Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V13_1/V13_159.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-06-28 | 18KB

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/objBgH600WBwI6NE5B>;
          Sat, 16 Feb 91 02:11:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 91 02:11:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #159

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 13 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
     Twenty-six Space Grant State Consortia selected (Forwarded)
    Re: German satellite to begin U.S. science mission (Forwarded)
            Space Shuttle Missions
              Re: Solar Impact Mission.
              Re: Solar Impact Mission.
         Request for info on SEU programming theory.
            Re: Ulysses Update - 02/12/91
              Re: Solar Impact Mission.

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: 6 Feb 91 20:07:53 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Subject: Twenty-six Space Grant State Consortia selected (Forwarded)
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Terri Sindelar
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   February 6, 1991
(Phone:  [phone])                  Embargoed until 2 p.m. ET


RELEASE:  91-19

TWENTY-SIX SPACE GRANT STATE CONSORTIA SELECTED


     NASA today announced the selection of 26 Space Grant State
Consortia, resulting from the Phase II competition of the
National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program.  These newly
selected consortia represent 132 colleges, universities and
industrial partners, bringing the total number of participating
institutions to more than 300 in 46 states and the District of
Columbia.

     In keeping with the Space Grant objective to form a national
network of universities with interests and capabilities in
aeronautics, space and related fields, Phase II geographically
broadens participation and includes institutions with modest
aerospace activity as well as institutions with substantial NASA
involvement.  Phase II - the Space Grant State Consortia - offers
previously non-designated states the opportunity to receive
either Space Grant Program Grants or Capability Enhancement
Grants.

     Space Grant Program Grants were targeted to states with
colleges and universities involved in nationally competitive
aerospace research and educational programs.  The 4-year,
$150,000-per-year grant will be used to initiate new programs and
strengthen existing capabilities.

     The 14 recipients of program grants are Alaska, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon,
Rhode Island and Wisconsin.

     Capability Enhancement Grants were targeted to states with
limited aerospace activity.  The 4-year, $150,000 annual grant
will be used to enhance aerospace research and education
infrastructure.  The 12 recipients are Arkansas, Connecticut,
Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, South Carolina and West Virginia.

     Both grants require partial matching non-federal funds and
will be used in part to sponsor fellowship programs for both
undergraduate and graduate students.  Interested educational
institutions collaborated and submitted one proposal per state.

     The National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program was
authorized by Congress to help strengthen and enhance, through
the nation's universities, U.S. capabilities in aerospace science
and technology.

     In 1989, NASA implemented Phase I of the program by
selecting 21 universities and consortia with notable capabilities
in aerospace research, education and public service as Designated
Space Grant Colleges and Consortia.

     NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly said, "The 21 designated
consortia along with the newly selected 26 state consortia
encompass over 300 colleges, universities, nonprofit
organizations, industry, national laboratories and state
governments, and together will have a significant educational
impact throughout the nation.  NASA and the aerospace community
are committed to cooperative, measurable and long-term
improvements in the nation's math and science education."

     Objectives of the program are:  to establish a national
network of universities with interests and capabilities in
aeronautics, space and related fields; to encourage cooperative
programs among universities, aerospace industry and federal,
state and local governments; to encourage interdisciplinary
training, research and public-service programs related to
aerospace; to recruit and train professionals, especially women,
underrepresented minorities and persons with disabilities, for
careers in aerospace science and technology; and to promote a
strong science, mathematics and technology education base from
elementary through university levels.

     A list of consortium institutions can be obtained by phoning
the NASA Headquarters Newsroom on 202/453-8400.


                             - end -


NOTE TO EDITORS:  News media are invited to attend the second
National Space Grant Conference, March 11-15, at the University
of Alabama, Huntsville.  Representatives from the 47 Space Grant
State Consortia will participate.

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 13 Feb 91 10:09:01 GMT
From: eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!unido!mpirbn![e-mail]  (Daniel Fischer)
Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn
Subject: Re: German satellite to begin U.S. science mission (Forwarded)
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
(Peter E. Yee) writes:
>Michael J. Braukus
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                                February 11, 1991
>
>GERMAN SATELLITE TO BEGIN U.S. SCIENCE MISSION
> [...]
>There have been problems with the spacecraft which have affected
>some of its built-in redundant capabilities.  While these problems are
>still being analyzed, they are not expected to impact the science
>mission...

Now that's amazing: the satellit is almost destroyed due to a malfunctioning
attitude control system and failing safing automatics, points directly into
the sun and burns off one of the three focal-plane instruments of the X-ray
telescope plus one of five filters of the XUV telescope - and to NASA that's
just something that has 'affected some of the built-in redundant capabilities'!

The situation is still tense, judging from comments by people involved in the
project. a) It is true that the science mission itself continued on 8 Feb., as
the PSPC detector Nr. A that was destroyed could be replaced by PSPC-B which
is identical. But there's now an 8-degree wide gap in the all-sky survey that
won't be filled until summer. b) The reason for the computer's failure is not
known and perhaps never will be (there are speculations that one of the major
solar flares in late January might have been involved). c) Since a repetition
of the problems is possible at any time, several changes have been made to the
spacecraft operations, including the use of NASA ground stations for better
coverage (til now only a station in Germany was used), and more emergency
software onboard. Why can't NASA simply tell that story ?

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 8 Feb 91 21:14:37 GMT
From: magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!telly!moore!eastern!egsgate!f646.n250.z1.fidonet.org!  (Geoffrey Cattrall)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:250/646 - Blakstar Syst, Toronto ON
Subject: Space Shuttle Missions
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]


Could anyone give me a list of the SPace Shuttle missions that have and
will occur for the Hubble Space telescope onwards. With the war on,
normal news broadcasts of SS missions are flooded out by F-15 missions,
so I have no way of knowing what has and will happened. Thanks a lot,
   Geoff

--
EGSGate Fidonet Gateway, Toronto (egsgate.fidonet.org)
...!{uunet, moore, lsuc}!eastern!egsgate

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 5 Feb 91 15:42:05 GMT
From: att!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!engin.umich.edu![e-mail]  (Eric Michael Slimko)
Organization: University of Michigan
Subject: Re: Solar Impact Mission.
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(Henry Spencer) writes:
> ....
>
> For really tight turns, what you want is a waverider design that can fly
> at high hypersonic speeds in an atmosphere.  Then you can do a right-angle
> turn or even a 180 around any planet with a substantial atmosphere, e.g.
> Venus.  Aerodynamic forces do a much better job of holding you down during
> the turn than gravity.  This also lets you use Mars rather than Jupiter
> for outer-planets missions, which is nice because Jupiter's Van Allen belts
> are a major hassle for Jupiter gravity assists.
> --

I've heard about this kind of thing-- it sounds like a neat ideaalthough
the aerodynamics of going that fast through an atmosphere would be rough,
not to mention the materials the waverider would have to be made out of.
Also, you'd better carry along big thrusters for correcting any errors
made in the manuever.  Anyone in netland doing any research with high
velocity waveriders?

One of the more interesting waverider missions I've heard of was using Mars for
a gravity assist to get out to Pluto.  I don't have the velocities handy,
but I remember the time figure as being about 4 years to go from Earth to
Pluto using that kind of trajectory.

---
Eric Slimko
[e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 5 Feb 91 16:53:19 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!euclid.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter Scott)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Subject: Re: Solar Impact Mission.
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Eric Michael Slimko) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > ....
> >
> > For really tight turns, what you want is a waverider design that can fly
> > at high hypersonic speeds in an atmosphere.
>
> I've heard about this kind of thing-- it sounds like a neat ideaalthough
> the aerodynamics of going that fast through an atmosphere would be rough,
> not to mention the materials the waverider would have to be made out of.
> Also, you'd better carry along big thrusters for correcting any errors
> made in the manuever.  Anyone in netland doing any research with high
> velocity waveriders?

Doubt that he's on the net, but Duncan Lunan was big on this when
he gave a seminar on the topic here a few years ago.  He was with
an organization that was planning scale tests, off the coast of
Scotland I believe.  Wonder what happened to them?

--
"Diane, I'm holding in my hand      |    Peter Scott, NASA/JPL/Caltech
a small box of chocolate bunnies"   |    ([e-mail])

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 5 Feb 91 08:05:02 GMT
From: att!linac!uwm.edu!caen!ox.com!umich!dgsi![e-mail]  (Greg Cronau)
Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI
Subject: Request for info on SEU programming theory.
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

I may soon be involved in writing software for an on-board
micro-controller for a satellite. I have been told that it will orbit in
the Van-allen radiation belts, so the liklyhood of SEU's (single event
upsets) is expected to be rather high. One of the reasons that I am being
considered for the job is that I have a fair amount of experience in
designing error-tolerant/error-correcting software systems. (Several
automotive assembly plant automatic machines with user interfaces that
have to be operable by the average rhesus monkey, communication systems
with error correcting protocols, etc.) But a system wherein the code used
to check for errors is itself suspect is something new to me.
I *think* I know what is necasary to design this system, but I *know*
that there is going to be some gotcha's that won't occur to me. I would
rather not re-invent the wheel. I am looking for references to papers,
articles, books, etc. that touch on the subject of writing software for
this kind of environment. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Greg Cronau

[e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 14 Feb 91 06:03:46 GMT
From: usc!samsung!umich!dgsi![e-mail]  (Greg Cronau)
Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI
Subject: Re: Ulysses Update - 02/12/91
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ron Baalke) writes:
>
>                            ULYSSES STATUS REPORT
>                              February 12, 1991
>
>     On February 5, the investigation continued. In order to make the 70 meter
>antenna site available for further testing, a spacecraft emergency was declared
>which released it from its scheduled support.  Following the declaration a
>suggestion was received from a JPL telecommunications expert that it may be
>necessary to apply a Doppler correction to the command sub-carrier uplink
>frequency due to the current velocity of the spacecraft relative to the Earth
>(69,108 mph on February 4). A Doppler off-set of 1.6 hz. was introduced making
>the new radiated uplink frequency 16001.6 hz.
>
.
.
.
>     On February 6, normal daily commanding yielded a 5% rejection rate and
>caused several commands to be re-transmitted.  Since command acceptance had up
>to this point not been a problem it was felt that optimization of the
>sub-carrier frequency was required and the actual frequency was therefore
>varied in steps of 0.4 hz. to try and establish a pattern of success rate
>against frequency.  This testing is very time-consuming due primarily to the
>two way light time which is currently in the order of 20 minutes.  The
>investigation is continuing in parallel with the daily transmission of mission
>related commands.  The effect on the mission is to significantly increase
>overall uplink times due to the need to re-transmit commands frequently.

Are you really transmitting commands to the spacecraft at that *low* of a
frequency? 16000Hz? Are you sure that isn't 16000 Mhz? Just curious.

Has anyone looked into the possibilty that the massive solar flares that
have been reported for the last 2 weeks might be involved in the
communications problems?

[e-mail]

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

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail
Date: 7 Feb 91 03:00:38 GMT
From: milton!sumax!amc-gw!thebes!polari![e-mail]  (Charles Radley)
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix [phone]
Subject: Re: Solar Impact Mission.
References: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]



Some of the velocity would be lost due to thermal dissipation, +but
most of it would be redi+rected into a new solar orbit with much higher
eccenricity.   The trade of+f is increasing the aphelion by reducing
the perihlion.   This is done by changing the velocity vector even
though the magnitude does not increase, and will as you said, be
a slightly smaller because of heat loss.
    The perhelion can be below the surface of the Sun because the
spacecraft is heading away from the Sun.
   The energy of a highly eccentric orbt can be the same as for a near
circular orbit, so conservation  of energy is not violated, and there is
no need to invoke relativity !
    Well, Henry, how does that sound ?

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

End of SPACE Digest V13 #159
*******************