Date: Wed, 5 May 93 06:44:36 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #527 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Wed, 5 May 93 Volume 16 : Issue 527 Today's Topics: April Air and Space Articles. ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like? Combo Propulsion System!?/Sun Dipping. Drag-free satellites (4 msgs) Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they. Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days moon image in weather sat image Mothership/Mining/Mars/Asteroids/Commericial Usage? NASA BBS numbers Need help on information about satellite cost SECOND CALL: SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES FOR SATELLITE AUTONOMY Vandalizing the sky. Will NASA's Mars Observer Image the Face on Mars? Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 May 1993 03:49 UT From: Ron Baalke Subject: April Air and Space Articles. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993May1.230025.1@aurora.alaska.edu>, nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes... >Interesting articles in Air & Space (this month (april?)). > >I liekt he Heliophase continuing mission of Pioneer 11, 12 and Voyager 1,2. >Nice reusing old missions for new missions.. > I believe you mean Pioneer 10 and 11. Pioneer 12, also known as Pioneer Venus, burned up in Venus' atmosphere last year. By the way, the Voyagers are funded through the year 2019. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| Ron Baalke | baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov | | | | __ \ /| | | | Jet Propulsion Lab | ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |__ M/S 525-3684 Telos | Once a year, go someplace /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| Pasadena, CA 91109 | you've never been before. |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ | ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1993 23:09:24 GMT From: Claudio Oliveira Egalon Subject: ASTRONAUTS---What does weightlessness feel like? Newsgroups: sci.space I have 8 hours of KC-135 (almost 200 parabolas). In my first flight my sensation was that of complete desorientation. I felt like being upside down, at 90 degrees with respect to the surface etc... It also felt like a dream (may be that is the rather pleasant sensation that Bob Love wrote about). I mean, during my first mission, it looked like I was indeed dreaming (No second thoughts!!! I have everything documented!!!). I felt REALLY sick the first day (I barfed the first and third days) and did not do anything but just lied down there in the floor. The following night I slept 12 hours whereas a friend of mine told me that he himself, after his first flight, slept 18 hours!!! Still in the first day, I felt better during the zero-g portion but the high-g portion made me feel even sicker. On the other hand, in the third day, although I did not feel as bad as the first day, I was getting sick even during the zero-g portion. Raising my arms during the high-g portion was quite a challenge, at least for me. I did not feel disoriented in the second, third and fourth days neither I had that sensation of being in a dream. I still felt sick during the second and fourth day but did not barfed. I also noticed that moving the head would make me feel disoriented but not sick. The best advice that I got during the mission was: RELAX! That is indeed the best thing that you can do during these flights because if you panic and keep on fighting the drifting that comes with the zero-g the Law of Action and Reaction of Newton is really going to take its toll. C.O.Egalon@larc.nasa.gov Claudio Oliveira Egalon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1993 07:03:11 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Combo Propulsion System!?/Sun Dipping. Newsgroups: sci.space In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <1993May1.043916.1@aurora.alaska.edu> nsmca@aurora.alaska.edu writes: >>How hard or easy would it be to have a combo mission such as a solar sail on >>the way out to the outer planets, but once in near to orbit to use more normal >>means.. > > If you've got a good propulsion system that's not useful for deceleration, > sure you can use chemical rockets for that part... but even just doing the > deceleration chemically is a major headache. We're talking seriously high > cruising velocities; taking the velocity down nearly to zero for a Pluto > orbit isn't easy with chemical fuels. > > Incidentally, solar sails are not going to be suitable as the acceleration > system for something like this. They don't go anywhere quickly. (I speak > as head of mission planning for the Canadian Solar Sail Project, although > that is more or less an honorary title right now because CSSP is dormant.) > They can't fly a mission like this unless you start talking about very > advanced systems that drop in very close to the Sun first. > -- > SVR4 resembles a high-speed collision | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > between SVR3 and SunOS. - Dick Dunn | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry What would it take to be able to do the Sun dipping maneuver with a solar sail?? Sorry fro the lengthy quote. just to difficult and long to capture offlien and edit and then reupload... == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1993 18:58 CDT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Drag-free satellites Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1s3jqi$hqo@agate.berkeley.edu>, isaackuo@skippy.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes... >In article <1993May3.130939.1@arc.ug.eds.com> steveg@arc.ug.eds.com writes: >>isaackuo@jell-o.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo) writes: >>> In article <15821.2be3e125@cpva.saic.com> thomsonal@cpva.saic.com writes: >>>> >>>> ... It turns out that clever orbital mechanics can >>>>engineer things so that resonant interactions with the higher order >>>>harmonics of the Earth's gravitational field can pump energy into a >>>>satellite, and keep it from experiencing drag effects for periods of >>>>months to years. >>> >>> A harmonic of the Earth's gravitational field? What IS a harmonic of the >>> Earth's gravitational field? >> >>The earth's mass distribution is not spherically symmetric, so neither >>is its gravitational field. The small differences from spherical can >>be expressed as a series of generalised harmonic functions (modified >>Lagrange polynomials for latitude dependence by sin/cos terms for longitude). > [stuff deleted] >Even if the Earth were significantly flattenned, it would be flattenned on >the axis of rotation, and thus the gravitational field does not rotate and >thus no orbiting satellite can derive energy from the non-changing >gravitational field. >-- From what I have read the harmonics are actually "resonances" with the gravitational fields of the Moon and Sun. By VERY careful choosing of your orbit you can pump energy into an Earth orbit by picking the right time for your satellite to be in a certain place so that the Lunar and Solar fields will help you. For example if you pick your apogee to be sunward at the same time the moon is sunward you pick up some energy from the increased pull of the two bodies in concert. The magnitude of these forces is in the 1 X 10-3 to -4 range, depending on altitude of the satellite. These forces become more significant with higher altitude orbits. To take a different approach look at Lunar orbits. These orbits are perturbed even more than Earth orbits, mostly due to the resonances between the lumpy Lunar field and the Earth's field. This is why navigation in Low Lunar Orbit is far more of an art than a science and will remain so until a lunar gravity mapper is put in place. For references on this subject look for the Apollo 15 and 16 Science summaries and any papers on the Apollo 15 and 16 subsatellite. This is where some fun studies on orbit pumping were undertaken. Bill Sjogren of JPL did a lot of great work in this area. To get a really free ride take a look at orbit pumping utilizing the librations of a tether. Reference any paper by Paul Penzo of JPL on the subject or the NASA tether handbook. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 93 18:22:13 PST From: thomsonal@cpva.saic.com Subject: Drag-free satellites Newsgroups: sci.space isaackuo@pepto-bismol.berkeley.edu (Isaac Kuo), U.C. Berkeley Math. Department asks: >Before I go searching for these references, I have a question. Where does >the energy come from? The rotation of the Earth? Is it "free" energy? >The difference between the gravitational filed of the Earth and that of a >sphere is totally overwhelmed by the gravitational effect of the Moon. >Am I right in inferring that the Moon's gravitational effect has nothing to >do with these "harmonics"? Yes, the energy comes from the rotation of the Earth. (AIEE! The Russian satellites are stealing our energy!!!) No, the Moon is not involved with the resonant effects we are talking about. However, as a footnote, earth satellites do experience lunar and solar perturbations which can be perceptibly reflected in the satellites' interactions with the geopotential's lumpiness. The interaction which adds energy to a satellite's orbit is somewhat analogous to that which moves the Moon outward at the expense of the rotational energy of the Earth. In the Earth-Moon case, friction and tides form a feedback system which ensures that energy and angular momentum flow into the Moon, independent of the details of its orbit. In the Earth-satellite case, the satellite has to be put into just the right orbit to be pulled along by existing bulges in the geopotential. All of this can become fairly complicated, and is probably worth more study than it gets. To repeat an earlier offer: I'll ship anyone who wants them the NORAD orbital elements of some satellites which appear to be gaining energy through resonant interaction with the (rotating, lumpy) geopotential, and they can decide for themselves what, if anything, is happening. ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 1993 04:14:11 GMT From: "Michael F. Kamprath" Subject: Drag-free satellites Newsgroups: sci.space In article <3MAY199318581363@judy.uh.edu> , wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: >>>The earth's mass distribution is not spherically symmetric, so neither >>>is its gravitational field. The small differences from spherical can >>>be expressed as a series of generalised harmonic functions (modified >>>Lagrange polynomials for latitude dependence by sin/cos terms for longitude). Correct, but I think you mean "Legendre (sp?) polynomials." The "harmonics" you speak of are refered to as the "teseral harmonics." >>Even if the Earth were significantly flattenned, it would be flattenned on >>the axis of rotation, and thus the gravitational field does not rotate and >>thus no orbiting satellite can derive energy from the non-changing >>gravitational field. >>-- > >From what I have read the harmonics are actually "resonances" with the >gravitational fields of the Moon and Sun. By VERY careful choosing of your >orbit you can pump energy into an Earth orbit by picking the right >time for your satellite to be in a certain place so that the Lunar and >Solar fields will help you. > Your free use of the words "harmonics" and "resonances" is very misleading. Yes, the sun, moon and the earth's _teseral_ harmonics can _perturb_ certain orbits such that their elements will change, and in some cases, increase their kinetic and potential energy _relative_ to the earth (if you consider all sources of gravity and measure distances and rates in an absolute frame, you'd find that the total energy of an free moving object is constant). But the use of the word "resonance" is poor because that implies orbits have modes, natural frenquencies, etc, or, in simple terms, orbits can be liken to vibrations. Yes, you can speak of modes and resonance when considering, say, small motions around the L4 stability point (this is essentially a "vibrations" problem), but it becomes very misleading when speaking of orbits in general. >For example if you pick your apogee to be sunward at the same time the >moon is sunward you pick up some energy from the increased pull of the >two bodies in concert. The magnitude of these forces is in the 1 X 10-3 >to -4 range, depending on altitude of the satellite. These forces become >more significant with higher altitude orbits. But this can be treated as a disturbance in a two body problem. >To take a different approach look at Lunar orbits. These orbits are >perturbed even more than Earth orbits, mostly due to the resonances between >the lumpy Lunar field and the Earth's field. This is why navigation in >Low Lunar Orbit is far more of an art than a science and will remain so >until a lunar gravity mapper is put in place. The problem with the moon is that its _teseral_ harmonics have relatively strong higher order terms (from the way I understand it, the center of the moon's core is not coicidence with the moon's center of mass). The earth definately perturbs a lunar orbit, but there is not a harmonic interaction between the gravitational fields of the moon and the earth. You have got to remember that the word "harmonics" from "teseral harmonics" comes because harmonic funtions (namely, sine and cosine) are used to _curve fit_ the actually distribution of gravity about a sphere. Kind of like a fancy fourier series. Michael Kamprath kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: 4 May 1993 05:20:15 GMT From: "Michael F. Kamprath" Subject: Drag-free satellites Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1s4qijINN4bv@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> Michael F. Kamprath, kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu writes: >The problem with the moon is that its _teseral_ harmonics have relatively >strong higher order terms (from the way I understand it, the center of the ~~~~~~ >moon's core is not coicidence with the moon's center of mass). The earth >definately perturbs a lunar orbit, but there is not a harmonic interaction >between the gravitational fields of the moon and the earth. Ooops, I meant _lower_ order terms. Michael Kamprath kamprath@space-grant.sprl.umich.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 05:40:23 GMT From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: Gamma Ray Bursters. WHere are they. Newsgroups: sci.space In <1993May2.223050.25098@isus.UUCP> hoyt@isus.UUCP (Hoyt A. Stearns jr.) writes: >>It may be a NEW Physics problem (i.e. a problem involving new >>physics). However, the data is not good enough to rule out the >100 >>models which use old physics. New physics is a big step, and is only >Indeed, it is. The Reciprocal System clearly shows that Gamma Ray bursts, [worthless blather deleted] Persons unfamiliar with physics who may have seen the "Reciprocal System" post are cautioned that it is complete nonsense and contains no correct description of the universe we live in. Do not be confused by confident blathering, obscure jargon and the bizarre misuse of otherwise familiar terms. ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 93 20:23:10 -0600 From: mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu Subject: Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Spacecraft Newsgroups: sci.space The ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber described below has obvious potential applications for Chemistry, Biology, Biophysics, Biochemistry, Medical Research, etc., allowing experiments which now can be done ONLY on the Space Shuttle, AT GREAT EXPENSE! Gravity-NEUTRALIZING Air/Spacecraft or ZERO/REDUCED-Gravity Chamber NASA should build an experimental spacecraft based on U.S. Patent #3,626,605 [$3.00 per complete copy from U.S. Patent Office, 2021 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202; correct 7-digit patent number required. Or try getting it via your local public or university library's inter-library loan dept..], titled "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR GENERATING A SECONDARY GRAVITATIONAL FORCE FIELD", awarded to Inventor Henry W. Wallace on Dec. 14, 1971. In the patent, Figs. 7A and 7B are basically side views of a gravity-NEUTRALIZING FLYING SAUCER, or, if anchored to the ground, a ZERO-GRAVITY CHAMBER [which could have MANY possible GROUND-level applications for science, medicine, manufacturing, etc.]. Each oval diagram shows a motor spinning a central disc at a very high speed, about 28,000 RPM, and also rotating two other discs sandwiched around the first disc, via gears, at a much slower speed, perhaps 2,800 RPM, in the opposite direction. The two outer discs have extensions [counter-balanced via off-center axis] that, as they rotate, alternately make contact with two wide extensions from opposite walls of the spacecraft. The central disc should have shallow spiral-shaped grooves on both sides for air-bearings, to allow the needed very close contact with the two outer discs. I should clarify that each of the two outer discs has ONLY ONE [counter-balanced] extension, each one pointed opposite (180 degrees) the extension of the other disc. VERY CLOSE CONTACT must be made as the disc extensions slide past the wall extensions in order to conduct the "Kinemassic" Energy (term coined by the Inventor) from the discs to the walls in an ALTERNATING CIRCULATION. The most important factor making it work is that the discs, extensions, and outer walls of the spacecraft MUST be made of any material(s) in which a very large majority of the atoms are of isotopes having "HALF-INTEGRAL ATOMIC SPINS", such as copper (3/2). All other parts, etc., should have a minority of such atoms. [See the appropriate column of the table of isotopes in the latest edition of "The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics."] Experimenters should use one motor to spin the center disc [Start small, such as only two feet in diameter.], and a 2ND SEPARATE motor to rotate the two outer discs, so their relative speeds can be varied to establish the needed conditions for PROPULSION of the spacecraft via "NEGATIVE WEIGHT" (with the spacecraft's "Kinemassic" field PUSHING AGAINST the earth's gravitational field, etc.). If we have to put up a space station, establish Moon bases, go to Mars, rendezvous with comets, etc., WHY DO IT THE HARD WAY?! Your favorite university or research company could make a BIG NAME for itself by making a small model of this work. For more information, answers to your questions, etc., please consult my CITED SOURCES (PATENT copy, reference book). UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED. Robert E. McElwaine B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1993 18:46 CDT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: HST Servicing Mission Scheduled for 11 Days Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,sci.astro In article <1993May3.160801.5537@stsci.edu>, stallcup@stsci.edu (Scott Stallcup) writes... >Pat (prb@access.digex.net) wrote: >: |If it has no propulsion system, how does it maneuver itself? I don't think >: |viewing targets are chosen by it constantly "staring" at a particular azimuth >: |and waiting for the object to come into view... :-) >: |Harvey Brydon | Internet: brydon@dsn.SINet.slb.com >: |Dowell Schlumberger | P.O.T.S.: (918)250-4312 >: >: >: Gyros. > > Reaction Wheels Also the Reaction Wheels are offloaded by the magnetorquers. The satellite is three axis stabilized but does not "use" fuel since the force HST is working against is the earth's magnetic field. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ From: Ray Sterner Subject: moon image in weather sat image Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.geo.geology Date: 3 May 93 21:45:21 GMT Lines: 74 Source-Info: Sender is really news@CRABAPPLE.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU Source-Info: Sender is really isu@VACATION.VENARI.CS.CMU.EDU turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (George Wm Turner) writes: > An image of the moon has been caught in a weather satellite images of the > earth. appears in both the 0430-1500UT ir and visual images of the earth. > The GIF images can be down loaded from vmd.cso.uiuc.edu and are named > CI043015.GIF and CV043015.GIF for the IR and visual images respectively. > Pretty cool pictures; in the ir it's saturated but in the visual image > details on the moon are viewable. > The moon is not in the 1400UT images. > george wm turner turner@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu I thought it might be fun to try to predict other times when the moon might be caught in these weather images. It turns out to be not too hard to do. We know when the image was taken so we can find out where the moon was at that time. The RA and Dec are not very helpful, an earth fixed coordinate system is needed for these images. Altazimuth is such a system. Assuming the moon's distance from earth doesn't vary drastically (like a factor or 2) the following algorithm may be used to predict other weather images that might also show the moon. For any location on earth compute the moon's altazimuth when the 30 Apr, 1993 15:00 UT image was taken. Then find when the moon has a similar altazimuth from the same location. I computed the moon's altazimuth as seen from my house for every hour of 1993. I then selected all times when the moon was within several degrees of where it was for the 30 Apr image. The dates were then sorted by angular distance from the 30 Apr moon position (dist below) and listed below. Also the moon's geocentric phase angle is given where 0=new moon, 90=first quarter, 180=full moon, 270=last quarter. Dates in the past are indented. They are included in case anyone has easy access to image archives. It looks like the Sep 14 6:00 am image will almost certainly catch the moon, but it will be a very thin crescent and may be hard to see. May 27 and June 14 should be worth checking but the distances are getting greater. If several more moon images can be caught, the window in altazimuth space may be mapped out better, allowing more certain predictions in the future. Possible dates and times of weather images that might contain the moon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date Time (UT) Dist Azi Alt Phase ------------- -------- ------- ------- -------- ------- 1993-Apr-30 15:00:00 Fri 0.00000 47.8610 -29.0590 104.359 1993-Sep-14 6:00:00 Tue 0.52208 47.4070 -29.3990 333.377 1993-Jul-11 1:00:00 Sun 1.00787 47.9090 -30.0660 260.048 1993-Jan-28 12:00:00 Thu 1.14894 48.7480 -28.2140 62.562 1993-May-27 13:00:00 Thu 1.65817 47.6070 -27.4160 73.920 1993-Jun-14 3:00:00 Mon 1.98687 45.5940 -29.2240 290.697 1993-Feb-24 10:00:00 Wed 2.07179 50.2090 -29.3630 31.182 1993-Jan-1 14:00:00 Fri 2.08697 46.6250 -27.2790 94.766 1993-Jan-10 22:00:00 Sun 2.31657 45.3390 -29.7950 212.901 1993-Aug-6 23:00:00 Fri 2.71161 49.9630 -31.0700 229.646 1993-Apr-3 17:00:00 Sat 2.84079 47.2110 -31.8440 136.550 1993-Dec-21 14:00:00 Tue 3.17257 46.6860 -32.0660 97.039 1993-Mar-23 8:00:00 Tue 3.41791 51.4470 -30.4710 0.333 1993-Feb-7 21:00:00 Sun 3.56255 51.9360 -29.2140 192.471 1993-Nov-24 16:00:00 Wed 3.59918 44.5460 -31.2360 129.182 1993-May-18 5:00:00 Tue 3.98406 43.3560 -28.5230 321.462 1993-Jun-24 12:00:00 Thu 4.21475 52.6370 -28.5560 57.417 1993-Oct-28 18:00:00 Thu 4.48373 42.9450 -30.4340 160.628 1993-May-28 14:00:00 Fri 4.82843 53.2480 -30.2430 87.589 1993-Apr-19 6:00:00 Mon 4.93161 52.8900 -31.3930 329.685 Ray Sterner sterner@tesla.jhuapl.edu Johns Hopkins University North latitude 39.16 degrees. Applied Physics Laboratory West longitude 76.90 degrees. Laurel, MD 20723-6099 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 08:51:02 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: Mothership/Mining/Mars/Asteroids/Commericial Usage? Newsgroups: sci.space Idea, based on previous posts: A way to mine the asteroid belt(s), is to build and send off a "mothership" to act as "space station/base" and transport for smaller, short range probes/mining skiffs who will then explore and mine the asteroids. Or atleast figure out what asteroids are worth the whiel to mine for later usage.. Why go to Mars, when you can go to the asteroids? Mars is a nice site and all, but is it commericially sound for later usage?? == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1993 09:01:06 GMT From: nsmca@ACAD3.ALASKA.EDU Subject: NASA BBS numbers Newsgroups: sci.space In article , sheart@toz.buffalo.ny.us (Saltheart Foamfollowe) writes: > > Could someone please e-mail me a list of NASA or other space agency BBS > numbers? In particular, I am looking for good, up-to-date sources for > shuttle payload info, mission experiment descriptions, etc. > > Please e-mail, as I am generally strapped for time and it will probably > scroll off before I get a chance to read it... > > Thanks in advance... > > -Adrian > > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | Real Life: Adrian Zannin | Riker: "Looks like he died in | > | Internet: sheart@toz.buffalo.ny.us | his sleep." | > | CIS: 75360,630 | | > |--------------------------------------| Worf: "What a horrible way | > | > This space for rent < | to die." | > +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ Reposting here for others benefit (saw this on sci.space.shuttle).. Alabama NASA number I have (modem) is 205-895-0020, it might have changed in the last year since I called them.. Let me know its status or any other NASA BBS numbers or FTP sights.. == Michael Adams, nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu -- I'm not high, just jacked ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 02:25:00 GMT From: Ferry 'Dr Pepper' Siamena Subject: Need help on information about satellite cost Newsgroups: sci.space Can someone help me find out the cost of an ATS_6-type satellite ? It's a satellite with two antennas, one is a 10 m diameter antenna dish, and the other is a transmitter to the earth. I just need a rough estimate of the cost. Please send your reply to : SIAMENA@ENVMSA.EAS.ASU.EDU Your help is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Ferry Siamena ------------------------------ Date: 3 May 1993 22:36:36 GMT From: "R. S. Statsinger" Subject: SECOND CALL: SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES FOR SATELLITE AUTONOMY Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.misc,sci.space WORKSHOP ON SOFTWARE FOR SATELLITE AUTONOMY ALBUQUERQUE, NM JUNE 22-25, 1993 The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) is sponsoring a workshop on software technologies for satellite autonomy with support by the Air Force Phillips Laboratory. The purpose of the workshop is to gather information and facilitate communication amongst industry and other government organizations regarding software technologies which may be useful in the development of increasingly autonomous spacecraft. It is anticipated that the workshop will develop a roadmap which will include objectives, goals, and timelines for further government/industry efforts in satellite autonomy. It is further hoped that a baseline will be established for future cooperative government/industry research efforts to increase spacecraft autonomy in areas such as navigation, health and status monitoring, anomaly resolution, and threat assessment/response. A small registration fee (approximately $100) will be asked. POSITION PAPER SUBMISSION: Workshop attendance will be based on position paper submissions. Interested participants should submit a short paper (not to exceed 1000 words) describing their position and interests regarding software technologies applicable to spacecraft autonomy. Position papers should include no proprietary or classified information and should be suitable for publication in the proceedings with permission to print. Some participants will be chosen to present their positions at the workshop. Interested parties should submit their position papers no later than 14 May 1993 to: Paul Zetocha Phillips Laboratories 3550 Aberdeen Avenue SE Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5776 Email: zetocha@plk.af.mil FAX: (505) 846-2290 Selection notifications will be sent by 21 May 1993. For additional information contact Paul Zetocha or Christine Anderson at (505) 846-6053/0461, or reply to this article via email (robert@aero.org). ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 01:21:29 GMT From: "Phil G. Fraering" Subject: Vandalizing the sky. Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space Has anyone else _YET_ been reminded of the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Marvin the Martian is going to blow up the earth because "it spoils my view of Venus?" -- Phil Fraering |"Where's my kaboom? Where's my Earth-shattering pgf@srl02.cacs.usl.edu|kaboom?" - anomynous "dark skies" activist ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 May 1993 05:31:27 GMT From: "Richard A. Schumacher" Subject: Will NASA's Mars Observer Image the Face on Mars? Newsgroups: sci.space Settle the Face question? Hardly. 95% of people who care already realize that it's a pile of dirt showing no intelligent modification. Of the remainder, at least 10% will conclude that the MO images show the Face either eroded, in the process of being disassembled, or that one or more images of it have been altered as part of a vast Government conspiracy to protect the citizenry from the mind-wrecking Truth. (These people will continue to ignore the images of Pac-Man and Kermit the Frog also plainly visible on Mars.) ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 527 ------------------------------