS in Scotland. Payload
                                              seen, still in 248x260 km
                                              orbit, 57 seconds in time
                                              behind orbiter.

           10:25  02 02 35   35.0   245x248   From NORAD elset.

           12:13  02 04 23   36.2   245x248   OBS at Yellowknife, NWT.
                                              Payload observed, still in
                                              248x260 km orbit.

           13:44  02 05 54   37.2   245x248   OBS at Yellowknife, NWT.
                                              Payload in 248x260 km orbit,
                                              75 seconds in time behind
                                              orbiter.

           15:50  02 08 00   38.6   245x248   From NORAD elset.

           20:48  02 12 58   42.0   245x248   From NORAD elset.

03 Mar 90  01:45  02 17 55   45.3   245x248   Approximate time that payload
                                              manoeuvered to 271 km mean
                                              altitude. Determined from obs
                                              at 12:32, Mar 3rd; 05:52 and
                                              12:18, Mar 4th. See below.

           11:41  03 03 51   52.0   244x247   From NORAD elset.

           12:00  03 04 10   52.2   223x247   From NORAD elset.
                                              Result of rev 52 manoeuver.

           12:32  03 04 42   52.6   223x247   OBS at Yellowknife, NWT. Saw
                                              orbiter, followed 6m 20s later
                                              by payload. Payload was 2.65 min
                                              late re its deployment orbit,
                                              indicating it had raised its
                                              orbit.

04 Mar 90  05:52  03 22 02   64.3   223x245   OBS in Scotland. Saw orbiter,
                                              followed 13.1 m later by
                                              payload, which was 6.275 min
                                              late re its deployment orbit.

           11:41  04 03 51   68.2   223x245   NORAD elset.

           12:18  04 04 28   68.6   223x245   OBS at Yellowknife. Saw orbiter,
                                              followed 16.0 min later by
                                              payload. Payload was 7.983 min
                                              late re its deployment orbit.

           18:10  04 10 20   72.6   zero      Landed at Edward's AFB.


1.3  Findings
     --------

1.3.1  Payload is Very Large
       ---------------------

The major finding was that the payload is visually a very bright object, and
therefore probably very large.  On near overhead, well illuminated passes, it
had a visual magnitude between 0 and -1.5.  Even on a 15 deg elevation pass,
with only fair illumination it was between magnitude 1.2 and 1.6.  The average
standard magnitude (at range of 1000 km, and 50% illuminated) was about 1.6,
however more observations are required to obtain a high confidence value.  In
any case, it is clear that this should be a relatively easy object to track.

The payload's brightness is in the same class as the KH-9 and KH-11 photorecon
satellites.  Perhaps this is the long awaited KH-12.  According to a
pre-launch article in Aviation Week magazine, the payload is called AFP-731,
has a mass of 16.9 tonnes, and is designed for digital imaging reconnaissance
and signal intelligence.


1.3.2  A New Shuttle Payload
       ---------------------

Pre-flight, a couple of reporters had been told by sources that this payload
was the same as one flown on a past, high inclination DoD shuttle mission.
That would have made it a Lacrosse (STS 27) or a "Flasher" (STS 28).  In fact,
the STS 36 payload does not resemble either one of those.  It was brighter
than Lacrosse, and lacked its characteristic red colour (caused by lots of
gold kapton thermal blanketting no doubt).  It was much brighter than
"Flasher" and it did not flash.


1.3.3  Deployment Appeared to be Late
       ------------------------------

The payload had been expected to be deployed at 27 hours into the mission.
Observations on three passes between 28.5 and 31.5 hours into the mission,
revealed only the orbiter.  Observations on day 3 (later confirmed by NORAD
elsets) revealed that the orbiter moved to a slightly lower orbit sometime
between 34.2 h and 35.3 h, which was its manoeuver to separate from the
payload.  Therefore deployment probably occured between 31.5 h and 35.3 h.
It is possible that it occured earlier, and that the spacecraft were too close
together to separate with binoculars.


2.0  Future Activities
     -----------------

Now that the mission is over, experienced satellite observers will continue to
track the payload.  For the moment, we do not know the exact location of the
object.  The main reason is that it is not currently in a visibility window
for most observers.  In any case it is reasonable to expect it to move to a
higher orbit, which will necessitate a search.  Lacrosse and "Flasher"
manoeuvered to higher orbits about one week post deployment. If it is a member
of the KH series, then the STS 36 payload may move to a 300 km x 1000 km
orbit, like the three KH-11's currently in orbit.  We should know within the
next few weeks, as the orbit begins to move into visibility at the more
populated latitudes, where most of the observers are located.

Experienced satellite observers are welcome to get involved in the search.  I
have prepared a report on search techniques, visibility windows and the
required observations.  Only those who contribute to the effort will share in
the details of what is learned, such as orbital elements.  Let me know of your
interest.
--
Ted [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Mar 90 22:21:15 GMT
From: mcgill-vision!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew![e-mail]  (Brian or James)
Subject: Re: Solar System Questions from a Novice


 A silly question: by any chance, can this program simulate
multiple planets orbiting the two stars? I wonder if the stable
figure eight orbir is stable in the presence of other planets to
introduce perturbation.
                        JDN

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

Date: 14 Mar 90 02:06:11 GMT
From: agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu![e-mail]  (David Ray)
Subject: Re: Funding IS The Problem

I want to say a quick word about development contracts. I haven't been
following these postings closely and I don't know the people mentioned.
However I do work under NASA contracts, often development contracts, though
much smaller than for solid rocket boosters. I do have an idea how NASA
decides or decides not to fund, at least for these small contracts.

Before a contract is ever developed and money allocated, several steps
occur. There are a number of NASA committeees which decide what kinds of
science or technology are important, and from the amount of importance
they decide how much money is worth allocating. If nobody can do the job
with less than that amount, nothing happens.

In most cases, the "new thing" that is proposed has never been done before,
so its hard to know how much it will really cost. Contractors first give
a very rough cut at their proposed cost (usually lower than it will
really be in order to keep NASA's interest). If the proposal looks reasonable,
NASA will have a Phase B study where they PAY the contractor to develop
a more detailed proposal that can be checked up on more carefully.
After various numbers of "feasability studies" NASA then actually
awards the contract and $$ to the contractor.

Typically, a project will have a "feasability study" phase(s), a
"development" phase, a "fabrication and test" phase, and then
the technology or product becomes NASA property and gets used.

If a development phase of a project has a seemingly excessive $$ figure,
it was either approved by a NASA committee ahead of time, or the
contractor underestimated the $$ required and the extra money needed
was approved by the NASA committee. Sometimes extra money will be
approved again and again because the other choice is to cancel the
whole project and take their losses; if there is reason to believe that
a little extra money will get the thing working, thats usually preferable
to cancelling the project and thus wasting all the money spent so far.

When a development project has a serious money overrun, you just can't
assume there was deliberate misconduct going on, when its never been
done before. Of course, it makes the contractor look real bad. But
it generally occurs because it is very difficult to estimate the costs
to do something that has never been done before, and the people doing
the cost proposals really are doing it as well as they can.

Perhaps in those cases there may have not been enough "checking up" on
the original cost proposal, or not enough detail provided, or not
enough "feasability studies". Those issues are on the shoulders of the
NASA and government committeees, not the contractor.

So in most cases its hard to say why it happens and who's at fault. If we
knew, we could come up with a system for awarding contracts that would
eliminate the problem of cost overruns.

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

Date: 13 Mar 90 17:36:22 GMT
From: mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo![e-mail]  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Subscription to AW&ST in UK ?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Simon Taylor) writes:
>    Does anyone know where one can get hold of Aviation Week in the UK ?

It's virtually unfindable on the newsstands even in North America; you
pretty much have to subscribe.  Here's the blurb I occasionally put into
my summaries (this may be slightly out of date, I haven't checked it
lately):

[Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is 1221 Ave. of
the Americas, New York NY 10020 USA.  Rates depend on whether you're
"qualified" or not, which basically means whether you look at the ads
for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or
military interest.  Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get
the cheap rate.  US rate is $64 qualified, higher for unqualified.
It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing
to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you.]
--
MSDOS, abbrev:  Maybe SomeDay |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
an Operating System.          | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [e-mail]

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

Date: 13 Mar 90 16:50:45 GMT
From: hpda!hpcupt1!hprnd![e-mail]  (Joe Steinmetz)
Subject: Voyager VICAR Label question

Could someone familiar with the Voyager VICAR Label format offer a JPL or
(M)IPL document number that describes the various entries and their units
of measurements. Specifically I am looking for information that describes
the process of color reconstruction using three non-simultaneous images -
(i.e. how are the fields LAT and LONG used - camera position, spacecraft
 position with respect to target used to reposition image data for
 color reconstruction?)

Below is an example of the third VICAR Label in an image file.

INCIDENCE ANGLE  15.7     EMISSION ANGLE  62.1     PHASE ANGLE  70.0   C
NORTH AZIMUTH ANGLE 225.4     KM/LINE     1.21      KM/SAMP     1.21   C
ALT   130751 KM SL.RANGE        0 KM VFOV     280 KM HFOV     348 KM   C
LAT  *00(UL) *00(UR) *00(LL) *00(LR)  -4(C) -64(SUB S/C)   5(SUBSOL)   C
LONG *00(UL) *00(UR) *00(LL) *00(LR) 340(C) 320(SUB S/C) 328(SUBSOL)   L

                    ^      ^           ^
                                        |      |           |
                                        --------------------
                                        What are these?

Acknowledgment is given for use of Voyager VICAR label data to:
Dr. Bradford A. Smith and the National Space Science Data Center.

Thanks in advance,
Joe Steinmetz
[e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #147
*******************