Space Stuff and Launch Info

[Thomas McGuigan]

Several good examples in this thread.

The update on spaceflight101.com confirmed that they used Inertial Measurement Units to help determine the timing for parachute deployment and the point where the heat shield was discarded.

It seems that something went wrong at the point where the navigation system was supposed to be trying to match up the landing radar input with the IMU information, and it somehow happened long before the point where the matching process should have started to take any action on the results. They describe the problem as being due to a "timeout" on communication between the radar and the general navigation computer. It sounds as if the "timeout" resulted in the extremely premature assumption that the radar processing was complete and that landing had occurred.

"Timeout" hmm

 

[Thomas McGuigan]

Excellent, that's the one I was thinking of. It's hard not to get a sense of impending doom as that plays.
Here is a pretty cool view of the latest ISS crew arrival, this is the roughest docking I have ever watched.


Thought I'd throw in this one also.

Does anyone think the Soyuz design is a bit un -dynamic is it just me?

 

[rootone]

"Timeout" hmm

In computer systems the term usually means that an expected signal did not occur within a given timeframe, so the system switches to a default mode.
The default mode usually is designed to place the system in 'safe' idling condition, but it can be anything, including a reboot.
The details of what happens in case of a timeout should be part of the system spec, and the code which executes is decided by programmers.

 

[1oldman2]

Does anyone think the Soyuz design is a bit un -dynamic is it just me?

I'm not qualified for commenting on spacecraft Dynamics but the Soyuz does have a very good track record and seems to be good at doing what its designed to do, I only mentioned the rough docking because usually there doesn't seem to be the "rough" contact you see in this video, usually a lot smoother, that one likely sent a pretty good bang throughout the ISS.

 

[Thomas McGuigan]

Thank you. I have no qualifications commenting on the Soyuz's design but I found an article that said that the Soyuz could be designed better in terms of dynamics so I was just getting a second opinion.

 

[1oldman2]

 

[OmCheeto]

I can't remember seeing this posted:

https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/alien-worlds/galaxy-of-horrors/

Pretty interesting stuff, with a Halloween theme.
6 different exoplanets.
Cool interactive graphics.
One of which is comparing our solar system to theirs.

One example:

Rains of Terror
HD 189733 b: This nightmare world is the killer you never see coming. Any space traveler confusing its blue color with the friendly skies of Earth would find themselves in howling 5,400 mph winds where it rains glass– sideways.

​

 

[1oldman2]

This is about "Stuff" as much as it's about "Space", thought I'd throw it in and see what the consensus is on the articles.
http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.192001
Ultrahigh energy cosmic ray air showers probe particle physics at energies beyond the reach of accelerators. Here we introduce a new method to test hadronic interaction models without relying on the absolute energy calibration, and apply it to events with primary energy 6-16 EeV (ECM=110-170 TeV), whose longitudinal development and lateral distribution were simultaneously measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory. The average hadronic shower is 1.33±0.16 (1.61±0.21) times larger than predicted using the leading LHC-tuned models EPOS-LHC (QGSJetII-04), with a corresponding excess of muons.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/125
The Large Hadron Collider at CERN produces proton collisions with center-of-mass energies that are 13 thousand times greater than the proton’s rest mass. At such extreme energies these collisions create many secondary particles, whose distribution in momentum and energy reveals how the particles interact with one another. A key question is whether the interactions determined at the LHC are the same at higher energies. Luckily, nature already provides such high-energy collisions-albeit at a much lower rate-in the form of cosmic rays entering our atmosphere. Using its giant array of particle detectors, the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina has found that more muons arrive on the ground from cosmic-ray showers than expected from models using LHC data as input [1]. The showers that the Auger collaboration analyzed come from atmospheric cosmic-ray collisions that are 10 times higher in energy than the collisions produced at the LHC. This result may therefore suggest that our understanding of hadronic interactions (that is, interactions between protons, neutrons, and mesons) from accelerator measurements is incomplete.

http://www.astrowatch.net/2016/11/physicists-leapfrog-accelerators-with.html
An international team of physicists has developed a pioneering approach to using Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs)-the highest energy particles in nature since the Big Bang-to study particle interactions far beyond the reach of human-made accelerators. The work, outlined in the journal Physical Review Letters, makes use of UHECR measurements by the Pierre Auger Observatory (PAO) in Argentina, which has been recording UHECR data for about a decade.

The study may also point to the emergence of some new, not-yet-understood physical phenomenon at an order-of-magnitude higher energy than can be accessed with the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), where the Higgs particle was discovered.

The origin of UHECRs remains a mystery, in spite of decades of work aimed at discovering their sources. Yet even before the UHECRs’ sources are identified, the particle showers they create in the Earth’s atmosphere can be used for exploring fundamental physics.

The cosmic rays are atomic nuclei. When they collide with air particles, hundreds of additional particles are created, which then further interact to produce a cascade of particles in the atmosphere. PAO telescopes measure how the shower develops as it travels through the atmosphere, and the PAO surface detectors gauge the particle content of the shower on the ground. The difficulty of using UHECR air showers to study particle physics, up to now, stemmed from the uncertainty in an individual ray’s energy and not knowing exactly what nucleus it is.

New York University Physics Professor Glennys Farrar and Jeff Allen, her graduate student and postdoctoral researcher at the time of the study, circumvented this by using the atmosphere similar to the way a particle detector is employed in laboratory experiments. For the Physical Review Letters study, they compared the PAO data for 441 UHECR showers, with computer-simulated showers based on particle physics models derived from experiments at accelerator energies.

"State-of-the-art particle physics models seriously underestimate a key component of these UHECR showers," explains Farrar. "This may point to the emergence of unanticipated physical processes at higher energy than the LHC. Future studies, and planned upgrades to the PAO, should reveal what produces the extra signal, providing a window on particle physics far beyond the reach of accelerators."

Credit: nyu.edu

 

[1oldman2]

Regarding post #83.

I see Opportunity rover is only 54 km's away from the crash site, I know it's not practical but it would be very cool to take a drive over and get an up close look at the debris field.

http://www.space.com/34574-mars-newest-crater-a-target-for-science.html
Scientists and engineers had hoped Europe's Schiaparelli Mars lander would just be running out of power about now, following a successful mission on the planet's surface.

Instead, Schiaparelli landed with a bang on Oct. 19, victim of a possible software glitch that jettisoned its parachute and shut down landing thrusters woefully early.

Europe has tried to put a happy face on the test flight, which was intended as a trial run before a larger and much more sophisticated rover touches down on Mars in 2021 to search for life.

While impacts to the joint European-Russian ExoMars rover are being sorted out, scientists have cast their eyes on the planet's newest crater, wondering if they may make use of the unexpected glimpse into a freshly unearthed subsurface.

The 660-pound Schiaparelli hit the ground at more than 180 mph, leaving a small crater about 8 feet in diameter and about 20 inches deep.

Satellites circling Mars have been trying to get a look as they pass overhead.

"We might see a shallow crater, which could provide some (information) on Mars surface properties, but it's complicated," University of Arizona astronomer Alfred McEwen, lead scientist for the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter high-resolution camera, wrote in an email to Seeker.

Others were more pessimistic.

"The crater could still be interesting even if small, but in our case it is likely to be contaminated by all kinds of material from the lander and its fuel. So I would not recommend any effort to study this place from that point of view," project scientist Håkan Svedhem said.

NASA and Europe released the first high-resolution MRO images of the crash site on Thursday. The pictures were taken on Tuesday.

"This first HiRISE observation does not show topography indicating the presence of a crater," the European Space Agency said in a statement. "Stereo information from combining this observation with a future one may provide a way to check."

Schiaparelli hit near its intended landing site, a flat region about 2 degrees south of the equator known as Meridiani Planum. The region is not high on scientists' lists of sites that potentially could have hosted and preserved life, but still of interest.

NASA's Opportunity rover has been exploring Meridiani for almost 13 years, but it is too far away to visit Mars' newest impact basin, Schiaparelli crater.

 

[mfb]

Concerning cosmic rays: the showers are mainly collisions with larger nuclei, while the LHC mainly studies proton-proton collisions. Nuclei are messy, I can imagine that some model there is not very accurate. New physics is always the least likely explanation until everything is understood really well.

 

[Imager]

I was reading some information on the Sky Crane that was used to land the Curiosity Rover and I saw this picture of the impact site of the backshell. I’m “curious” as to why it is blue?

http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/technology/insituexploration/edl/skycrane/

 

[rootone]

Possibly it's not actually blue, but the image has been digitally enhanced to give maximum contrast.

 

[Imager]

Possibly it's not actually blue, but the image has been digitally enhanced to give maximum contrast.

I found some other images and the impact appears as dark gray to black with the surface of Mars in light gray. I’m guessing they were black and white shots.

Would that gold back ground in the image posted indicate color enhancements?

 

[rootone]

If the aim of digitally processing was to get maximum contrast, it's quite likely that the background tones are altered as well.
However it does look close to the sort of tones in pictures of the landscape taken by the Curiosity rover.
Though I'm pretty sure that a lot of those are enhanced too.

 

[CapnGranite]

https://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/pdf/color-products.pdf
Information for Scientific Users of HiRISE Color Products
What do the colors in HiRISE images mean?

There is a brief explanation of "blue"

 

[Imager]

Below is from the PDF, not that I understand most of it, but it does appear to be blue enhanced. None of my Google searches tied PSP_005000_1000_RGB.NOMAP.JP2 to the image I posted, but then no one ever said I knew what I was doing...

PSP_005000_1000_RGB.NOMAP.JP2 3-color image consisting of RED, BG, and synthetic blue images. The BG image has been warped to line up with the RED.NOMAP image. The BG (blue-green) bandpass primarily accepts green light. The synthetic blue image digital numbers (DNs) consist of the BG image DN multiplied by 2 minus 30% of the RED image DN for each pixel. This is not unique data, but provides a more appealing way to display the color variations present in just two bandpasses, RED and BG.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_makes_progress

As Schiaparelli descended under its parachute, its radar Doppler altimeter functioned correctly and the measurements were included in the guidance, navigation and control system. However, saturation – maximum measurement – of the Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) had occurred shortly after the parachute deployment. The IMU measures the rotation rates of the vehicle. Its output was generally as predicted except for this event, which persisted for about one second – longer than would be expected.
...
When merged into the navigation system, the erroneous information generated an estimated altitude that was negative – that is, below ground level. This in turn successively triggered a premature release of the parachute and the backshell, a brief firing of the braking thrusters and finally activation of the on-ground systems as if Schiaparelli had already landed. In reality, the vehicle was still at an altitude of around 3.7 km.

This behaviour has been clearly reproduced in computer simulations of the control system’s response to the erroneous information.

This looks like a sensor bounds check problem combined with a signed/unsigned math under/overflow error.

 

[mfb]

Ah, the good old one-sided comparison. "if altitude < 1 km, release parachute". "The altitude is minus 1000 km? Okay, release parachute."

Always catch cases where something goes completely wrong, predict out which input is more likely to be wrong, then ignore that.

 

[Clementss]

Why is the event horizon of a black hole so cold? I thought when matter is compressed, it causes it to heat up do to friction.

 

[mfb]

The event horizon is not an object, and it is not made out of matter. It is a region in spacetime. Questions like this would fit better to our relativity forum.

 

[1oldman2]

This is interesting, it seems large deposits of water may be fairly common on several bodies in our solar system.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature20120.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature20148.html

https://spaceflightnow.com/2016/11/...-be-counted-among-solar-systems-ocean-worlds/

Scientists believe they can explain how an ocean of water is lurking beneath an ice sheet inside Pluto’s prominent heart-shaped region, an iconic frozen landscape discovered during the New Horizons spacecraft ’s flyby last year.

A slushy buried sea under the icy plains of Sputnik Planitia would help counterbalance the gravitational weight of the dwarf planet’s largest moon Charon, which stays fixed above the opposite side of Pluto, researchers reported last week in the journal Nature.

 

[1oldman2]

ExoMars has been testing the imaging system and the results are awesome.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38147682
"We saw Hebes Chasma at 2.8 metres per pixel," said Nicolas Thomas, the camera's principal investigator from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"That's a bit like flying over Bern at 15,000km/h and simultaneously getting sharp pictures of cars in Zurich."November 30th marks the beginning of the end for Cassini, begins setting up for the ultimate "crash and burn". The 183rd main engine burn should be the last with all following maneuvers performed with thrusters. Nearly 20 years, this has to be one of the most successful missions to date.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6681

Between Nov. 30 and April 22, Cassini will circle high over and under the poles of Saturn, diving every seven days -- a total of 20 times -- through the unexplored region at the outer edge of the main rings.

During these orbits, Cassini will pass as close as about 56,000 miles (90,000 kilometers) above Saturn's cloud tops. But even with all their exciting science, these orbits are merely a prelude to the planet-grazing passes that lie ahead. In April 2017, the spacecraft will begin its Grand Finale phase.

During its grand finale, Cassini will pass as close as 1,012 miles (1,628 kilometers) above the clouds as it dives repeatedly through the narrow gap between Saturn and its rings, before making its mission-ending plunge into the planet's atmosphere on Sept. 15. But before the spacecraft can leap over the rings to begin its finale, some preparatory work remains.And now a note from the "dark side" of space. (I'll bet no one saw this coming )
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/space-war-us-military-preparations/index.html

China and Russia are taking aim at America in space with a dizzying array of weapons seemingly borrowed from science fiction. Russia has deployed what could be multiple kamikaze satellites such as "Kosmos 2499" -- designed to sidle up to American satellites and then, if ordered, disable or destroy them. China has launched the "Shiyan" -- equipped with a grappling arm that could snatch US satellites right out of orbit.

"We have very good surveillance and intelligence capabilities, so we can see the threats that are being built," said Hyten. "So we're developing capabilities to defend ourselves. It's really that simple."

 

[mfb]

And now a note from the "dark side" of space. (I'll bet no one saw this coming )
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/28/politics/space-war-us-military-preparations/index.html

Ah, the peaceful US using space for civilian and defense purposes only, while Russia and China think about nothing but harming the US. Yeah, sure.

World leaders couldn't communicate across continents.

One should tell the author about undersea cables, which also handle the vast majority of intercontinental data transfer because their bandwidth is so much better than satellite communication.

Russia has deployed what could be multiple kamikaze satellites such as "Kosmos 2499" -- designed to sidle up to American satellites and then, if ordered, disable or destroy them.

Nothing but speculations. Russia launched a satellite that moved away from its upper rocket stage, then later approached it again. So what? Every docking maneuver at space stations looks similar - and Russia has a lot of experience with those.
According to Russia it is a test of a new propulsion system.

China has launched the "Shiyan" -- equipped with a grappling arm that could snatch US satellites right out of orbit.

You cannot "snatch US satellites right out of orbit". Shiyan-7 made slow approaches to two different satellites. It is reported to have an arm.
A robotic an arm is a key component for larger space stations, like the one China wants to build.
A robotic arm is an ridiculously stupid way to attack satellites. Destroying them with high-speed impacts is much easier and much more effective than grappling anything. Yes it create space debris, but not that much, and with grappling arms you are limited to 1-2 satellites per grappling satellite which is a stupid ratio.

So is the US moving quickly enough to respond to the new threats in space?
"I would say the answer was no," said Gen. William Shelton, former head of Space Command.

Of course you say "no" if saying "yes" means your funding gets reduced.

 

[1oldman2]

Ah, the peaceful US using space for civilian and defense purposes only, while Russia and China think about nothing but harming the US. Yeah, sure.

There was a certain amount of irony in my comment "The darkside of space" considering the source CNN was quoting.

http://www.space.com/25275-x37b-space-plane.html
The U.S. Air Force's unmanned X-37B space plane has flown three clandestine missions to date, carrying secret payloads on long-duration flights in Earth orbit.

NASA transferred the project to the U.S. military in 2004 - specifically, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). At that point, X-37 became a classified project.

The X-37B program is now run by the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office, with mission control for orbital flights based at the 3rd Space Experimentation Squadron at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado. The space planes are built by Boeing's Phantom Works division.

http://www.space.com/9940-secretive-space-plane-meet-37b.html#ooid=lnMnR4cDqNSqpOCj1kbS3mTdnAuJ_zGFhttps://www.rt.com/politics/space-militarization-us-russia-699/
The United States is moving toward the militarization of space and this will change the face of war in the near future, an academician with the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences has warned.

Only the United States and Israel abstained from voting on the document, rendering it effectively toothless.

Washington’s refusal to cede control of space likely stems from its increasing reliance on space-based systems: An estimated 90 percent of the US Military reportedly uses or depends on space-based systems.

The Russian academic referred the shock over China’s successful targeted destruction of an old orbiting weather satellite in 2007.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-ever/
The world’s most worrisome military flashpoint is arguably not in the Strait of Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, Iran, Israel, Kashmir or Ukraine. In fact, it cannot be located on any map of Earth, even though it is very easy to find. To see it, just look up into a clear sky, to the no-man’s-land of Earth orbit, where a conflict is unfolding that is an arms race in all but name.

https://www.stratfor.com/video/militarization-space
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/report/1989/DCA.htm

Of course you say "no" if saying "yes" means your funding gets reduced.

This is a big problem here whenever the government is involved.

 

[mfb]

Washington’s refusal to cede control of space likely stems from its increasing reliance on space-based systems: An estimated 90 percent of the US Military reportedly uses or depends on space-based systems.

What are the other 10% and why don't they use GPS?
Statements like that are misleading. They suggest some super-advanced system where everything depends on specialized satellites, while in reality it just means every mobile electronic device has GPS.
Oh well, I stopped hoping for somewhat reasonable rt.com content long ago.

 

[1oldman2]

Oh well, I stopped hoping for somewhat reasonable rt.com content long ago.

RT isn't one of my regular sources for linking, I used that one in the interest of symmetry, you know to balance out the American news sources spin.

I'm glad I read https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/vacuum-fluctuation-myth/ before I read
http://www.space.com/34852-neutron-star-shows-quantum-property-evidence.htmlA strange quantum phenomenon predicted more than 80 years ago finally may have been observed in nature.

In classical physics, a vacuum is entirely empty, but in quantum physics, there are "virtual particles" that are constantly appearing and vanishing in the vacuum of space. Heisenberg and Euler used a theory called quantum electrodynamics (QED) to show how the quantum properties of a vacuum would influence light waves.This I found rather cool also.
http://www.space.com/34850-private-moon-race-apollo-17-site.html
A Berlin-based group of rocket scientists and engineers are aiming to land a pair of privately funded Audi-branded robotic rovers on the moon and drive them to inspect NASA's Apollo 17 lunar roving vehicle, marking 45 years since humans last drove on another world.

 

[davenn]

A Berlin-based group of rocket scientists and engineers are aiming to land a pair of privately funded Audi-branded robotic rovers on the moon and drive them to inspect NASA's Apollo 17 lunar roving vehicle, marking 45 years since humans last drove on another world.

you mite want to reread what you wrote there and offer an edited version
it isn't valid in it's current formedit ... not your fault, noting of course it's the bad reporting that is incorrect

They are combing robotic rovers and manned rovers into the one sentence without clarifying the situationDave

 

[1oldman2]

it's the bad reporting that is incorrect

Gets me every time. Thanks dave.
I've decided not to edit as an example of what can be found in professional literature these days, it is a cool concept... Audi will have some good PR for there ad dept.

 

[davenn]

I've decided not to edit as an example of what can be found in professional literature these days,

yeah it seems, at times, there is little proof reading done

 

[Filip Larsen]

I've decided not to edit as an example of what can be found in professional literature these days, it is a cool concept... Audi will have some good PR for there ad dept.

It is not obvious to me what type of issue with the news story you and davenn are referring to. Is it just bad english (for some reason) or is there something more seriously wrong with it?