Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_198.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/Qa4jsSu00VcJ886k5V>;
          Fri, 30 Mar 90 01:35:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 90 01:34:27 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #198

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
            Re: Mars Rover Update
            Re: For All Mankind--The Movie
        Re: For All Mankind - Great Movie!!!!!
              Re: Aurora, Flash of Light
                 Info on ACTS
           Extract from March 26 Space News
            Re: Space White Paper
                 unsubscribe
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 19:41:15 EST
From: John Roberts <[e-mail]>
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender
    and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement.
Subject: Re: Mars Rover Update


>From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
>Subject: Mars Rover Update (Forwarded) - 03/26/90

>Aviation Week & Space Technology, March 26, 1990

>"NASA Begins Operating Testbed to Access Semi-Autonomous Navigation
>Techniques"        by Michael Dornheim

>     The NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory has started operating a six-wheeled
>vehicle here to test semi-autonomous navigation techniques applicable to
>a Mars rover or situations where real-time human control is not pratical.
...
>     The algorithm works by first using stereo cameras to make a 3D map of the
>terrain ahead, plotting a course through the terrain and then executing this
>course without further visual reference.  This process is repeated in 5-8
>meter (16-26 feet) segments with the current software and hardware.  Each
>segment takes about 1 hour to execute and most of this time is spent deriving
>the map and plotting the course.
...
>     Expected inclination angles and other data are calculated during the
>course plotting and compared with actual sensor data as the rover moves.  If
>the sensors differ too much from the expected value, the rover stops for
>safety.  Besides unseen rocks, one hazard postulated on the Mars surface
>is "dusttraps" - pits that have been filled with fine dust so their danger is
>not seen by the cameras.
...
>     A local terrain map is built up from the vehicle's motion and is compared
>with a stored global terrain map with 1-meter resolution, comparable to
>what might be expected from a satellite map of Mars.
...
>     As more powerful computers become available, the weighting of the various
>algorithms may change.  For example, vision is not used during movement now
>because the data takes too long to process.  But a new pipeline processor
>should greatly spped up this task; then vision may be used as another input
>during motion and paths may be replotted in shorter segments.
...
>HIGH-SPEED MICROPROCESSORS
>     The visual pipeline processor and other high-speed microprocessors are to
>be installed within a year, and then the rover testbed should be able to
>travel at its full average speed of 3 cm/sec (1 inch/sec), or about 1000 km
>on an actual Mars mission, Wilcox said.  This would allow the rover to
>adequately survey sites before sending samples back to Earth.  Good Earth
>launch opportunities fo a Mars sample return mission are in 2000 and 2002.

In light of the "autonomous vs remote-controlled" rover debate a few months
ago, I think it's interesting that in this design of an autonomous rover
using near-term technology, many of the design features parallel those
proposed for a "mostly remote-controlled" rover. The creation of a model
for the local environment before any motion is attempted, the comparison
to satellite photos, and the high-speed local failsafe mechanisms (i.e.
pitch sensors) were all part of the proposed remote-control system. The
autonomous machine in its current form even turns its eyes off while in
motion, to match the way in which a remote-controlled vehicle would have to
move!

There wouldn't be an order-of-magnitude difference in plausible performance,
either. The autonomous vehicle has the advantage of no propagation delay.
The remote-controlled vehicle has the advantages of much greater computational
ability, and on-line human intelligence and image-processing ability. The
autonomous vehicle has a slight edge in the fact that it can work while its
location on Mars faces away from Earth, but a fair portion of this time is
during the Martian night, when neither vehicle is likely to be moving. In
addition, I suspect the operators of an autonomous vehicle will be very
hesitant to let it move when they can't at least monitor it.

In light of the similarities of design and expected performance, I think it's
questionable to claim that autonomous rovers are the only plausible choice.
On the other hand, I would not want to discourage the development of
autonomous rovers. The best remote-controlled rover is one which can eventually
be made autonomous as operational experience is gained. This rover design,
for instance, could be used in either mode. If there is a delay in the
development of the autonomous control system that threatens to make the rover
miss a launch window, it could perhaps be launched anyway, with the
understanding that remote control would be available as a backup.
                     John Roberts
                     [e-mail]

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 08:44:27 PST
From: [e-mail]
X-Vmsmail-To: UTADNX::UTSPAN::AMES::"[e-mail]",HAIRSTON
Subject: Re: For All Mankind--The Movie

For those that were around on the net last summer, "For All Mankind" is
the "lost" movie about Apollo with the Brian Eno soundtrack that was
the subject of debate sometime last June.

It was produced by Al Reinert, a former writer for "Texas Monthly" magazine
who got interested in the project back in 1979 when he interviewed several
Apollo astronauts about the tenth anniversary of the moon landing.  For
those of you lucky enough to be in Texas, you can check the February 1990
issue of "Texas Monthly" for an article he wrote about his experiences trying
to get this movie to the big screen.  For those of you 'furriners' that may
have trouble getting this li'l 'ol magazine, here are a few chosen excerpts:

   "Hollywood movies are works of the imagination and careful artifice, whereas
the movie I carried to Hollywood is totally artless.  Going to the moon was
itself a work of powerful imagination and high art, and the movie was simply
an afterthought.  I was not so much a filmmaker as an archeologist who
excavated a forgotten relic, cleaned up the pieces, and fitted them together."

   "I knew it was horribly primative by Hollywood standards: merely 16mm (as
opposed to 35mm) film spliced together with tape and messy with grease-
pencil marks (as opposed to hot-spliced and clean) and it had no sound
effects or music, although it did have a wholly separate interlock sound
track (as opposed to optical sound-on-film).
   "It was basically a garage movie, something that had been pieced together
in my Houston living room.  But I was sure that the legendary impresarios
of Hollywood would see past those superficial, purely technical imperfections
and perceive the movie's content.  And that , I knew beyond a doubt, was
unique.
   "So I was confident, indeed, almost complacent in my belief that the
movie would somehow find its way to the big screen, which was where it
belonged.  This was the only thing, I realize now, that I wan't totally
stupid about."

Reinert then chronicles the ups and downs of the ten-year struggle to get
this film to the big screen.
   "Our marriage to Columbia [Studios] was doomed....The depth of our misunder-
standing came home to me when Columbia dispatched Tom McCarthy, the senior
vice-president for postproduction, to the Johnson Space Center.  His mission
was to determine how to blow up the film from 16mm to 35mm, a technical feat
that had never been attempted with NASA film, but one that was crucial to
the movie.
   "Because of NASA regulations, the film footage taken by the astronauts
cannot leave the grounds of the Johnson Space Center; most of it seldom
left the vault.  You can't make a quality blowup from a copy, however.
NASA itself had tried, with poor results.  We needed to have access to the
originals.
   "So Tom McCarthy, aglow with Irish charm, walked into a meeting with
NASA's top ten film experts and told them that he would take it all off
their hands.  They could give those magazines to Columbia Pictures, and he
wouldn't even charge them for shipping.  It was stupefying.  And a very
short meeting."

Eventually, Reinert bought the film back from Columbia and put it together
with backing from lots of small investors.  He ends the piece with this:
"I really have no idea if the movie will make any money or not.  For the
sake of the investors and my wife, I certainly hope so.  But for me, I got to
to watch my dream come true...I know that five hundred years from now,
when people want to know how it felt to leave the Earth for the first time,
they will dust off 'For All Mankind'.  And I figure that's something to be
proud of."

In case you missed it, "For All Mankind" was one of the nominees for the
Oscar for best documentary (although it lost to the film about the AIDS
Quilt Project) Monday night.  In last week's "Dallas Observer" they ran
an interview with Reinert.  Seems that now that Siskel and Ebert gave it
two enthusiastic thumbs up and it got the Oscar nomination, everyone wants
to buy the rights for the videotape distribution including, ironically,
Columbia Home Video.  Also Micheal Eisner of Disney turned down an offer
to handle the theatrical distribution last year saying "This is absolutely
wonderful, but it will never make any money."  Now he has changed his mind
and the Disney Channel is bidding for the cable rights.

Marc Hairston--Center for Space Sciences--University of Texas at Dallas
SPAN address  UTSPAN::UTADNX::UTD750::HAIRSTON

If you torture the data long enough, it will confess

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

Date: 29 Mar 90 22:04:50 GMT
From: oracle![e-mail]  (Joseph LaRocca)
Subject: Re: For All Mankind - Great Movie!!!!!


There is a book out with the same title ("For All Mankind") by Howard Hurt III
published by Atlantic Monthly Press (c) 1988.

It is not based on the movie or vice versa, but it meant as a companion book
(or so the author says.)

I recommend it.  It has a lot of first hand accounts from the astronauts (like in
the movie.)

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

Date: 29 Mar 90 10:40:17 GMT
From: swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uxa.cso.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: Aurora, Flash of Light



Could someone please e-mail me information regarding
the recent posts about an aurora, i.e. "strange flash
of light"?  The first post I saw about it was yesterday
(March 27) by a person in Urbana, IL, and then another
one today by someone from St. Louis.  When did it occur,
and how far south could it be seen?  It seems pretty
odd for an aurora to be seen this far south.
Thanks in advance.

| Lt. Comm. Tom M. "Kublai" Erkenswick  /     Name of the Week: Sprout       |
|           Primary Helmsman           /    ISDS (an NSS chapter) member     |
|       U.S.S. Alexa, NCC 1764-D      / T.A.P.E.S. Charter Member since 1988 |
|    University of Illinois/Urbana   /       Internet: [e-mail]       |

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

Date: 29 Mar 90 13:39:26 GMT
From: mephisto!boa.gatech.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Info on ACTS

I need info (or pointers to published info) about the ACTS satellite family
(scheduled by NASA for 92). Please reply with e-mail. I will keep track of
the replies and summarize to the list if the subject pops up in the future.
Thanx in advance.


Ioanis Nikolaidis, ICS Dept. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332
uucp:     ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt2831d
Internet: [e-mail]  Phone: [phone]
S-mail:   P.O. BOX 32831, Georgia Tech, ATLANTA GA 30332

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

Date: 29 Mar 90 19:08:43 GMT
From: samsung!umich!ox.com!itivax!vax3![e-mail]  (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Extract from March 26 Space News


From the March 26 issue of Space News (subscription info at the end):


The application by United Technologies to become the project manager
for the proposed Australian spaceport at Cape York is expected to be
rejected. At a recent Space Council meeting only the State Department
supported the measure. Commerce, Transportation, and DoD were strongly
opposed. Senators Bingaman (D-NM), Gore (D-Tenn), and Hollings (D-SC)
sent separate letters urging the administration not to approve the deal.
The main concern of those opposed was technology transfer and unfair
competition with the emerging US launch industry.

The Australian spaceport (if built) will use Soviet launchers. The State
Department argued that US involvement was the best way to insure that
technology isn't transferred. Australian officials pointed out that the
Soviets will only supply boosters. [comment: it looks like the technology
transfer in this one would have been from the USSR to the west. Now
instead of the US getting details of Soviet launch technology, the
Europeans will].

--

Texas Instruments and Loral seem to be leading the bidding for Ford
Aerospace. In addition, a GE Matra team is rumored along with an
employee buyout. Ford however, may sell in pieces because the offers
so far aren't as high as expected. They thought they could get 1.2B
for it but offers are only about half that.

--

NASA and DOE are working on developing a long term supply of Plutonium.
Currently the DOE will not be producing enough to meet NASA's needs.
NASA is concerned about getting 42 kilo's for CRAF and Cassini. DOE
officials said the long term supply will be there when the Savannah plant
comes back on line at the end of this year.

--

Orbital Science stock was to go on sale March 23 but was withdrawn
because of the Wall Street Journal article describing potential risks.
They still plan to go public soon and are discussing a new timetable.

--

The Titan 4 program has developed serious cost overruns according
to Air Force and Martin Marietta officials. The overrun to date is $168
million over the life of the contract. Both AF and Martin say the problem
is now under control.

--

NASA and DOT are at odds over launch license authority. The two cannot
agree what constitutes a commercial launch and whether the DoT office
of Commercial Space Transportation has authority to license the flights of
NASA payloads.

Under the 84 Commercial Space Launch act, the Office of Commercial Space
Transportation is responsible for regulating US commercial launches. NASA
however, has never been subject to regulation and doesn't feel they should
start now.

--

NASA has been warned to expect a 1B cut in its 91 request. It looks like
station funding will be cut slightly while Mission to Planet Earth funding
may be increased. The big cuts may come from the lunar and Mars exploration
program.

--

Analysts are wondering about the future for the commercial Titan. The
vehicle can put 32,000 pounds into LEO and must launch two satellites
to compete. Martin is having a harder time than expected finding customers
who can be merged together for launch.

--

Space News is published by by the Times Journal company. Rates
are $75 per year but there was a $50 intro rate. Send subscription
requests to:

  Times Journal Company
  Springfield Va 22159-0500

You can also call 703-750-8600 to charge with plastic.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allen W. Sherzer         |         If guns are outlawed,                  |
|   [e-mail]            |         how will we shoot the liberals?        |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 28 Mar 90 18:37:55 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!littlei!nosun![e-mail]  (David Schneider)
Subject: Re: Space White Paper

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Mike Bird) writes:
>....  They're almost as bureaucratic as NASA.  As a result, in both the
>government (NASA) and private sectors, new, risky, ideas are passed over for
>tried-and-true methods.  This has caused (also IMHO) a stagnation in our
>space efforts.  Money has a lot to do with it as well.

Many people on the net seem to think that both risky new ideas
and tried-and-true methods are being passed over in favor of political
games within and between bureaucracies.  Is there someone on the net
who can give a grunt-level description of what's exciting where they're
working on, say, the Space Station?

            David P. Schneider
            Wednesday, March 28

            Probably on another assignment in April

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

Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 15:23 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: unsubscribe

Sysop, or whomever it concerns-
    I've tried the specified Unsubscribe format to no avail.  Please remove
me from the distribution list of this mail-conference.  Thanks much.
                        J.S. Northcutt
                         [e-mail]

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

End of SPACE Digest V11 #198
*******************