HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roberts@CMR.NCSL.NIST.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Microrobots
Date: 15 Apr 92 12:12:21 GMT
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
	formerly National Bureau of Standards


-From: hack@arabia.uucp (Edmund Hack)
-Subject: Re: microbots for repair?
-Date: 9 Apr 92 20:41:50 GMT
-Organization: Lockheed ESC, Houston

-In article <jchapin.702800597@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> jchapin@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (John M. Chapin) writes:
->Looking forward 5 years, would it be worthwhile to take ~1 Kg of an
->interplanetary probe for a half dozen robots and a recharging/
->programming station?  Then if something goes wrong that requires
->physical help (eg. Galileo, or perhaps micrometeorite impacts on
->the really long missions) the robots could crawl to the site and
->apply a small amount of force as directed.
-         ^^^^^
-This is a severe limit in doing any useful repair. 

The problem can be offset somewhat by gearing the robots to make them
extremely slow and strong. Then the problem is arranging a way for the
robots to hang on to the craft to exert great forces.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: jdnicoll@watyew.uwaterloo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:24:30 GMT

In article <GABRIELE.92Apr9094352@solecism.aero.org> gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele) writes:
>
>>For another, if worst comes to worst, you can always send a maintenance
>>crew up to hit it with a rock.  The Russians will undoubtedly sell you
>>a short-notice Soyuz launch if you offer them enough hard cash.  It's
>>not as if we were putting the things on Alpha Centauri.
>
>This assumes that you *can* send up a maintenance crew, and that the
>system doesn't think that they are an enemy and try to shoot them
>down.  That's the problem with this system - if it all goes haywire,
>there's NO WAY to turn it off.  You either send up enough things to
>exhaust its supply of interceptors, or you wait for the orbits to
>decay.  Those are the only 100% certain ways to deactivate it.

	How many BPs are we talking about? A fission-explosive driven
cannon might be able to loft several hundred tonnes of glowing rock
into orbit (Good idea to send the rubble out faster than escape velocity to
avoid having it orbit through the Earth). Getting hit by a 70 km/s piece
of rock might diable a BP; if they target on IR, and if the rubble lofted
in the plume is hot enough, the BP might target *that*. Fragging malfunctioning
BPs (if the malfunction/sabotage affects only a few BPs) shouldn't be
*that* hard.

	Some wiseass sabotaging the ocassional BP to zap 747s could be a pain...

							James Nicoll
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 00:43:05 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <GABRIELE.92Apr10150940@solecism.aero.org> gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele) writes:
>Let's assume that one interceptor fails - its communications die... a
>"pebble" out there whose status we don't know.  From then on, we can't
>be sure that that thing isn't going to go after the first missile
>launch it sees as it passes by.  We can say that "we think it's
>unlikely because it was not armed the last time we saw it", but that's
>about it...

This boils down to "how likely is it that the communications will fail,
*and* the interceptor will then arm itself without proper authorization?".
The probability of such an occurrence will never be zero; the probability
of analogous multiple failures in ground-based systems is not zero either.
What you can do is reduce that probability as far as you think it needs
to be reduced.  For example, put independent communications on the
interceptor and its jacket -- current schemes typically put one or two
interceptors in a "lifejacket" that supplies things like housekeeping
power during standby -- and require both to agree before a launch, for
example by requiring the jacket to open a lid before the interceptor
can get out.  Now nothing happens unless *both* fail in relatively
unlikely ways.  It's trivial to add still further redundancy, e.g. by
putting multiple latches on the lid, some of which must be in position
A and others in position B before the lid can open, and transmitting
the latch pattern with the jacket's arming code -- now a jacket failure
must not only try to open the lid, it must hit the right latch code too.

This is all well-understood engineering, quite normal for weapon systems
whose accidental activation would be dangerous, and is neither overly hard
nor particularly costly.  It's also routine in space hardware of relevant
types, such as launcher destruct systems.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:54:56 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <GABRIELE.92Apr8110315@solecism.aero.org> gabriele@aero.org (Mark Gabriele) writes:
>... it's rather difficult to pull the plug
>on them.  You rely on controls, certainly.  But these controls are NOT
>(no way, no how, can't be) as good as the very simple control of
>having the device under your physical control.

Entirely true.  But why do you say that such interceptors are not under
our physical control?  For one thing, if they can hit missiles, they can
most surely hit each other.  They might be largely autonomous in normal
operation (barring the need for an arming signal from the ground), but
it would be sensible to include an override capability -- perhaps on
only a few of them -- to provide the ability to knock out a malfunctioning
interceptor as a last resort.

For another, if worst comes to worst, you can always send a maintenance
crew up to hit it with a rock.  The Russians will undoubtedly sell you
a short-notice Soyuz launch if you offer them enough hard cash.  It's
not as if we were putting the things on Alpha Centauri.

But really, even this isn't necessary.  There are *lots* of cases of
potentially-dangerous devices that are not under human physical control
in any meaningful way, starting with our current space launchers.  The
answer is the same as for the current launchers:  if you're concerned
enough, you provide an independent multiply-redundant system whose sole
purpose in life is to give you an absolute override.  That's what a
destruct system is.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: prb@access.digex.com (Pat)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Organization: Express Access, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:45:37 GMT

In article <=34t35=@rpi.edu> kentm@aix.rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent) writes:
>
>must be true.  There were many complicated systems which "can't work" that
>actually did work -- and worked well -- in the Gulf, among them being JSTARS,
>the Patriot, the Nighthawk, and the Apache.  Complicated tasks often require
>complicated systems, but that in no way guarrantees a lack of success.
>

Of course the US Army now says the patriot never exceeded 45 percent
kill rate,  kinda far from earlier statements of 99 percent.
the israelis think it was 18%  and ted postel from MIT says it
was between 0-10 percent.  

I know the israelis felt the patriot casued more damage then the scuds did.

The Air force also nnow says the F-117  never got much above 45%
on it's success  and that a success didn't require destroying the
target, it merely had to disrupt activity.  The navy now wsays the cruise
missiles were performing at 45%,  down from 80.  

complex systems often fail to meet expectastions.  that doesnt mean they
are worthles, merely that to pull off elaborate computer based missions
requires more tries then if a man is in the loop.

simpler things like sidewinders work well because the physics is on its side
while AMRAAM and aparrow work less well because the rules are harder..

>We had to fight a war to dispell Dan Rather's "There's no such thing as a
>surgical strike" myth.  Hopefully, Brilliant Pebbles will not need to be 
>similarly tested.
>
>

OF course the Air Force is now backing off the statement Surgical strike.
Is it hitting a power plant ten times after it was knocked out surgical?
is raining 140 million pounds of unguided explosives surgical?
is missing half the time with precision weapons surgical?

granted there have been serious improvements, but its still barbaric.

to hit bridges in WW2 and koreas took dozens of aircraft.
to hit bridges in nam took 2-5 aircraft.  Now it was taking
2 hits to hit the bridge,  but where did the other shot go?
smart glide bombs  certainly reduced damge to civilian areas
nevertheless,  they were not surgical.

surgical is removing a tumour,  what we achieved was amputation,
which is still a far sight better then using a chain saw, but let us
not blind ourselves.  we killed 130,000 people.  Was that surgical?
was it worth it?  those are political qwuestions best followed up
elsewhere.
>PS: From the information I have access to, most of the SDI tests have been
>largely successful.  Anyone have information on recent advances?
>
>-- 
>Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
>McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
>opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!


Newsgroups: sci.space
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI update
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:41:46 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology

In article <Z4XTiB7w164w@clubzen.fidonet.org> mwallis@clubzen.fidonet.org (Michael Wallis) writes:
>Hmmm ...  how will BP handle traffic to and from LEO by things like
>NASPs and DC-1s? ...

Space launchers don't act like missiles, don't follow missile trajectories,
and aren't fired twenty at a time.  And it's easy enough to arrange for
them to file flight plans.

>... What steps are being taken now to ensure this system
>doesn't accidently shoot down a shuttle?

About the same ones taken to make sure that Patriot doesn't accidentally
shoot down an airliner.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Xref: sparky sci.space:7545 rec.arts.sf.science:1496
From: 00rbspelman@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.sf.science
Subject: Re: MARS (surface conditions)next
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:54:21 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.212558.24088@u.washington.edu>, kellmer@milton.u.washington.edu (Brent Kellmer) writes:
> A quick question:   
> 
> 	Does anyone out there have any ideas on what the most likely surface
> regolith conditions would be on the sides of one of the Martian Volcanoes  
> (Olympus Mons, for instance, in Tharsis)  Would it be solid volcanic rock,
> sand and rock, or what?  A high concentration of sand would seem unlikely
> because of wind conditions, but I'm not sure.
> 
> Any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brent Kellmer
> kellmer@u.washington.edu

A good place to start would be your local library.  NASA published a lengthy
report on the geology/geography of Mars.  It is in the government publications
section, most likely.
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: john@aquarius.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Subject: Space shuttle destruction of the ozone layer
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 21:06:07 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astro, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Originator: john@aquarius.unm.edu

Driving into work today, I heard the claim made on the radio that each
shuttle launch dumps something like 240 tons of HCl into the atmosphere,
the implication being that it all dissociates and produces enormous
destruction of the ozone layer.  The interviewer was skeptical on the grounds
that he didn't think the whole shuttle weighed this much.  Anyone know how
heavy a shuttle is, how much the fuel weighs, and how much of this would
really be likely to cause destruction of the ozone.  Please, only respond
if you really have some hard facts, I don't really want to set off a war
of passions and opinions over this.  I would like to get some real 
information however.  Thanks.

John
-- 
John K. Prentice                      
Quetzal Computational Associates    
3200 Carlisle N.E., Albuquerque, NM   87104-3210; 505-889-4541
john@aquarius.unm.edu
From: printf@cix.compulink.co.uk (Ian Stirling)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Telescope drive systems
Date: 13 Apr 92 02:03:44 GMT
Reply-To: Ian Stirling <printf@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: Gated to News by demon.co.uk

I recently acquired some incremental rotary encoders when a local
disk srive manufacturer shut down. I have two unused HP 1000 pulses/rev
encoders and one ROD 800 made in germany by "DR JOHANNES HEIDENHAIN".
This is about 6 inches diameter and two deep. I believe it to be a 18000
pulses/rev incremental encoder. I have a calibration note for it too.
Mail me if interested.
Mail to either                        
Printf@cix.compulink.co.uk  Should work.
Printf%cix@ukc.ac.uk        2nd best  
Printf@cix.uucp             last hope.
(Ian Stirling).
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Ulysses Update - 04/07/92
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Ulysses, JPL, ESA
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:02:14 GMT

Forwarded from Peter Beech, Ulysses Mission Operations Manager

SUBJECT:  ULYSSES MISSION OPERATIONS REPORT No. 85

PERIOD: 31st March to 6th April 1992

1.   MISSION OPERATIONS

     Experiment reconfigurations have been carried out as
     required.

     Routine Earth pointing manoeuvres were carried out on
     31st March, 2nd April and 6th April.

     An average of 97.68 % data recovery was achieved during
     the reporting period.

     The percentage of data acquired as a function of bit rate
     is as follows:

     1024 bps  38.23%
      512 bps  59.40%

2.   SPACECRAFT STATUS

     POWER

     Nominal.

     Estimated S/C power consumption 263 watts.

     AOCS

     Nominal.

     TTC

     The spacecraft is currently configured with receiver 2 as The
     prime unit fed via the high gain antenna and with receiver 1
     as backup fed through the low gain antenna (LGA-F). The down-
     link is provided through EPC2/TWTA2.

     The 34 meter ground stations are in use to support TTC
     operations.

     Received downlink level -148 dBm.(34 meter) X-band.

     (Variations of up to 10 db. can be expected as a result of
     station antenna in use, local weather conditions, and
     spacecraft antenna off-pointing).

     Received uplink level -124 dBm.

     DATA HANDLING

     The anomaly on CTU2 reported in previous Operations Reports
     is still under investigation.

     THERMAL

     Nominal.

3.   FLIGHT DYNAMICS

     Solar Aspect   The angle increased from 6.53 on
     Angle (deg.)   31st March to 7.40 on 6th April.

     Sun-Probe-Earth  The angle increased from 6.66 on
     Angle (deg.)     31st March to 7.62 on 6th April.

     Spin Rate               4.983 rpm.

4.   ORBITAL DATA

     Data taken at 09:00 PDT. on 6th April
     Distance from Earth                  695,787,381 km.
     Distance from Jupiter                 71,335,936 km.
     Velocity relative to the Sun              29,833 km/hr.
     Velocity relative to the Earth           104,907 km/hr.

5.   PLANNED OPERATIONS

     Routine data gathering operations will continue together
     with experiment reconfigurations as required.

     Earth pointing manoeuvres will be performed on 9th and
     13th April.

     The Attitude and Orbit Control System post-Jupiter
     checkout will commence on 9th April.

6.   GROUND SEGMENT

     The ground segment performed nominally during the
     reporting period.

     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | People will believe
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | anything if you whisper it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Galileo Update - 04/07/92
Keywords: Galileo, JPL
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:40:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr7.164126.22851
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

Forwarded from Bill O'Neil, Galileo Project Manager

                              GALILEO STATUS REPORT
                                 April 7, 1992

     The Galileo Spacecraft is operating normally in the all-spin mode and
transmitting coded telemetry at 10 bps.

     Yesterday, the pre-cool portion of Cooling Turn No. 6 began and will
continue through April 13.

     Today, April 7, 1992, no Spacecraft activity is scheduled.  Tracking is
scheduled over DSS-43 (Canberra 70 meter antenna).

     Tomorrow, no Spacecraft activity is scheduled.  Tracking is scheduled
over DSS-43.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | People will believe
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | anything if you whisper it.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     |
From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Shuttle Status for 04/08/92 (Forwarded)
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:07:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr8.180730.4926
Followup-To: sci.space
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Apparently-To: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov


             KSC SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT - WEDNESDAY, APR. 8, 1992  10 AM

               STS-49/INTELSAT RESCUE - ENDEAVOUR (OV 105) - PAD 39-B

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Post flight readiness firing operations at the launch pad.
          - Gaining access to the aft compartment.
          - Raising engine service platforms on the launch platform.
          - Circulating hydraulic fluid.
          - Analysis of FRF data from the main engines and main  propulsion
          system.
          -  Analysis  of  the  performance  of high pressure oxidizer tur-
          bopumps on main engines No. 1 and 2.

          WORK COMPLETE:
          - Offloaded reactants from the fuel cell storage tanks.

          WORK SCHEDULED:
          - Transfer of the STS-49 payloads to the launch pad this weekend.
          - Post-FRF inspections of the main propulsion system and main en-
          gines.
          - Terminal Countdown Demonstration  Test  with  the  flight  crew
          planned April 17.

                       STS-50 - COLUMBIA (OV 102) - OPF BAY 3

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Payload pre-mate testing.
          - Testing of the Ku-band antenna.
          - Close outs of the midbody.
          - Installing thermal blankets in the midbody.
          - Close outs of the extended duration orbiter pallet.

          WORK SCHEDULED:
          - Installation of the USML payload module the end of the week.

                STS-46/TSS AND EURECA - ATLANTIS (OV 104) - OPF BAY 1

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          -  Fit  checks  of the rotational hand controller with members of
          the flight crew.
          - Post flight inspections and tests.
          - Cleaning of the radiators.
          - Removing the wheels.

          WORK COMPLETED:
          - Removed the ATLAS payload.
          - Deserviced the auxiliary power units.




                     STS-53/DoD - DISCOVERY (OV 103) - OPF BAY 2

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Orbiter modifications.
          - Installing the radiators.


                  STS-50 - SOLID ROCKET BOOSTERS/MLP-3 - VAB BAY 3

          WORK IN PROGRESS:
          - Closing out the booster field joints.
          - Preparations to mate the external tank.

          WORK COMPLETED:
          - Measured the boosters' alignment.

          WORK SCHEDULED:
          - Mating the external tank to the boosters Thursday.
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Magellan Update - 04/16/92
Followup-To: sci.space
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Keywords:  Magellan, JPL
Reply-To: baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 06:44:04 GMT

Forwarded from the Magellan Project

                    MAGELLAN STATUS REPORT
                        April 16, 1992

1.  Magellan continues to map Venus under  the  M2094  command
    sequence  which  started April 3.  All systems are nominal
    and all starcals (star calibrations) yesterday were successful.

2.  Spacecraft temperatures  are  warming  slightly,  although
    Transmitter B remains at 50.5 degrees C.

3.  The  spacecraft  experienced  a  spurious shutoff (SSO) of
    TWTA-A (Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier) this morning at
    about  7:19  AM  PDT.  Controllers were  already  planning
    to switch to TWTA-B today.  If the performance is satisfactory,
    the fault protection will be reconfigured  to  bring  up  this
    TWTA  and  the  360 kHz subcarrier at 115.2 kbps in the event
    of another SSO.

4.  The slip in the Solar Array Drive Mechanism  has  remained
    at  -6.8  degrees  for several days,  so the update to the
    commanded position has been postponed to next week.

5.  The M2108 command sequence is  scheduled  to  be  uplinked
    late today and begin execution mid-morning tomorrow.  This
    sequence is similar to the present one,  with mapping from
    42  degrees  north  to  45  degrees  south  latitude,  but
    includes  gravity  data  collection  on every eighth orbit
    starting Wednesday, April 22nd.
     ___    _____     ___
    /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|     Ron Baalke         | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov
    | | | |  __ \ /| | | |     Jet Propulsion Lab |
 ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |__   M/S 525-3684 Telos | Denial is always the first
/___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | sympton.
|_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                     | 

Newsgroups: sci.space.news