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

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.

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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

"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

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 |