Longest-Lived Mars Orbiter is Back in Service (Mars Odyssey)

On Jul 2, 3:11*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 2/07/2012 4:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 3:42 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 12:55 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 4:02 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 1:46 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

wonder if a work around is possible to point with just 2 reaction
wheels?

Oh, good God! *THINK, Bobbert! *You need pointing control in 3
dimensions. *You cannot do that with only two axis control *So no, you
cannot 'work around' the laws of physics.

If the axes of rotation of the three wheels are orthogonal, and one
reaction wheel rotates, it changes the axes of rotation of the other
two. Indeed, the axes of the other two can be interchanged.

Now hold it steady....

Hint: *You can eventually get it pointed anywhere, but you can't KEEP
it there in order to do science.

Well, that's going to depend on what science you're trying to do, and on
whether the craft has any net angular momentum. If it has no net angular
momentum, it should be possible to get it pointed in any direction with
minimal drift, which will be good enough for many purposes.

And yet the folks who run the thing think it requires at least 3
working reaction wheels to do any science....

These things are rarely back-and-white.

And yet the folks responsible for operating the thing think it is.

Do they? Have they expressly stated that this is a black and white issue?

Yes. *You see, Sylvia, you think you want to argue with me. *I'm
telling you you're arguing with the folks who control the thing.

You're making certain representations as to what they think. I'm
questioning whether they actually think whay you claim they think. So
the argument is about what they think, not whether they're right in
thinking it. The argument is thus definitely with you, not with them.

In that case, feel free to go do something anatomically creative with
yourself, since facts straight from the horse's mouth don't matter to
you.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
*man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
*all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --George Bernard Shaw

fred believes he is a expert in everything, and that helps make him
the ass he is

In article e8638c86-98b7-4b40-a3a2-734d0c291939
@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jul 2, 3:11*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 2/07/2012 4:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 3:42 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 12:55 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 4:02 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 1:46 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

wonder if a work around is possible to point with just 2 reaction
wheels?

Oh, good God! *THINK, Bobbert! *You need pointing control in 3
dimensions. *You cannot do that with only two axis control *So no, you
cannot 'work around' the laws of physics.

If the axes of rotation of the three wheels are orthogonal, and one
reaction wheel rotates, it changes the axes of rotation of the other
two. Indeed, the axes of the other two can be interchanged.

Now hold it steady....

Hint: *You can eventually get it pointed anywhere, but you can't KEEP
it there in order to do science.

Well, that's going to depend on what science you're trying to do, and on
whether the craft has any net angular momentum. If it has no net angular
momentum, it should be possible to get it pointed in any direction with
minimal drift, which will be good enough for many purposes.

And yet the folks who run the thing think it requires at least 3
working reaction wheels to do any science....

These things are rarely back-and-white.

And yet the folks responsible for operating the thing think it is.

Do they? Have they expressly stated that this is a black and white issue?

Yes. *You see, Sylvia, you think you want to argue with me. *I'm
telling you you're arguing with the folks who control the thing.

You're making certain representations as to what they think. I'm
questioning whether they actually think whay you claim they think. So
the argument is about what they think, not whether they're right in
thinking it. The argument is thus definitely with you, not with them.

In that case, feel free to go do something anatomically creative with
yourself, since facts straight from the horse's mouth don't matter to
you.

fred believes he is a expert in everything, and that helps make him
the ass he is

Did you ever stop to think that Fred actually knows people who work on
the program? Engineers know other engineers. Looks like you and Sylvia
just don't know the same people Fred knows. Oh well.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On 2/07/2012 10:54 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e8638c86-98b7-4b40-a3a2-734d0c291939
@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jul 2, 3:11 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 2/07/2012 4:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 3:42 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 12:55 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 4:02 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 1:46 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

wonder if a work around is possible to point with just 2 reaction
wheels?

Oh, good God! THINK, Bobbert! You need pointing control in 3
dimensions. You cannot do that with only two axis control So no, you
cannot 'work around' the laws of physics.

If the axes of rotation of the three wheels are orthogonal, and one
reaction wheel rotates, it changes the axes of rotation of the other
two. Indeed, the axes of the other two can be interchanged.

Now hold it steady....

Hint: You can eventually get it pointed anywhere, but you can't KEEP
it there in order to do science.

Well, that's going to depend on what science you're trying to do, and on
whether the craft has any net angular momentum. If it has no net angular
momentum, it should be possible to get it pointed in any direction with
minimal drift, which will be good enough for many purposes.

And yet the folks who run the thing think it requires at least 3
working reaction wheels to do any science....

These things are rarely back-and-white.

And yet the folks responsible for operating the thing think it is.

Do they? Have they expressly stated that this is a black and white issue?

Yes. You see, Sylvia, you think you want to argue with me. I'm
telling you you're arguing with the folks who control the thing.

You're making certain representations as to what they think. I'm
questioning whether they actually think whay you claim they think. So
the argument is about what they think, not whether they're right in
thinking it. The argument is thus definitely with you, not with them.

In that case, feel free to go do something anatomically creative with
yourself, since facts straight from the horse's mouth don't matter to
you.

fred believes he is a expert in everything, and that helps make him
the ass he is

Did you ever stop to think that Fred actually knows people who work on
the program? Engineers know other engineers. Looks like you and Sylvia
just don't know the same people Fred knows. Oh well.

Jeff


Fred's response indicated that he believes that he is the horses mouth.

Sylvia.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
...
wrote:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2012-189

Longest-Lived Mars Orbiter is Back in Service
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
June 27, 2012

Mission Status Report

PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter has resumed its science
observations and its role as a Mars rover's relay, thanks to a spare
part that had been waiting 11 years to be put to use.

One of the most amazing photos I've ever seen is from Odyssey. It shows
the purchute of one of the rover missions as it decended through the
Martian atmosphere. The first photograph of a spacecraft at another
planet taken by a spacecraft at another planet.



My candidate for the most interesting photos from another place
in the solar system is this one.

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/a...0P2956M2M1.JPG


s

In article , lid
says...

On 2/07/2012 10:54 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article e8638c86-98b7-4b40-a3a2-734d0c291939
@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, says...

On Jul 2, 3:11 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 2/07/2012 4:50 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 3:42 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 2/07/2012 12:55 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 4:02 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

On 1/07/2012 1:46 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

wonder if a work around is possible to point with just 2 reaction
wheels?

Oh, good God! THINK, Bobbert! You need pointing control in 3
dimensions. You cannot do that with only two axis control So no, you
cannot 'work around' the laws of physics.

If the axes of rotation of the three wheels are orthogonal, and one
reaction wheel rotates, it changes the axes of rotation of the other
two. Indeed, the axes of the other two can be interchanged.

Now hold it steady....

Hint: You can eventually get it pointed anywhere, but you can't KEEP
it there in order to do science.

Well, that's going to depend on what science you're trying to do, and on
whether the craft has any net angular momentum. If it has no net angular
momentum, it should be possible to get it pointed in any direction with
minimal drift, which will be good enough for many purposes.

And yet the folks who run the thing think it requires at least 3
working reaction wheels to do any science....

These things are rarely back-and-white.

And yet the folks responsible for operating the thing think it is.

Do they? Have they expressly stated that this is a black and white issue?

Yes. You see, Sylvia, you think you want to argue with me. I'm
telling you you're arguing with the folks who control the thing.

You're making certain representations as to what they think. I'm
questioning whether they actually think whay you claim they think. So
the argument is about what they think, not whether they're right in
thinking it. The argument is thus definitely with you, not with them.

In that case, feel free to go do something anatomically creative with
yourself, since facts straight from the horse's mouth don't matter to
you.

fred believes he is a expert in everything, and that helps make him
the ass he is

Did you ever stop to think that Fred actually knows people who work on
the program? Engineers know other engineers. Looks like you and Sylvia
just don't know the same people Fred knows. Oh well.

Fred's response indicated that he believes that he is the horses mouth.

You are picking a nit with Fred's use of the saying "straight from the
horse's mouth". The rest of his posts indicate very clearly that the
people working on the actual program say they need 3 working wheels to
do science.

Here are some interesting reads:

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Design Approach for High-resolution Surface
Imaging
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/b.../1/03-0246.pdf

While the above does not state that three wheels are needed to do
science, it gives you quite a bit of information on what the
requirements actually are for pointing accuracy.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Jun 28, 11:27*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

One of the most amazing photos I've ever seen is from Odyssey. *It shows
the parachute of one of the rover missions as it descended through the
Martian atmosphere. *The first photograph of a spacecraft at another
planet taken by a spacecraft at another planet.

You're confusing your spacecraft, Doug Odyssey does not have that kind
of resolution, but the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) does and did
take that and other high resolution images of various landers on Mars.
-Mike

I think everyone should take up a collection to send Fred J Mc Call
one a ONE WAY trip to mars, with no internet access ever.......

this would help make this a nicer friendlier place

In article 6396f032-7a72-4a2d-95ba-
, says...

I think everyone should take up a collection to send Fred J Mc Call
one a ONE WAY trip to mars, with no internet access ever.......

this would help make this a nicer friendlier place

Perhaps friendlier, but it would be far less knowledgeable. Fred just
has a low tolerance for the stupid, irrational, and illogical.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Jul 5, 10:33*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6396f032-7a72-4a2d-95ba-
, says...



I think everyone should take up a collection to send Fred J Mc Call
one a ONE WAY trip to mars, with no internet access ever.......

this would help make this a nicer friendlier place

Perhaps friendlier, but it would be far less knowledgeable. *Fred just
has a low tolerance for the stupid, irrational, and illogical.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

fred just says everything is impossible, even when proved later its
been done or has been attempted.

his obnxious is unnecessary and adds nothing here

On Jul 6, 3:43*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Jul 5, 10:33*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6396f032-7a72-4a2d-95ba-
, says...

I think everyone should take up a collection to send Fred J Mc Call
one a ONE WAY trip to mars, with no internet access ever.......

this would help make this a nicer friendlier place

Perhaps friendlier, but it would be far less knowledgeable. *Fred just
has a low tolerance for the stupid, irrational, and illogical.

fred just says everything is impossible, ...

Bobbert only ever lies.



... even when proved later its been done or has been attempted.

And then lies some more.



his obnxious is unnecessary and adds nothing here

Anything is better than the negative that the DNR brain-dead ilk like
you and Guthball 'add'.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

fred you never support any concept posted here by anyone but
yourself.......