Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sat, 16 Feb 91 02:11:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Precedence: junk Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU 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 space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests, should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to tm2b+@andrew.cmu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 6 Feb 91 20:07:53 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA Subject: Twenty-six Space Grant State Consortia selected (Forwarded) Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu Terri Sindelar Headquarters, Washington, D.C. February 6, 1991 (Phone: 202/453-8400) 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: 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!p515dfi@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Daniel Fischer) Organization: Max-Planck-Institut fuer Radioastronomie, Bonn Subject: Re: German satellite to begin U.S. science mission (Forwarded) References: <1991Feb12.214825.6844@news.arc.nasa.gov> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Feb12.214825.6844@news.arc.nasa.gov> yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (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: 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: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu 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: 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!theslim@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Michael Slimko) Organization: University of Michigan Subject: Re: Solar Impact Mission. References: , <1991Feb4.111437.9283@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>, <1991Feb4.172846.3706@zoo.toronto.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Feb4.172846.3706@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (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 theslim@caen.engin.umich.edu ------------------------------ Return-path: 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!pjs@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter Scott) Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech Subject: Re: Solar Impact Mission. References: <1991Feb4.111437.9283@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>, <1991Feb4.172846.3706@zoo.toronto.edu>, <1991Feb5.154205.29266@engin.umich.edu> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Feb5.154205.29266@engin.umich.edu>, theslim@engin.umich.edu (Eric Michael Slimko) writes: > In article <1991Feb4.172846.3706@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu > (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" | (pjs@euclid.jpl.nasa.gov) ------------------------------ Return-path: 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!gregc@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Greg Cronau) Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI Subject: Request for info on SEU programming theory. Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu 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 gregc@cimage.com ------------------------------ Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 0;andrew.cmu.edu;Network-Mail Date: 14 Feb 91 06:03:46 GMT From: usc!samsung!umich!dgsi!gregc@ucsd.edu (Greg Cronau) Organization: Cimage Corp, Ann Arbor, MI Subject: Re: Ulysses Update - 02/12/91 References: <1991Feb13.000036.10785@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu In article <1991Feb13.000036.10785@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (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? gregc@cimage.com ------------------------------ Return-path: 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!crad@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Charles Radley) Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944 Subject: Re: Solar Impact Mission. References: <1991Feb4.111437.9283@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>, <1991Feb5.185021.10001@lonex.radc.af.mil> Sender: space-request@andrew.cmu.edu To: space@andrew.cmu.edu 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 *******************