Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Tue, 3 Jul 1990 02:51:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Tue, 3 Jul 1990 02:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #9 SPACE Digest Volume 12 : Issue 9 Today's Topics: Re: HST focus problem Applications of Speech Recognition in space NASA Headline News for 07/02/90 (Forwarded) Re: Bringing the HST down -- even possible? Re: Reflections on Hubble and NASA Re: The HST was risky from square one Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 Hubble mirrors. Re: The HST was risky from square one Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing Re: Testing of Hubble Space Telescope Administrivia: Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Jul 90 12:35:46 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!edcastle!elev11@uunet.uu.net (H Neves) Subject: Re: HST focus problem Is it not possible to use the real curvature data (presumably avaliable from the manufacturer's test) to help solving it? Instead of compensating the image based on a feedback system (prone to S/N limitations) this would make use of focus variation data together with curvature data. Sorry if it sounds absurd... H.Neves herc@ee.ed.ac.uk Edinburgh, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 17:32:04 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aijdmc@uunet.uu.net (J Crowe) Subject: Applications of Speech Recognition in space If anyone has any information/contacts/anything_at_all on the topic of applications of speech recoginition systems in space, I'd be really grateful to receive stuff. I have a couple of articles from back issues of Speech Technology magazine, but that's all, so *anything* would be much appreciated! Thanks, Jeremy. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 18:10:35 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: NASA Headline News for 07/02/90 (Forwarded) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Monday, July 2, 1990 Audio Service: 202/755-1788 ----------------------------------------------------------------- This is NASA Headline News for Monday, July 2......... Preparations at the Kennedy Space Center pad 39-A for the upcoming STS-38 launch scheduled for mid-July included a special tanking test held on the orbiter Atlantis last Friday. The test verified a leak in the orbiter-to-external tank 17-inch umbilical area. Leak detectors exterior to the umbilical revealed hydrogen shortly after the fueling process went from a slow fill to a fast fill mode. Engineers report it appears the leak is in a cavity between the orbiter and external tank umbilical plates. Although the leak's precise location has not yet been identified, tests indicate the 17-inch line between the orbiter and the external tank used to feed the hydrogen to the orbiter's three main engines is contributing to the leak. Data from the tests will continue to be reviewed. At this time, the external tank has been drained of the liquid hydrogen used in the test. Thorough inspections are being performed in the orbiter's aft compartment. Until the cause of the leak has been determined, further processing of the STS-38 vehicle has been suspended. Although similar to the leak that caused the postponement of the STS-35/Astro-1 mission, the leak appears to be smaller than the one detected during the tanking exercise on the STS-35 vehicle prior to its rollback to the Vehicle Assembly Building and demating. Meanwhile, at the KSC Orbiter Processing Facility, the 17-inch disconnect has been removed from the Space Shuttle Columbia. It is being prepared for shipment to the vendor for further testing and analysis. The disconnect from the Shuttle Endeavour arrived at KSC last Thursday night and is scheduled to be installed in the orbiter Columbia this week. Also at KSC, preparations are underway to install the three main engines on the orbiter Discovery this week. Orbiter structural inspections and routine testing of all the orbiter's systems will continue as planned. The Discovery is being prepared for the STS-41/Ulysses flight scheduled for launch in October. A progress update on the Space Shuttle activity will be discussed on NASA Select TV. A news briefing will be held with Associate Administrator for Space Flight Dr. William Lenoir and Space Shuttle Director Robert Crippen on Tuesday, July 3 at 4:00 P.M. EDT. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here's the broadcast schedule for Public Affairs events on NASA Select TV. All times are Eastern. Monday, July 2......... 10:30 A.M. Media briefing with NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly, Associate Administrator for Space Science And Applications Dr. Lennard Fisk and Associate Administrator for Space Flight Dr. William Lenoir at NASA Headquarters. Tuesday, July 3........ 4:00 P.M. Media briefing with Associate Administrator for Space Flight Dr. William Lenoir. Thursday, July 5....... 11:30 A.M. NASA Update will be transmitted --------------------------------------------------------------- All events and times are subject to change without notice. These reports be filed daily, Monday through Friday at 12:00 P.M., EDT. This is a service of the Internal Communications Branch, NASA HQ. Contact: JSTANHOPE on NASAmail or at 202/453-8425. --------------------------------------------------------------- NASA Select TV: Satcom R2R, Transponder 13, C-Band, 72 Degrees West Longitude, Audio 6.8, Frequency 3960 MHz. --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 20:19:20 GMT From: agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!daveray@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Ray) Subject: Re: Bringing the HST down -- even possible? Even if the Shuttle flights could be reserved, and even if the Hubble could fit into the cargo bay, there is some question as to whether it would survive the trip back to Earth. The highest g-forces during a Shuttle flight are during re-entry, not lift-off, and many space payloads are designed to survive deployment in space but not re-entry. The most feasable plan is to service it in space. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 11:42:18 GMT From: hsi!mlfarm!ron@uunet.uu.net (Ronald Florence) Subject: Re: Reflections on Hubble and NASA fax0112@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes: > Lets draw a lesson from Hubble himself. He first studied law and > passed the bar. He then enlisted and became an officer. Later > he turned Yerkes, 'a moribund institution', into a major research center > and made many famous discoveries. Pretty good for such a humble > start in the wrong direction. The comparison between Hubble and NASA is valid, though in a slightly different way. Hubble's autobiography shouldn't be trusted any more than his British accent, which was pure affectation. Yerkes was hardly a "moribund" institution before Hubble's arrival. Under Hales it was probably the premier institution for astronomical research in the United States. Hubble dismissed the work of Shapley and his other predecessors at Mount Wilson as "of no significance", which is remarkably like the NASA press releases which described the Hubble Space Telescope as the most important event in astronomy since Galileo. -- Ronald Florence {yale,uunet}!hsi!mlfarm!ron ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 13:46:52 GMT From: uc!shamash!timbuk!sequoia!gbt@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Greg Titus) Subject: Re: The HST was risky from square one In article <451@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >Discover Magazine, July 1989, Page 68 "The Big Glass". Excellent article >on the construction of the primary mirror. Drama, suspense, and technical >details. See also Sky & Telescope, July 1989, Page 31: "Building the Hubble Space Telescope", by C. Robert O'Dell. greg -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com) Compiler Group (Ada) Cray Research, Inc. Santa Fe, NM Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Titus (gbt@zia.cray.com) Compiler Group (Ada) Cray Research, Inc. Santa Fe, NM Opinions expressed herein (such as they are) are purely my own. ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 16:22:42 GMT From: idunno!idacrd!mac@princeton.edu (Robert McGwier) Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Update - 06/28/90 From article <37355@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, by gwh@earthquake.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert): > In article <734@idacrd.UUCP> mac@idacrd.UUCP (Robert McGwier) writes: >> >>I don't believe this for a second when I KNOW of testing facilities that >>EXISTED at the time and from yesterday's papers they were offered and > > Nice idea, but it's not quite that simple. You have intrinsic problems > testing a flexible mirror in a gravity well when it's supposed to be > Where you are wrong, is to assume that the test facilities I talked about did not assume thin mirrors. Just in case you need to be told, this is _NOT_ this countries first telescope in orbit. The earlier ones just didn't point up. I agree that the test facilities I mentioned could NOT test these mirrors to the limits of surface accuracy they could achieve in space, given that the mirrors were ground properly here. They _COULD_ have detected easily this gross error in the combined system. I do believe this to be a case of not invented here and almost criminal mismanagement. I still remain livid. Bob -- ____________________________________________________________________________ My opinions are my own no matter | Robert W. McGwier, N4HY who I work for! ;-) | CCR, AMSAT, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 11:36:45 GMT From: attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!nereid!white@uunet.uu.net (Harold Peter White) Subject: Hubble mirrors. Its amazing how incredible hindsight desides what is cost effect (or even possible) to check out. And yes, I was (and still am) working with a group on Hubble proposals. It hasn't become a garbage can yet by a long shot. But anyway, my question is for all those who have built (or attempted to build) there own telescope. If you know that you have a problem with a primary mirror, is it not impossible to design a new secondary to work with it? And is it just possible to replace the secondary on the Hubble when the repair group goes up? This seems like a possiblity that no-one has suggested yet, but I can see why it shouldn't be considered. H. Peter White white@nereid.sal.ists.ca fs300326@Sol.YorkU.CA ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 90 03:37:33 GMT From: well!mingo@apple.com (Charles Hawkins Mingo) Subject: Re: The HST was risky from square one In article <1990Jun30.154323.23149@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) writes: >Then why didn't they test the components? In a way that would have discovered >a very serious very large error? >. . . pure stupidity and or incompetence. From what I read in the New York Times, NASA had three testing alternatives. First of all, they could build a special mount and test the mirrors together; this is the optimal engineering solution, but it costs several hundred million dollars. Secondly, they could just test the mirrors individually, to see if they were manufactured to spec (which they did); the cheapest solution, which catches the most likely problem: a manufacturing error. Thirdly, they could have used equipment used to test spy satellites; this would have allowed the mirrors to be tested together, and would only have cost about $10 million, but the military test would only detect errors 5 times the maximum NASA allowed; while it _would_ have cought this bug, the most probable manufacturing flaws would have gone undetected. All in all, it's very easy to criticize in hindsight. The real question is whether NASA acted reasonably in light of the facts known at the time. Apparantly, NASA should have paid more attention to design error than manufacturing error, but designers often have to simply assume that the calculations are valid, because there is no easy way to test them (as here). -- -- Charlie Mingo Usenet: mingo@well!apple.com 2209 Washington Circle #2 CI$: 71340,2152 Washington, DC 20037 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 21:08:29 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Mark.Perew@ucsd.edu (Mark Perew) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing David - I think that it is legitimate that NSS make a complaint and ask for an inquiry. If the Chinese can *actuallY* launch something cheaper then we shouldn't complain about it (but HR 2674 would bar the US payload market from taking advantage of this lower cost!). However, if they can't (and I strongly suspect that they can't) then we have a legitimate beef about them dumping on the market. -- uucp: Mark Perew Internet: Mark.Perew@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 2 Jul 90 17:36:46 GMT From: usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!David.Anderman@ucsd.edu (David Anderman) Subject: Re: NSS protests Chinese launch pricing How can NSS complain about Chinese launch pricing if it does not know Chinese launch costs? Is NSS privy to Chinese internal accounting? -- uucp: David Anderman Internet: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org BBS: 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ Date: 3 Jul 90 03:44:12 GMT From: well!mingo@apple.com (Charles Hawkins Mingo) Subject: Re: Testing of Hubble Space Telescope In article <1990Jun30.153903.7679@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >But I refuse to believe that a test that would have detected real BONEHEAD >errors like a 1/2 wave curvature error would have been expensive. Ah, but thet weren't looking for _bonehead_ errors, they were looking for subtle, microscopic errors. You'd be surprised how bany bonehead errors are made by people who only look for minor imperfections. At the Diablo Canyon power station, they installed the two reactors backwards and upside-down. Pilots often make 180-degree navigational erors (football players, too, on occasion). -- Charlie Mingo Usenet: mingo@well!apple.com 2209 Washington Circle #2 CI$: 71340,2152 Washington, DC 20037 AT&T: 202/785-2089 -- -- Charlie Mingo Usenet: mingo@well!apple.com 2209 Washington Circle #2 CI$: 71340,2152 Washington, DC 20037 AT&T: 202/785-2089 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V12 #9 *******************