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 ; Wed, 14 Mar 90 02:46:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Wed, 14 Mar 90 02:45:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #147 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 147 Today's Topics: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload Re: Solar System Questions from a Novice Re: Funding IS The Problem Re: Subscription to AW&ST in UK ? Voyager VICAR Label question ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 13 Mar 90 17:48:44 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!molczan@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ted Molczan) Subject: Observations of STS 36 and its Payload Observations of STS 36 and its Payload -------------------------------------- (C) T.J. Molczan, Toronto, Canada March 13, 1990 In mid-February, I circulated a report called "STS 36 Observation Guide". It was an invitation to observe the secret DoD mission. It is doubtful that many USENET subscribers had a good visibility window this time, so I was not surprised at the small number of responses. Fortunately, an observation network was organized, and the following is a summary of its activities and major findings. I am providing it in an effort to build interest in satellite observation. 1.0 Tracking and Observing the STS 36 Mission ----------------------------------------- 1.1 The Observation Network ----------------------- A network of astronomers, mostly amateurs, observed the shuttle on each of the five days that it was in orbit. The network consisted of one very experienced satellite observer in Scotland and a group of about two dozen observers in five communities in Canada's North West Territories and Yukon, and Alaska in the U.S.A. I organized the North American group when it became clear that most of the world's experienced satellite observers would not have the shuttle's orbit in a visibility window during the mission. None of the members of the group were satellite observers, however many were fairly experienced amateur astronomers. They were given instructions by phone and fax on how to make the required observations. Throughout the mission I supplied them with predictions for the next day's passes, collected their observations, adjusted the orbital elements when necessary and then distributed new predictions. The network performed splendidly. During the mission, the orbiter made three manoeuvers, and the payload made one manoeuver, all of which were detected through the network's observations. Despite their inexperience, the North American group produced very good observations. I envied their being able to observe the mission first hand, however I did not envy the -20 C to -30 C temperature they had to endure! The team in Yellowknife also assisted CBS News in obtaining video tape of the orbiter's pass over the city on the second day of the mission. The video was taped and processed by local CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) personnel for CBS. 1.2 Sequence of Events ------------------ The following table shows the major events of the mission, based on the network's observations and de-classified shuttle orbital elements. Note that the REV column is the revolution number. NASA's rev numbering method was used. NASA calls the portion from liftoff to the first ascending node (north bound equator crossing) rev 1. Rev 2 starts at the first ascending node. The rev numbers below are the position within the current rev, not the elapsed number of revs. To obtain the latter, subtract 1. DATE UTC dd hh mm REV Alt km Event --------- ----- -------- ---- ------- ---------------------------- 28 Feb 90 07:50 00 00 00 1 zero Lift-off 08:50 00 01 00 1 204x216 From NORAD elset. 10:45 00 02 55 3.0 207x216 From NORAD elset. 12:32 00 04 42 4.2 250x261 OBS at Yellowknife, NWT. Obs indicated that orbit had been raised after rev 3. 14:00 00 06 10 5.2 250x261 OBS at Whitehorse, Yukon. OBS at Yellowknife, NWT, 2 min later. 15:10 00 07 20 6.0 250x261 From NORAD elset. 15:31 00 07 41 6.2 250x261 OBS at Fairbanks, Alaska. 01 Mar 90 10:41 01 02 51 19.1 248x260 From NORAD elset. 12:23 01 04 33 20.2 248x260 OBS at Yellowknife, NWT. Only orbiter seen. 13:54 01 06 04 21.2 248x260 OBS at Yellowknife, NWT. Only orbiter seen. 15:23 01 07 33 22.2 248x260 OBS at Whitehorse, Yukon. Only orbiter seen. 18:01 01 10 11 24.0 248x260 From NORAD elset. 19:10 01 11 20 24.8 245x249 From NORAD elset. Note result of burn to separate from payload. 02 Mar 90 06:18 01 22 28 32.3 245x249 OBS in Scotland. Payload seen, still in 248x260 km orbit, 57 seconds in time behind orbiter. 10:25 02 02 35 35.0 245x248 From NORAD elset. 12:13 02 04 23 36.2 245x248 OBS at Yellowknife, NWT. Payload observed, still in 248x260 km orbit. 13:44 02 05 54 37.2 245x248 OBS at Yellowknife, NWT. Payload in 248x260 km orbit, 75 seconds in time behind orbiter. 15:50 02 08 00 38.6 245x248 From NORAD elset. 20:48 02 12 58 42.0 245x248 From NORAD elset. 03 Mar 90 01:45 02 17 55 45.3 245x248 Approximate time that payload manoeuvered to 271 km mean altitude. Determined from obs at 12:32, Mar 3rd; 05:52 and 12:18, Mar 4th. See below. 11:41 03 03 51 52.0 244x247 From NORAD elset. 12:00 03 04 10 52.2 223x247 From NORAD elset. Result of rev 52 manoeuver. 12:32 03 04 42 52.6 223x247 OBS at Yellowknife, NWT. Saw orbiter, followed 6m 20s later by payload. Payload was 2.65 min late re its deployment orbit, indicating it had raised its orbit. 04 Mar 90 05:52 03 22 02 64.3 223x245 OBS in Scotland. Saw orbiter, followed 13.1 m later by payload, which was 6.275 min late re its deployment orbit. 11:41 04 03 51 68.2 223x245 NORAD elset. 12:18 04 04 28 68.6 223x245 OBS at Yellowknife. Saw orbiter, followed 16.0 min later by payload. Payload was 7.983 min late re its deployment orbit. 18:10 04 10 20 72.6 zero Landed at Edward's AFB. 1.3 Findings -------- 1.3.1 Payload is Very Large --------------------- The major finding was that the payload is visually a very bright object, and therefore probably very large. On near overhead, well illuminated passes, it had a visual magnitude between 0 and -1.5. Even on a 15 deg elevation pass, with only fair illumination it was between magnitude 1.2 and 1.6. The average standard magnitude (at range of 1000 km, and 50% illuminated) was about 1.6, however more observations are required to obtain a high confidence value. In any case, it is clear that this should be a relatively easy object to track. The payload's brightness is in the same class as the KH-9 and KH-11 photorecon satellites. Perhaps this is the long awaited KH-12. According to a pre-launch article in Aviation Week magazine, the payload is called AFP-731, has a mass of 16.9 tonnes, and is designed for digital imaging reconnaissance and signal intelligence. 1.3.2 A New Shuttle Payload --------------------- Pre-flight, a couple of reporters had been told by sources that this payload was the same as one flown on a past, high inclination DoD shuttle mission. That would have made it a Lacrosse (STS 27) or a "Flasher" (STS 28). In fact, the STS 36 payload does not resemble either one of those. It was brighter than Lacrosse, and lacked its characteristic red colour (caused by lots of gold kapton thermal blanketting no doubt). It was much brighter than "Flasher" and it did not flash. 1.3.3 Deployment Appeared to be Late ------------------------------ The payload had been expected to be deployed at 27 hours into the mission. Observations on three passes between 28.5 and 31.5 hours into the mission, revealed only the orbiter. Observations on day 3 (later confirmed by NORAD elsets) revealed that the orbiter moved to a slightly lower orbit sometime between 34.2 h and 35.3 h, which was its manoeuver to separate from the payload. Therefore deployment probably occured between 31.5 h and 35.3 h. It is possible that it occured earlier, and that the spacecraft were too close together to separate with binoculars. 2.0 Future Activities ----------------- Now that the mission is over, experienced satellite observers will continue to track the payload. For the moment, we do not know the exact location of the object. The main reason is that it is not currently in a visibility window for most observers. In any case it is reasonable to expect it to move to a higher orbit, which will necessitate a search. Lacrosse and "Flasher" manoeuvered to higher orbits about one week post deployment. If it is a member of the KH series, then the STS 36 payload may move to a 300 km x 1000 km orbit, like the three KH-11's currently in orbit. We should know within the next few weeks, as the orbit begins to move into visibility at the more populated latitudes, where most of the observers are located. Experienced satellite observers are welcome to get involved in the search. I have prepared a report on search techniques, visibility windows and the required observations. Only those who contribute to the effort will share in the details of what is learned, such as orbital elements. Let me know of your interest. -- Ted Molczan@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 90 22:21:15 GMT From: mcgill-vision!clyde.concordia.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!watyew!jdnicoll@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Brian or James) Subject: Re: Solar System Questions from a Novice A silly question: by any chance, can this program simulate multiple planets orbiting the two stars? I wonder if the stable figure eight orbir is stable in the presence of other planets to introduce perturbation. JDN ------------------------------ Date: 14 Mar 90 02:06:11 GMT From: agate!sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu!daveray@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David Ray) Subject: Re: Funding IS The Problem I want to say a quick word about development contracts. I haven't been following these postings closely and I don't know the people mentioned. However I do work under NASA contracts, often development contracts, though much smaller than for solid rocket boosters. I do have an idea how NASA decides or decides not to fund, at least for these small contracts. Before a contract is ever developed and money allocated, several steps occur. There are a number of NASA committeees which decide what kinds of science or technology are important, and from the amount of importance they decide how much money is worth allocating. If nobody can do the job with less than that amount, nothing happens. In most cases, the "new thing" that is proposed has never been done before, so its hard to know how much it will really cost. Contractors first give a very rough cut at their proposed cost (usually lower than it will really be in order to keep NASA's interest). If the proposal looks reasonable, NASA will have a Phase B study where they PAY the contractor to develop a more detailed proposal that can be checked up on more carefully. After various numbers of "feasability studies" NASA then actually awards the contract and $$ to the contractor. Typically, a project will have a "feasability study" phase(s), a "development" phase, a "fabrication and test" phase, and then the technology or product becomes NASA property and gets used. If a development phase of a project has a seemingly excessive $$ figure, it was either approved by a NASA committee ahead of time, or the contractor underestimated the $$ required and the extra money needed was approved by the NASA committee. Sometimes extra money will be approved again and again because the other choice is to cancel the whole project and take their losses; if there is reason to believe that a little extra money will get the thing working, thats usually preferable to cancelling the project and thus wasting all the money spent so far. When a development project has a serious money overrun, you just can't assume there was deliberate misconduct going on, when its never been done before. Of course, it makes the contractor look real bad. But it generally occurs because it is very difficult to estimate the costs to do something that has never been done before, and the people doing the cost proposals really are doing it as well as they can. Perhaps in those cases there may have not been enough "checking up" on the original cost proposal, or not enough detail provided, or not enough "feasability studies". Those issues are on the shoulders of the NASA and government committeees, not the contractor. So in most cases its hard to say why it happens and who's at fault. If we knew, we could come up with a system for awarding contracts that would eliminate the problem of cost overruns. ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 90 17:36:22 GMT From: mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@purdue.edu (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Subscription to AW&ST in UK ? In article <1031@vision.UUCP> simon@vision.UUCP (Simon Taylor) writes: > Does anyone know where one can get hold of Aviation Week in the UK ? It's virtually unfindable on the newsstands even in North America; you pretty much have to subscribe. Here's the blurb I occasionally put into my summaries (this may be slightly out of date, I haven't checked it lately): [Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is 1221 Ave. of the Americas, New York NY 10020 USA. Rates depend on whether you're "qualified" or not, which basically means whether you look at the ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial or military interest. Best write for a "qualification card" and try to get the cheap rate. US rate is $64 qualified, higher for unqualified. It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth it to you.] -- MSDOS, abbrev: Maybe SomeDay | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology an Operating System. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: 13 Mar 90 16:50:45 GMT From: hpda!hpcupt1!hprnd!joes@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Joe Steinmetz) Subject: Voyager VICAR Label question Could someone familiar with the Voyager VICAR Label format offer a JPL or (M)IPL document number that describes the various entries and their units of measurements. Specifically I am looking for information that describes the process of color reconstruction using three non-simultaneous images - (i.e. how are the fields LAT and LONG used - camera position, spacecraft position with respect to target used to reposition image data for color reconstruction?) Below is an example of the third VICAR Label in an image file. INCIDENCE ANGLE 15.7 EMISSION ANGLE 62.1 PHASE ANGLE 70.0 C NORTH AZIMUTH ANGLE 225.4 KM/LINE 1.21 KM/SAMP 1.21 C ALT 130751 KM SL.RANGE 0 KM VFOV 280 KM HFOV 348 KM C LAT *00(UL) *00(UR) *00(LL) *00(LR) -4(C) -64(SUB S/C) 5(SUBSOL) C LONG *00(UL) *00(UR) *00(LL) *00(LR) 340(C) 320(SUB S/C) 328(SUBSOL) L ^ ^ ^ | | | -------------------- What are these? Acknowledgment is given for use of Voyager VICAR label data to: Dr. Bradford A. Smith and the National Space Science Data Center. Thanks in advance, Joe Steinmetz joes@hprnd.rose.hp ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #147 *******************