|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 @ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 @ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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 @ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|