Half of remaining ISS gyros exhibiting stress

"John Doe" wrote in message
news:1113422112.d10653315775f8786dec83a3be2092c6@t eranews...
Craig Fink wrote:
1.72 Hz or is that .5 Hz is a pretty low frequency, large things have
low
resonance frequencies.

Ever bounced an elevator?


On the station, if a person jumps up, he pushed the station down. But
when his head hits the ceiling, he pushed the station back up. So the
net result on the CMGs should be nil. The CMG may work to counter the
original push, but when they counter the head hitting ceiling, it will
bring the CMG back to where it was prior to the jump.

But this is a repetitive (cyclic) motion. The CMG may be fighting the
cyclic force for the entire duration of the exercise session.

Adding delayed reaction to the CGM might be able to greatly reduce their
workload since much of the crew exercises would cancel themselves before
the CGMs acted.

This is true. It's possible that, as implemented, the CMG is actually
making the motion worse than if it did nothing at all. This could be
especially true if the cyclic motion of the exercise equipment is exciting a
vibration mode of the station. The CMG might actually be making the
vibration worse.

Note that this is called "pilot induced oscillation" in an aircraft where
the pilot is "in the loop", but you can have the same thing happen with a
non-human control system, especially when you start including flexible modes
and control system delays. Note that there's always a delay between the
motion sensed and the force the control system adds to counter the motion.

The minute you agree that 0g "science" isn't a goal and that testing of
living in 0g (including ECLSS hardware etc) is the goal, then vibration
free environment isn't important anymore.

Either that or you include vibration dampening systems in your ISS
experiment racks. Hasn't this been done before?

You may need vibration free environment if the crew are paid to watch
crystals grow in a test tube. But you don't need vibration free
environment to study ways to make equipemment such as Elektron reliable
in 0g.

Depends if your goals are pure research or research targeted at enabling
manned spaceflight.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:33:50 -0400, Jeff Findley wrote:


"John Doe" wrote in message
news:1113422112.d10653315775f8786dec83a3be2092c6@t eranews...

You may need vibration free environment if the crew are paid to watch
crystals grow in a test tube. But you don't need vibration free
environment to study ways to make equipemment such as Elektron reliable
in 0g.

Depends if your goals are pure research or research targeted at enabling
manned spaceflight.



Yeah, this could be one improvements in the Space Station's goals, a
possible change as a result of the new Mars initiative and the ever
present quest for funding. Maybe they'll end the manned "playtime"
experiments done for "show and tell" at NASA. Things that a lot of
scientist believe are of limited or no real value, and can be done just as
well (or better) by robots. Experiments designed for human iteraction.

Experiments targeted at enabling manned spaceflight, or manufacturing in
space would be an improvement.

When's the garden module going up?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:37:45 GMT, Craig Fink
wrote:

Yeah, this could be one improvements in the Space Station's goals, a
possible change as a result of the new Mars initiative and the ever
present quest for funding. Maybe they'll end the manned "playtime"
experiments done for "show and tell" at NASA. Things that a lot of
scientist believe are of limited or no real value, and can be done just as
well (or better) by robots. Experiments designed for human iteraction.

Experiments targeted at enabling manned spaceflight, or manufacturing in
space would be an improvement.

When's the garden module going up?


A lot of scientists are self-absorbed myopics, then. Those "show and
tell" experiments inspire children to become scientists and engineers
and they boost public opinion - without which there is no space
program (manned or unmanned)

All those anti-manned spaceflight scientists need to accept that their
paychecks are supported by a public that is not interested in them,
but in manned spaceflight.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:50:38 +0000, R Frost wrote:

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:37:45 GMT, Craig Fink wrote:

Yeah, this could be one improvements in the Space Station's goals, a
possible change as a result of the new Mars initiative and the ever
present quest for funding. Maybe they'll end the manned "playtime"
experiments done for "show and tell" at NASA. Things that a lot of
scientist believe are of limited or no real value, and can be done just
as well (or better) by robots. Experiments designed for human
interaction.

Experiments targeted at enabling manned spaceflight, or manufacturing in
space would be an improvement.

When's the garden module going up?


A lot of scientists are self-absorbed myopics, then. Those "show and
tell" experiments inspire children to become scientists and engineers
and they boost public opinion - without which there is no space program
(manned or unmanned)

Yeah, I agree with you about education. "Show and tell" at school to
inspire young people. When does the teacher get to go?

No, it's the other experiments, the not so glamorous ones that NASA labels
under the broad but nebulous term "Science", like, "we getting all kind of
good Science", but the Space Station isn't. It's not science, but more
like "show and tell" at NASA. If it were real, high quality science it
would be "show and tell" in published scientific journals. Were are the
papers?

At http://dox.media2.org/barista/archives/000349.html they reference NYT
and say, "In 2002, more than 3,500 published scientific papers grew out of
Hubble observations."


All those anti-manned spaceflight scientists need to accept that their
paychecks are supported by a public that is not interested in them, but
in manned spaceflight.

Wow, sounds like a pretty good track record for a robot that's putting out
papers at an ever increasing rate. Seems NASA wants to kill Hubble at
it's peek production rate.

What about the Space Station in 2002? How many papers did it's data end up
in? Anybody have a good number?

If it's not producing the papers, and many scientist believe they're get
the better return on investment from a robot like Hubble, then maybe it's
time to relax the Space Station's mission requirements (vibration, clean
environment, pointing accuracy). Drop those very strict scientific
requirements that get in the way of "man in space" experiments. Like those
that would get in the way of a Garden module. There's acceptable clean,
and then there's really really clean. There's acceptable vibration, and
then there's really really low vibration.

Or, should the Centrifuge module come before the Garden module, so the
dirt falls to the floor?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On 2005-04-14, Craig Fink wrote:

At http://dox.media2.org/barista/archives/000349.html they reference NYT
and say, "In 2002, more than 3,500 published scientific papers grew out of
Hubble observations."

....

What about the Space Station in 2002? How many papers did it's data end up
in? Anybody have a good number?

Science Citation Index, "International Space Station", all papers 2002:
110 documents matched your query of the 975,026 in the data limits.

Science Citation Index, "Hubble Space Telescope", all papers 2002:
527 documents matched your query of the 975,026 in the data limits.

(This is matches in the title, keywords or abstract of the paper; it
doesn't tell us if they were studies of, studies referencing other
studies using, or actually using primary data. A paper which uses
ground-based observations and says "this contradicts Hubble Space
Telescope observations" would be included. I really don't feel up to
reading the abstracts for them all to check...)

Whilst I'm looking -

"Space Shuttle", 91;
"Compton Gamma Ray Observatory", 18;
"Chandra X-ray Observatory", 83
"Space Station", 182.

--
-Andrew Gray

"R Frost" wrote in message
...
A lot of scientists are self-absorbed myopics, then. Those "show and
tell" experiments inspire children to become scientists and engineers
and they boost public opinion - without which there is no space
program (manned or unmanned)

All those anti-manned spaceflight scientists need to accept that their
paychecks are supported by a public that is not interested in them,
but in manned spaceflight.

Yesterday, I asked the kids at my son's Cub Scout pack meeting (9 and 10
year olds) if they knew how may people were on the International Space
Station.

I got a few guesses at numbers like 12, then 1, then 5... Eventually they
arrived at two after playing the high-low game.

More than one kid wanted to know where the station was located. One was
seriously disappointed when I told him it's "only" a few hundred miles up
and can't actually go anywhere but round and round the earth.

These kids were really inspired by the space program. Not!

My daughter is about the only kid I know, around that age, that is a "space
nut", and that's surely because of her dad. ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

On 2005-04-15, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 2005-04-14, Craig Fink wrote:

At http://dox.media2.org/barista/archives/000349.html they reference NYT
and say, "In 2002, more than 3,500 published scientific papers grew out of
Hubble observations."

Science Citation Index, "Hubble Space Telescope", all papers 2002:
527 documents matched your query of the 975,026 in the data limits.

arXiv.org gives me 133 papers with "Hubble Space Telescope" in the
abstracts in 2002. Even assuming these are low, it's still notable that
both figures are an order of magnitude too low.

An interesting hint is he

http://www.mgm.com/scifi/04june/nasa.html

"in its 15 years of work ... nearly 3,000 published scientific papers."

Note also, say:

http://www.voanews.com/specialenglis...-01-28-4-1.cfm

"helped researchers produce more than [2,600] scientific papers."

I suspect the figure quoted in the NYT editorial is in error, and more
to the point I can see a mechanism for it - someone quotes a figure
as "As of 2002, some 3,500 papers...", which gets misinterpreted as
"_In_ 2002, some 3,500 papers..."

3,500 is a *lot*. I mean, that's ten papers per day of observation. On
an average recent day, according to sci.astro.hubble, the HST seems to
do three to five observing stretches of different targets - that's
nowhere near enough to support that kind of output.

The VoA figure suggests 200-250 per year; the MGM one about the same
(assuming that there was a fairly quiet stretch in the first year or so
due to the faults), and 3,500 in 15 years is also comfortably in that
range. (The use of long-period historic data would also tend to mean
more are written in later years; this is only an average)

Anyhow, it's an interesting note, and always cheering to catch an
apparent NYT error...

--
-Andrew Gray

In reference/response to the below.

Science isn't a precise term. Maybe a lot of the lessons being
learned aboard ISS are more engineering than science - but lessons
they are. We are learning things that will be essential if we are to
ever send people beyond LEO for extended durations. We are learning
how things work (and don't) in space and how long things last (or
don't).

It is not fair to compare the current "pure" science papers from ISS
to those of something like Hubble. ISS payload research has been
severely hampered because of the Columbia accident. Wait until the
JEM and the Columbus are up there, with people that have time to do
science.

It also is not at all fair to say "NASA wants to kill Hubble" - NASA
most certainly does not want to kill Hubble. NASA cannot comply with
all of the safety requirements/recommendations of the CAIB and repair
Hubble. If an Orbiter gets a debris hit enroute to the ISS - there is
a safe haven. If an Orbiter gets a debris hit enroute to the HST -
they can do nothing but pray they survive re-entry.

One can find "many scientists" to support any view.




On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:44:09 GMT, Craig Fink
wrote:

....

No, it's the other experiments, the not so glamorous ones that NASA labels
under the broad but nebulous term "Science", like, "we getting all kind of
good Science", but the Space Station isn't. It's not science, but more
like "show and tell" at NASA. If it were real, high quality science it
would be "show and tell" in published scientific journals. Were are the
papers?

At http://dox.media2.org/barista/archives/000349.html they reference NYT
and say, "In 2002, more than 3,500 published scientific papers grew out of
Hubble observations."


All those anti-manned spaceflight scientists need to accept that their
paychecks are supported by a public that is not interested in them, but
in manned spaceflight.

Wow, sounds like a pretty good track record for a robot that's putting out
papers at an ever increasing rate. Seems NASA wants to kill Hubble at
it's peek production rate.

What about the Space Station in 2002? How many papers did it's data end up
in? Anybody have a good number?

If it's not producing the papers, and many scientist believe they're get
the better return on investment from a robot like Hubble, then maybe it's
time to relax the Space Station's mission requirements (vibration, clean
environment, pointing accuracy). Drop those very strict scientific
requirements that get in the way of "man in space" experiments. Like those
that would get in the way of a Garden module. There's acceptable clean,
and then there's really really clean. There's acceptable vibration, and
then there's really really low vibration.

Or, should the Centrifuge module come before the Garden module, so the
dirt falls to the floor?

"Jeff Findley" wrote:
More than one kid wanted to know where the station was located. One was
seriously disappointed when I told him it's "only" a few hundred miles up
and can't actually go anywhere but round and round the earth.

Of *course* he was disappointed. He's being raised in the "if it's
not dangerous and boldly going, it can't possibly be worth it" era.

He'd be bitterly disappointed to learn that most ocean exploration
vessels 'only' go on the surface of the ocean, and that time on them
is fought for eagerly.

These kids were really inspired by the space program. Not!

Why should the be? They've been badly misled as to what constitutes
science and exploration. Real science would bore all them to tears,
in orbit or here on earth.

Kinda like a friend of mines kid; he was 'inspired' by the dino-mania
of the 90's to go into paleontology. Then he discovered the joy of
field work in 100 degree temps, and the joy of comparing 500
photomicrographs of fossil cross sections.

He's now finishing his MBA.

D,
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:55:18 +0000, R Frost wrote:

In reference/response to the below.

Science isn't a precise term. Maybe a lot of the lessons being learned
aboard ISS are more engineering than science - but lessons they are. We
are learning things that will be essential if we are to ever send people
beyond LEO for extended durations. We are learning how things work (and
don't) in space and how long things last (or don't).

Yeah, I agree with you about distinction between science and engineering.
But, the point I was trying to make is that some of the more strict ISS
operational requirements, like vibration among others, are driven by the
"pure" science not the "engineering" science. And, I would venture to say
that these strict "pure" science requirement actually get in the way of
the down and dirty "engineering" science. To date, no one has built an
large centrifuge to create artificial gravity to fix the problems
associated with long term space flight. That's "engineering" science.
Vibration from a huge centrifuge would conflict with "pure" science low
vibration requirements. Studying the "rats" to see what long term space
flight does to them is "pure" science.

It is not fair to compare the current "pure" science papers from ISS to
those of something like Hubble. ISS payload research has been severely
hampered because of the Columbia accident. Wait until the JEM and the
Columbus are up there, with people that have time to do science.

Sure it's fair to compare the two. Columbia just highlights the risk to
scientific data return wrt manned mission. It's appropriate to include
down time and all the years of delay to all the science experiments yet to
fly. Just the same as including a launch failure of a robotic mission. The
set of experiments for that mission are delayed until a new robot is built
and flown. The differences is, the destruction of one robot mission has
little or no effect on other robotic mission yet to fly. (Other than
checking everything twice, again) But, the destruction of Columbia....


It also is not at all fair to say "NASA wants to kill Hubble" - NASA
most certainly does not want to kill Hubble. NASA cannot comply with
all of the safety requirements/recommendations of the CAIB and repair
Hubble. If an Orbiter gets a debris hit enroute to the ISS - there is a
safe haven. If an Orbiter gets a debris hit enroute to the HST - they
can do nothing but pray they survive re-entry.

Someone at NASA wants to kill the Hubble, along with a bunch of other
robotic missions that are currently flying. In particular the Voyager
missions. Thirty years in the making, the most distant human built probe,
Voyager has been returning new and valuable scientific data in the last
few years. There has been some debate as to whether one of them has
actually reached the boundary to interstellar space. Actually, the
boundary may have moved across Voyager and back again, Voyager essentially
standing still. To turn it off now would be criminal, and would cause a
delay of a least 40 years in getting such important data about
intersteller space. What's going on here, Voyager some sort of bargaining
chip?

Furthermore, NASA cannot comply with all the safety
requirements/recommendations of the CAIB to continue building the Space
Station, just a few more of them. The combined risk of one or two Hubble
flights is much much smaller than the risk of all the Space Station
assembly flights. From a safety, "pure" scientific return, and just gee
whiz "look at that pretty pictures" public relations standpoint, it make
much more sense to fly 2 missions to the Hubble than 30 missions to the
Space Station. I'll bet there are more Hubble pictures floating around
internet than Space Station pictures.

How about do both, just accept the slight increase in risk for one or two
individual Hubble missions, along with the much more risky 30 or so Space
Station missions.

Hopefully, the new NASA Administrator Michael Griffin will be able to rein
in the anti-robotic crowd who have been making the news lately.


On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:44:09 GMT, Craig Fink wrote:

...

No, it's the other experiments, the not so glamorous ones that NASA
labels under the broad but nebulous term "Science", like, "we getting
all kind of good Science", but the Space Station isn't. It's not
science, but more like "show and tell" at NASA. If it were real, high
quality science it would be "show and tell" in published scientific
journals. Were are the papers?

At http://dox.media2.org/barista/archives/000349.html they reference NYT
and say, "In 2002, more than 3,500 published scientific papers grew out
of Hubble observations."


All those anti-manned spaceflight scientists need to accept that their
paychecks are supported by a public that is not interested in them,
but in manned spaceflight.

Wow, sounds like a pretty good track record for a robot that's putting
out papers at an ever increasing rate. Seems NASA wants to kill Hubble
at it's peek production rate.

What about the Space Station in 2002? How many papers did it's data end
up in? Anybody have a good number?

If it's not producing the papers, and many scientist believe they're get
the better return on investment from a robot like Hubble, then maybe
it's time to relax the Space Station's mission requirements (vibration,
clean environment, pointing accuracy). Drop those very strict scientific
requirements that get in the way of "man in space" experiments. Like
those that would get in the way of a Garden module. There's acceptable
clean, and then there's really really clean. There's acceptable
vibration, and then there's really really low vibration.

Or, should the Centrifuge module come before the Garden module, so the
dirt falls to the floor?

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @