|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 05:08:47 GMT, Dave Michelson
wrote: You might check out the early history of digital image processing. ....Agreed. While some of the development was spurred by the military in processing aerial images, the bulk of it was in processing spysat data which in turn was applied to probe imaging. OM -- "No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society - General George S. Patton, Jr |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
wrote: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:25:19 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote: I think the argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible space probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. ...I think there's quite a few OSCAR variants whose Elmers and OMs would disagree with you there, Derek. Unless the term "space probe" doesn't apply to LEO sats. The term 'credible space program' doesn't apply (IMO) to the amateur sats. A credible space program includes boosters, imaging capabilities, science capabilities, return capabilities... D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"bob" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "bob" wrote: The whole argument about faster better cheaper and moore's law touches on a space history point that should be noted. In the 1960's computer and space science were very much linked, and the new and demanding needs of the space program (and military) were a large part of the cutting edge/driving force of computers and many other technologies (robotics, imaging, etc) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. Um, no see the first paragraph of http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/...ibmrd2001C.pdf You might try reading the line above that, and the title above that. You'll note that the publication *isn't* a computer history, but a history of NASA and computers. It's hardly suprising that such a puff piece includes the standard NASA claim to have developed everything but sliced bread. But even then, we all remember wishing when a deep space probe reached its target it could have the camera or computer technologies that had developed since its launch. Um, no. Except for the long cruisers like the Pioneers and Voyagers, essentially no space probe had computer technology change across it's life. um, no. refer to moore's law. every space probe that took more than two years, (from lock down to reaching the target) by definition was significantly behind by the time it arrived on target. Um, no. If you look at the history of Moore's law, you find the real growth does not occur until the advent of the PC. In short, they weren't 'significantly behind', especially as the development of rad-hard versions generally lagged well behind the commercial versions. It's not until you get into the very late 80's and late 90's that you start to see two year spans having significant performance differences at each end. (And like most idiots you assume that the vast increases in processor speed have actually improved computing, it hasn't. Most of those cycles in the PC world are consumed driving a bloated UI and pointless graphics, not producing useful work.) I think the argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible space probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. other than the launch vehicle, exactly what would not be available? Cameras, computers, gyroscopes... perhaps all that is missing are control thrusters. Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the Shack. My point is that the technology is much more accessible, and certainly more familiar. Your point is based on wishful thinking, not fact. What NASA has left that no one else has is the expertise of assembling robust systems that can handle the extremes of space. They no longer have a monopoly on the cutting edge hardware. Um, no. NASA never had a monopoly on cutting edge hardware. Generally they stayed right behind the leading edge. the point is that they were weilding the leading edge by doing things that had never been done before, and required a high tech application to succeed. Not a monopoly perhaps, but combined with the defense department needs, space and aeronautic engineering were the most exacting engineering challenge of the 50's and 60's. To ignore the effects of massive amounts of money pumped into both endevours is to miss a major point. No one is ignoring the massive amounts of money poured, but I look at how little fed back into other endeavors and wonder what your point is. When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say hottest new product, he gets excited.... Which suggests more than anything that your son watches little to no TV, as the marketing term 'space age technology' is as prevalent, and as meaningless, as it has been for thirty years and more. Um, no. He simply watches different shows than you. Such advertising language is only used when the target market is us baby boomers. when my son thinks space age technology, he thinks of the space shuttle accidents and failed mars probes. advertisers that are targeting him wisely shy away from such imagery Frankly I see the term almost everywhere I look other than the kiddie shows on PBS. (And that includes Nick and Cartoon.) D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"bob" wrote:
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... "bob" wrote: The whole argument about faster better cheaper and moore's law touches on a space history point that should be noted. In the 1960's computer and space science were very much linked, and the new and demanding needs of the space program (and military) were a large part of the cutting edge/driving force of computers and many other technologies (robotics, imaging, etc) Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all. Um, no see the first paragraph of http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/...ibmrd2001C.pdf You might try reading the line above that, and the title above that. You'll note that the publication *isn't* a computer history, but a history of NASA and computers. It's hardly suprising that such a puff piece includes the standard NASA claim to have developed everything but sliced bread. But even then, we all remember wishing when a deep space probe reached its target it could have the camera or computer technologies that had developed since its launch. Um, no. Except for the long cruisers like the Pioneers and Voyagers, essentially no space probe had computer technology change across it's life. um, no. refer to moore's law. every space probe that took more than two years, (from lock down to reaching the target) by definition was significantly behind by the time it arrived on target. Um, no. If you look at the history of Moore's law, you find the real growth does not occur until the advent of the PC. In short, they weren't 'significantly behind', especially as the development of rad-hard versions generally lagged well behind the commercial versions. It's not until you get into the very late 80's and late 90's that you start to see two year spans having significant performance differences at each end. (And like most idiots you assume that the vast increases in processor speed have actually improved computing, it hasn't. Most of those cycles in the PC world are consumed driving a bloated UI and pointless graphics, not producing useful work.) I think the argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible space probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. other than the launch vehicle, exactly what would not be available? Cameras, computers, gyroscopes... perhaps all that is missing are control thrusters. Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the Shack. My point is that the technology is much more accessible, and certainly more familiar. Your point is based on wishful thinking, not fact. What NASA has left that no one else has is the expertise of assembling robust systems that can handle the extremes of space. They no longer have a monopoly on the cutting edge hardware. Um, no. NASA never had a monopoly on cutting edge hardware. Generally they stayed right behind the leading edge. the point is that they were weilding the leading edge by doing things that had never been done before, and required a high tech application to succeed. Not a monopoly perhaps, but combined with the defense department needs, space and aeronautic engineering were the most exacting engineering challenge of the 50's and 60's. To ignore the effects of massive amounts of money pumped into both endevours is to miss a major point. No one is ignoring the massive amounts of money poured, but I look at how little fed back into other endeavors and wonder what your point is. When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say hottest new product, he gets excited.... Which suggests more than anything that your son watches little to no TV, as the marketing term 'space age technology' is as prevalent, and as meaningless, as it has been for thirty years and more. Um, no. He simply watches different shows than you. Such advertising language is only used when the target market is us baby boomers. when my son thinks space age technology, he thinks of the space shuttle accidents and failed mars probes. advertisers that are targeting him wisely shy away from such imagery Frankly I see the term almost everywhere I look other than the kiddie shows on PBS. (And that includes Nick and Cartoon.) D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
In message , OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org writes On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:25:19 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote: I think the argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible space probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. ...I think there's quite a few OSCAR variants whose Elmers and OMs would disagree with you there, Derek. Unless the term "space probe" doesn't apply to LEO sats. Guildford University's early UOSATs were also built using off-the-shelf parts. In particular, to get the NiCad batteries with the right specification they simply bought a whole lot and tested them. -- Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
In message , OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org writes On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:25:19 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote: I think the argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible space probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. ...I think there's quite a few OSCAR variants whose Elmers and OMs would disagree with you there, Derek. Unless the term "space probe" doesn't apply to LEO sats. Guildford University's early UOSATs were also built using off-the-shelf parts. In particular, to get the NiCad batteries with the right specification they simply bought a whole lot and tested them. -- Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10 Remove spam and invalid from address to reply. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... . Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the Shack. Just one point: there are now guidance gyroscopes that are available to the general public (for instance to aero modellers) and that cost under 100 dollars. I am thinking of piezoelectric Gyroscopes and also of new, low cost fiber-optic laser-diode gyros. An effective IMU can be had, today, for unmanned applications, for under 1000 dollars and it weighs under a kilogram. Giovanni |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
"Derek Lyons" wrote in message ... . Camera's No UV or deep IR at the Shack... Gyroscopes suitable for inertial nav? Not at the Shack. Rad-hard computers? Not at the Shack. Just one point: there are now guidance gyroscopes that are available to the general public (for instance to aero modellers) and that cost under 100 dollars. I am thinking of piezoelectric Gyroscopes and also of new, low cost fiber-optic laser-diode gyros. An effective IMU can be had, today, for unmanned applications, for under 1000 dollars and it weighs under a kilogram. Giovanni |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
fbc, moores law, and planning cycles
In message
Jonathan Silverlight wrote: In message , OM om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org writes On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:25:19 GMT, (Derek Lyons) wrote: I think the argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible space probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack. Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion. ...I think there's quite a few OSCAR variants whose Elmers and OMs would disagree with you there, Derek. Guildford University's early UOSATs were also built using off-the-shelf parts. In particular, to get the NiCad batteries with the right specification they simply bought a whole lot and tested them. [University of Surrey rather than Guildford University] They did something similar with the solar panels for one of the satellites. When they went back for some more for the next one they found the price had gone up dramatically because they were now "space qualified"... Anthony -- | Weather prediction will never be accurate until we | | kill all the butterflies | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|