Dart too sensitive for public release?

"Craig Fink" wrote
good links...

thanks a whle lot for these helpful links, Craig

Perhaps the biggest problem is that NASA's work can be made to look
like a coverup for a military program, even though no such coverup -- or
any NASA involvement -- would really make much sense. Having the
DART actually hit the target satellite, and having NASA keep refusing to
acknowledge that, makes them look as guilty as space sin.




"Lord Vain" wrote
Why does NASA have to be involved in a demonstrator which is obviously a
cover-up for a military program?

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Ed Kyle wrote:


The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
adequately tested.

No, software usually continues to execute, or executes to completion,
in which case the end state may or may not result in a lock up,
or an infinite loop.

Usually it's the software engineers that fail.


Program managers who fail to test to find faults in
complex software are the ones who should be blamed.

Actually it's mathematics and nature itself that is to blame,
that pesky two to the power of two recursively iterated thing.

No software engineer can design perfect algorithims that
work perfectly in every circumstance, especially when
the circumstance is rangefinding and/or pattern recognition
in low earth orbit using detectors and guidance systems
that may have originally been designed for other purposes
and were brought together in a hurry on a limited budget
and tight schedule.

Your lack of understanding of software and hardware is stunning.

But by all means, keep posting about something you know little about!

I see that you've done a little JavaScript coding on your
web page, so I assume you are aware that software
can fail without entering a recursive loop. A simple
problem like that would be caught during basic
debugging. The real killer failures, the ones that don't
appear unless conditions are "just so", may not make
themselves apparent without a well-designed system-
level testing effort.

- Ed Kyle

I've known about the DART failure as of nearly a year ago, so it's not
a very good secret.

DART proves that even with having a 100% known and beacon enabled
target, and even with a fully ground-controlled plus AI/robotic
fly-by-rocket capability that's far more fuel usage efficient than any
humanly operated lander, including the fact of this effort had the
advantage of onboard reaction wheels and that of having been taking
their damn sweet time, in that it proves that even this level of such a
basic task was simply too complex and otherwise having been too fuel
consuming for even that of a zero gravity and zero mascon environment
to have accomplished.

Spendy R&D is currently ongoing at creating our first operational
prototype CEV lander, of which without payload and by way of removing
most everything that's unessential for a terrestrial test-flight
application shouldn't have any problems in the way of achieving the
equivalent of a 1/6 gravity capability, so that terrestrial drop and
down-range proof-testing of every essential fly-by-rocket method that
involves powerful reaction wheels, computers and pilot expertise can be
once and for all resolved.

Obviously such accomplishments will be photographed on quality film and
digital video in order to insure the final science, technology and the
end-user expertise is functioning exactly as planned. Controlled
fly-by-rocket landings simply have to be proven right here on good old
mother Earth, prior to loading up their CEV with all of it's extra
equipment, tonnes of extra deorbit fuel, plus whatever payloads and
crew of four.

No damn fool is going for the moon without their first having
accomplished the real thing right here on Earth, and I'm certainly not
speaking about any actual deorbit from space, just that of a slow
aircraft or helicopter assisted deployment at something below 10,000',
and seeing the results taking place from within, and of external views
fully documented on film/video so that we'll all know that it's a
doable method of safely providing such a purely fly-by-rocket
controlled down-range and subsequent soft-landing of their choosing.

With powerful "reaction wheels" plus having fully computer modulated
reaction and primary thrusters (either of which didn't exist for their
NASA/Apollo fiasco), that daunting task shouldn't be all that
insurmountable, just terribly fuel and/or energy consuming.
-
Brad Guth

Lord Vain ) wrote:

: "Craig Fink" wrote in message
: news :
: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12319764/
: quote
: NASA keeps mum on space robot’s failure
: DART report considered too sensitive for public release
: ...
: The space agency distributed a new public information policy last month
: specifying that information protected by ITAR is considered "sensitive but
: unclassified" and that unauthorized release to news organizations could
: result in prosecution or disciplinary action.
: end quote
:
: It appears there is more to the story than what is presented in Mr.
: Oberg's story. A quick look at the NASA web site shows:

: Why does NASA have to be involved in a demonstrator which is obviously a
: cover-up for a military program?

Because the DOD has 26 times the budget of NASA. Think about that. In two
weeks the DOD spends what NASA does in a whole year.

Eric


: *** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

Ed Kyle ) wrote:

: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
: Ed Kyle wrote:
: Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
:
: Ed Kyle wrote:
:
:
: The reported facts about DART are consistent with a software
: issue of some kind. Software fails when it has not been
: adequately tested.
:
: No, software usually continues to execute, or executes to completion,
: in which case the end state may or may not result in a lock up,
: or an infinite loop.
:
: Usually it's the software engineers that fail.
:
:
: Program managers who fail to test to find faults in
: complex software are the ones who should be blamed.
:
: Actually it's mathematics and nature itself that is to blame,
: that pesky two to the power of two recursively iterated thing.
:
: No software engineer can design perfect algorithims that
: work perfectly in every circumstance, especially when
: the circumstance is rangefinding and/or pattern recognition
: in low earth orbit using detectors and guidance systems
: that may have originally been designed for other purposes
: and were brought together in a hurry on a limited budget
: and tight schedule.
:
: Your lack of understanding of software and hardware is stunning.
:
: But by all means, keep posting about something you know little about!

: I see that you've done a little JavaScript coding on your
: web page, so I assume you are aware that software
: can fail without entering a recursive loop. A simple
: problem like that would be caught during basic
: debugging. The real killer failures, the ones that don't
: appear unless conditions are "just so", may not make
: themselves apparent without a well-designed system-
: level testing effort.

Not pick nits but the word is 'iterative' rather than 'reursive', as the
latter is altogether something else. Recursion has it own problems, but
tends not to be the same as an infinite loop (i.e. condition never being
met to break out of a loop).

Eric

: - Ed Kyle

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 18:55:42 +0000, Craig Fink wrote:

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:21:24 -0700, ed kyle wrote:


Craig Fink wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12319764/
quote
NASA keeps mum on space robot's failure DART report considered too
sensitive for public release

Mr. Oberg reported that "

In DART's case, the ITAR concerns may be connected with the use of a
navigation device produced by the British-based Surrey Space Centre,
which sold a imilar version of the device to the Chinese for use in a
recent space probe.... sources have told MSNBC.com that the case may
have sparked a criminal investigation."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052700702.html

Orbital Sciences built DART. Remember when the Feds raided Orbital
Sciences offices in Arizona a year or so ago?

British produced device and an ITAR violation? Did the British use USA
components in their device? Do you have a link to the story?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...lines-business

Boeing recently got fined for a selling planes to China with a ten+ year
old, $2000, solid state gyro chip in the navigation system. Maybe it's all
related. It's in Aerobus' planes too.

http://www.systron.com/pro_QRS11.asp

The thing I find interesting is the modified dates on NASA web site wrt
DART. Possibly a violation occurred on NASA own web site, causing them to
pull then put back a bunch of stuff. Like NASA thinks it can somehow undo
the public release of information on the internet? I hope Mr. Oberg keeps
snooping.

Off topic, but interesting:

http://www.sltrib.com/contentlist/ci_3725354

begin quote
Family snubs FBI on request to see files
....
Chambless said. "Jack continually pointed out that the reason why
government agencies classify documents is to maintain political security,
not national security."

Chambless figures the FBI's request could be part
of increasing government secrecy under President Bush. The CIA recently
withdrew records from the National Archives for national security reasons.
end quote

Post-facto editing of the National Archives, hummmm

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 12:45:00 +0000, Jim Oberg wrote:


"Craig Fink" wrote good links...

thanks a whle lot for these helpful links, Craig

To tell you the truth, the whole DART thing really kind of funny. During
the mission, I found the lack of information kind of appalling, and now
this. It was too much.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Lord Vain ) wrote:

: "Craig Fink" wrote in message
: news :
: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12319764/
: quote
: NASA keeps mum on space robot's failure
: DART report considered too sensitive for public release
: ...
: The space agency distributed a new public information policy last
month
: specifying that information protected by ITAR is considered "sensitive
but
: unclassified" and that unauthorized release to news organizations
could
: result in prosecution or disciplinary action.
: end quote
:
: It appears there is more to the story than what is presented in Mr.
: Oberg's story. A quick look at the NASA web site shows:

: Why does NASA have to be involved in a demonstrator which is obviously a
: cover-up for a military program?

Because the DOD has 26 times the budget of NASA. Think about that. In two
weeks the DOD spends what NASA does in a whole year.


The DOD has 30+ times the number of salaried workers that NASA has so that's
not really an eye opener. But that doesn't mean that they always have the
latest and the greatest technology or even the best and the brightest
scientists and engineers. Aside from that: science can't be pushed, it has
to be nurtured, and it's therefore plausible that the DOD wanted this
technology as far back as the '60's but was unable to develop the
technology. Today, NASA has a real interest in automated docking/rendezvouz
technology for the 'new' moon program and they're therefore developing it,
but the DOD also wants to use it (may even be funding a large part of it)
for their hunter-killer satellites but they insist on secrecy. It's pretty
obvious that the revealing of the failure could give third parties a good
insight how NASA/DOD is tackling the automated docking/rendevouz problem.

BTW: don't the Russians already have a good automated rendezvouz/docking
system used in Soyuz and Progress?





*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

ed kyle wrote:
Craig Fink wrote:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12319764/
quote
NASA keeps mum on space robot's failure
DART report considered too sensitive for public release

Mr. Oberg reported that "

In DART's case, the ITAR concerns may be connected with the use
of a navigation device produced by the British-based Surrey Space
Centre, which sold a imilar version of the device to the Chinese for
use in a recent space probe.... sources have told MSNBC.com that
the case may have sparked a criminal investigation."

A criminal investigation in Britain would not have anything to do with
ITAR, so its a bull. Not even if it was a device that contained
technology they got from US under an ITAR excemption. Except that by
lots of evidence, especially statements by Surrey, they don't have such
excempted technology and are EXTREMELY happy to keep things that way.


Orbital Sciences built DART. Remember when the Feds raided
Orbital Sciences offices in Arizona a year or so ago?


Do you remember the stated reason?

- Ed Kyle