Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_157.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 16KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.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/gbjBLAi00WBwE6CE5N>;
          Sat, 16 Feb 91 01:48:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 01:48:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #157

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
    Re: German satellite to begin U.S. science mission (Forwarded)
               Re: Controversy
  Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest
        Re: O(n) n-body simulation? Feng Zaho?
              Galileo Update - 02/12/91
        Re: Spy satellite coverage of the Gulf
            Magellan Update #2 - 02/06/91
  Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest
               Re: 70% water?!
              Re: SPACE Digest V13 #095

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 14 Feb 91 05:46:21 GMT
From: zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent![e-mail]  (Nick Szabo)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Subject: Re: German satellite to begin U.S. science mission (Forwarded)
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Daniel Fischer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>(Peter E. Yee) writes:
>>Michael J. Braukus
>>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        February 11, 1991

>>While these problems are
>>still being analyzed, they are not expected to impact the science
>>mission...

[Mr. Fischer states specific problems and workarounds, and how
these do indeed greatly impact the science mission]

>Why can't NASA simply tell that story ?

NASA is a political agency, and its postings to the net reflect its
desire for more revenues.  This is not so different from companies
announcing and commenting on their products in the various comp.*
newsgroups, except that NASA seeks political support, not voluntary
purchases.  Any information posted from NASA should be regarded with
the same caution one regards news coming from the government agencies
(U.S. and foreign) involved in the Iraq war.  It is often not the
complete picture.


--
Nick Szabo            [e-mail]
Embrace Change...  Keep the Values...  Hold Dear the Laughter...

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 11 Feb 91 00:12:25 GMT
From: netcom!teda![e-mail]  (Mike Ardai)
Organization: Teradyne EDA, Inc.
Subject: Re: Controversy
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Craig Tanaka) writes:
-
-A friend and I are having an argument over the pictures of the first steps
-upon the Moon.  I was wondering if someone could clarify whether or not
-it was taken by a remote camera or was restaged afterwards.

I thought it was mounted on one of the LEM's legs...
/mike
--
\|/  Michael L. Ardai   Teradyne EDA East
--- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
/|\  ...!sun!teda!ardai (preferred)  or [e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 29 Jan 91 01:34:25 GMT
From: deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!shlump.nac.dec.com!sousa.enet.dec.com!sndpit.enet.dec.com![e-mail]  (Willie Smith)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Subject: Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Douglas E Helbling) writes...
>
>    I am working toward putting together a robotic competition for small
>    rover-like vehicles.  The contest would take place on the Oregon
>    desert at the Oregon Moonbase, an earth analog of a lunar lavatube.
>    The Oregon Moonbase is a project of The Oregon L-5 Society, Inc., a
>    chapter of the National Space Society.  The robotics competition,
>    if it comes to reality, will probably take place in late 1992 or
>    early 1993.

The Sunswick Engineering team will be there with the Tycho and Waldo
vehicles if this happens.  Just what we've been looking for!

>       b) Size - the current limit on physical size for the "unextended unit"
>          is two feet square.  (Must fit in a box two by two by two feet.)
>          The notion that a robot could "expand" out of its shipping crate
>          after delivery (particularly for units basing their design on
>          insect models from the natural world) is acceptable.

Aw, c'mon, make it a three-foot cube, so we can bring Waldo (the real thing)
, instead of just Tycho (the toy).


A few more things I'd like to see thrown in for good measure:

1)    All teleoperated vehicles should properly emulate the 3-second
    speed-of-light communications delay.

2)    Make the contest a little more useful, and ask that some useful
    work be performed.  F'rinstance, clearing a landing field, digging
    habitat foundations, covering habitat modules, etc.

Sounds like a blast, we'll be there!

Willie Smith
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
{Usenet!Backbone}!decwrl!sndpit.enet.dec.com!smith

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 11 Feb 91 18:43:05 GMT
From: asylum![e-mail]  (Dave Bridgham)
Organization: The Asylum, Belmont, CA
Subject: Re: O(n) n-body simulation? Feng Zaho?
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

[e-mail] (Mike Higgins) writes:

>        "Feng Zaho's O(n) n-body simulation"

F. Zhao, "An O(N) algorithm for three-dimensional N-body simulations".
Master's thesis, MIT, Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science, Oct. 1987.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 12 Feb 91 18:02:26 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Subject: Galileo Update - 02/12/91
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


                         GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                           February 12, 1991

     Today, the Galileo spacecraft successfully completed a planned USO
(Ultra Stable Oscillator) test and a sun acquisition activity.  Tomorrow, a
cruise science memory readout will be performed for the DDS (Dust Detector)
and MAG (Magnetometer) instruments.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | Is it mind over matter,
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | or matter over mind?
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | Never mind.
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | It doesn't matter.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 5 Feb 91 13:49:25 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!icdoc!syma![e-mail]  (Nick Watkins)
Organization: University of Sussex
Subject: Re: Spy satellite coverage of the Gulf
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Conor O'Neill):
> I realise that the real details are almost certainly classified, but I would
> like to get some feel for the answers:
Yes they are, so ALL that follows is based on open sources, and may be wrong.

> 1) How many US/Allied spy satellites are likely to be targetted on the Gulf?
Only US has spy satellites in coalition unless you count France which
has SPOT. 4 KH11 & 1 Lacrosse are the usually quoted numbers, but these
identifications are more uncertain than they are sometimes made out to
be.

KH11 are photographic, Lacrosse is radar.


> 4) What sort of resolution?
> Can they count buildings? (Yes, it seems)
yes.

> Can they count vehicles?  (maybe?)
yes.

> Can they recognise different types of vehicles?
yes. c.f leaked pictures of planes, ships.

> Can they count men?
reports suggest that they can, at least approximately.

> Can they see an Iraqi soldier scratching his nose?
Probably not.

> 5) Are they affected by the dark, or by cloud cover, or is much of the
> sensing done in the Infra Red?
Radar isn't, apparently, I think IR will be affected by cloud cover
though. Maybe somebody who knows about weather satellites can help.

> 6) Can they really detect missile and airplane launches,
> or is this done by AWACS?
Only the geostationary (DSP) early warning satellites do this, q.v Aviation
Week a couple of weeks ago.

> 7) A point was made that if you knew when the satellite was due, you could
> simply hide under a bridge for 10 minutes. How true is this, and
> are the Iraqis likely to be able to determine enough orbital information
> to do this?
Depends on how good friends they remain with Russians, at a guess ?

> 8) Any other information which is available about spy satellites.
Go to library and do author search under D. Ball, J. Richelson & W. E. Burrows.
Enjoy.

Nick
--

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 6 Feb 91 20:53:10 GMT
From: att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.
Subject: Magellan Update #2 - 02/06/91
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


                       MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                          February 6, 1991

     The Magellan spacecraft and its radar system are performing
normally.  All star calibrations and momentum wheel desaturations
of the past 24 hours were successful with very slight attitude
updates.

     Temperatures of several spacecraft subsystems have been near
their alarm limits because the spacecraft is now getting more
direct sunlight that it did earlier in the mission.  The
temperatures are being monitored closely and plans are being made
to turn the spacecraft periodically to get all parts of it in the
shade at various times.

     The new command sequence was successfully sent to the
spacecraft late Tuesday, and it began execution today.

     Project Manager Tony Spear announced a new program to
systematically remove sources of commanding errors while making
the uplink system run faster and more efficiently.  Spear said the
program is "simply a desire to do better. We want to learn from,
and correct, our mistakes."

     Since launch, he said, the project has made 18 command
errors in 199,406 commands, about 9 command errors per 100,000.
He defined a command error as an inappropriate and unplanned
spacecraft event caused by a command.  Benefits of the program should
include lower mission operating costs, he said.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | [e-mail]
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab |
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | It's 10PM, do you know
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | where your spacecraft is?
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | We do!

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 6 Feb 91 21:02:56 GMT
From: snmp.sri.com![e-mail]  (Alan Larson)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park
Subject: Re: Request for Feedback on Proposed Lunar Analog Robotics Contest
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


  If you are going to require small size for the lunar robot contest,
and limit the power sources to lunar capable ones, allowing wire
connections or local visual observations is a bit imbalanced.
If you are talking about the 3 second delay from earth based teleoperation,
why aren't you including the difficulty of radio communications back
to earth.  A quick check will discover that the video transmitter will
suck a fair chunk of power over that range.

  It is probably more reasonable to simplify the requirements to only
test the robotics (and possibly the AI) part, as the communications
part could overwhelm the efforts of individuals or small groups.

    Alan

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 14 Feb 91 02:06:41 GMT
From: data.nas.nasa.gov!wilbur.nas.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Eugene N. Miya)
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Subject: Re: 70% water?!
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Miss DeCyber) writes:
>> Isn't it like really interesting how satellites/space stations keep
>> falling on LAND areas, rather than over the oceans?

>It's probably a more anthropic-principle type of thing.

True.

Many more things fall into the ocean, you nearly never hear from them.
The United States has had the capability of recovering thing like nose coses
from a depth of 20,000 ft. since about 1960.  Part of the cold war effort
(USAF/Navy rather than NASA).  This technology enabled the US to pick up
the Soviet sub off the Pacific floor fairly quickly.  Some of this
is documented in "A Matter of Risk."

--e. nobuo miya, NASA Ames Research Center, [e-mail]
  Just passing thru.
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
  AMERICA: CHANGE IT OR LOSE IT.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 91 17:22:03 EST
From: Tommy Mac <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V13 #095
In-Reply-To: Message of Fri, 1 Feb 91 02:58:05 EST from
 <space-request+%ANDREW.CMU.EDU@CARNEGIE>
To: [e-mail]

Re: Al globus' biosphere, trubines,photocells or mirrors/windows?

David Cornutt Points out that Mirrors are actually around 80% reflective in the
visible and UV spectrums.  Quite true.

But I still think mirrors would be the best choice.  Photocells approach 40%
efficiency, at best, and turbines can reach about 80%.  But both would require
a further reduction in efficiency as the energy was transformed back to light.
(The above efficiencies are light-to-electric, while mirrors are incident-to-
reflected).

They also both weigh a lot more than a mirror (kevlar, rayon, and mylar come to
mind, but I'm sure someone out there knows of even better materials to use.)

Tommy Mac                  "They keep flying their planes higher than our AA
[e-mail]          guns can shoot"
                       -Iraqui soldier explaining why Americans fight dirty"
Acknowledge-To: <18084TM@MSU>

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #157
*******************