Shuttle mission - Page 2

Miros1 · 08-18-2007, 02:42 AM

Also heard something about a torn glove during the last EVA.

Greg · 08-18-2007, 02:46 AM

Just a little cut through the outer layer. No risk.

shorty943 · 08-18-2007, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg

Just a little cut through the outer layer. No risk.

Must abuse NASA into playing with Linux nice. I want my NASA TV.

Greg · 08-19-2007, 07:52 AM

I'm out of my league there. I have a Dish Network satellite dish so that I can get NASA TV.

OKOKOK... so I'm obsessed. There are worst things to be obsessed about!

shorty943 · 08-19-2007, 08:57 AM

Mmm, satellite, mmmm.

What the hell, I'll just keep on logging in to MyNASA.

mikedelaney16 · 08-19-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shorty943

Must abuse NASA into playing with Linux nice. I want my NASA TV.

Just install RealPlayer instead of Helix. You may also be able to install Windows Media Player if you have Wine setup.

Looks like you have to go to http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/ rather than clicking on the Watch NASA TV link on the main page. I'm watching NASA TV in RealPlayer on a Linux machine right now. Sound is working also.

I have to say I find it hard to watch NASA TV sometimes. When the crew are doing something indoors it's not too bad, but anything to do with EVA or even more so Shuttle maneuvering is a lot like watching paint dry or grass grow. I know this is unavoidable in a live feed and I also understand that the feed is mainly intended for use by ground support. But maybe they'd be better not putting some of the live stuff on the public channel and just using edited highlights instead. I guess they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Greg · 08-20-2007, 03:32 AM

That's fascinating, Mike. I'm the opposite. When they're EVA, it holds my attention, but I start flipping channels when they go inside.

I think familiarity with the subject might be the driver. My team developed most of the EVA procedures they're doing so it's fun to watch them actually being executed in space.

Greg · 08-20-2007, 03:33 AM

Speaking of the current flight, they're coming home Tuesday. That's a day early but they're running ahead of the storm.

mikedelaney16 · 08-20-2007, 03:51 AM

It depends on the EVA Greg. When they are assembling or repairing things I do watch, but the whole hurry up and wait aspect of space travel slows things down and makes for not very good TV imho. This is the opposite of my glued to the box attitude during Apollo, especially after they started bringing rovers and especially Apollo 17.

I think the whole space program has been suffering from the staleness of been there seen that for quite a number of years now.

Greg · 08-20-2007, 06:32 PM

I understand your point, Mike. I actually felt that way about the Apollo program. A great deal of it was the inept coverage of the events by the television networks.

What's missing is detailed information about what the crew is doing. Neither NASA nor the networks has any talent for telling the public what they're planning or what's going on. Stuff from NASA PAO is all vague summaries and sales schmaltz promises and all we get from television news guys is weak attempts at injecting drama about how much it all costs.

There's also way too much emphasis on NASA's programs being education for second graders. They're totally off the mark on that one. Second graders want heroes, for sure, but NASA programs are entertainment for highly intelligent adults; that's the audience they should target.

Miros1 · 08-20-2007, 09:11 PM

Not to mention, second graders neither vote nor send letters to their Congresspeople!

mikedelaney16 · 08-21-2007, 04:00 AM

Please note this post meanders a bit, it's something of a stream of disjointed thoughts.

So you've heard me yelling at TV reporters trying to do space stories because the boss said so.

It's amazing the stupid little mistakes they make, but then they're usually one of the juniors covering this space thing dropped in their lap with 60 minutes to air time and the possibility that it wont even go out as it's only B filler.

A lot of space coverage, even in the Apollo era, was shoddy to say the least. We did have some decent people covering it over here in the British Isles, but they were long term resident science correspondents. They were actually chosen because they had a clue, James Burke (wikipedia link) comes instantly to mind. But then we had very high quality public service channels over here in those days. (Note the past tense).

On the subject of detailed information, there are limits to how much detail the average layperson can tolerate.

Lately the networks are enjoying the novelty effect of the back-flip shots, but those are wearing thin already. If they had chosen to repair the tiles, that would have been worth watching, but wouldn't have been televised except by NASA TV. The truss assembly EVAs were interesting to watch. Watching close-up shots of the damage inspection is meaningless to the average person, they haven't a clue what they're looking at.

They need to make space sexy, and NASA is not the body to do that I'm afraid. They're also going to have to take a long hard look at some of their policies with regard to longterm missions such as trips to Mars. There is no way in hell you can ask people to live bottled up in a small space for years without some form of vice. Crew members will get up to stuff. That's going to be interesting.

shorty943 · 08-21-2007, 11:03 AM

Wot? Sorry Mike, space, not sexy? The stars the heavens, what the hell is that up there?
It's fascinating to me, I can see both the Magellanic clouds, just beside the Southern Cross, with bare eyes, not even binoculars needed. The last shuttle mission, I stood out side and watched the shuttle chase the space station across the milky way. What a sight.
Sorry mate, I suppose you have to have the bug or not. I'll watch any thing NASA put out. I'll watch what the networks put out on NASA.
Family know this, for my 50th birthday they bought me a 30 inch telescope with a 4 inch mirror, it's beautiful, I can see the stars, man, I can see the stars.

I'm still trying to track a certain early model Kodak Digital camera, because it has a CMOS sensor that sees into the near infrared. And as a bonus, the lens fits into the eye piece socket of my telescope. Then just hook her up via USB, to my laptop, I got me a portable astral lab. Hey, that's science isn't it. I can do science me.

Might even get lucky one night and get a happy snap of the shuttle going over.
More likely just a bunch of dots though.

But, you have to try these things. No big hurry, I don't even have to travel to find a dark spot for star gazing. I live out of town, almost at the top of a hill, with nothing but farmland all round me for miles. It's perfect for someone who likes to just lay back and look up.

Need to make space sexy? There is just so much to learn about up there. The photo's that Hubble sends back are absolutely stunning. What don't people find interesting? I think some of those gas clouds and nebulae are the most beautiful sights. There is no artist born can do that.

But then I suppose some people think paying the gas bill is an adventure.

Greg · 08-22-2007, 03:34 AM

I think you've touched on it, Shorty. Television shows try to capture dramatic imagery of what's happening, but miss the whole story of why it's happening.

The story of the International Space Station is about its mission; the facility is just a box to do it in. A great part of its mission is learning how to build a spacecraft that can be flown and maintained indefinitely because that is the only way we will ever move out into the cosmos.

OK, so on the last flight, they fixed and moved an antenna. End or reporting. B'b'but... what was that antenna for? (It was an omnidirectional S-band antenna that keeps the ISS in communication with Earth even when they can't send data through the TDRSS. It's good for at least one channel of full video and lots of data traffic. What? You didn't know they relay tranffic through the TDRSS? Well, neither did the guy who decided not to run the story.)

mikedelaney16 · 08-22-2007, 03:40 AM

Sorry Shorty, I wasn't clear about something. Real space travel/exploration as it's televised is not sexy.

Greg, like me, the guy who didn't run the story probably doesn't know what TDRSS stands for.

Now what I want to know is why they chose to install an omnidirectional antenna on a space station. Does the station rotate axially? Or was it a belt and suspenders choice? And why did it need to be repaired? (I can understand why it might need to be moved)

Greg · 08-22-2007, 03:52 AM

Tracking & Data Relay Satellite System. There are two huge Ku-band relay satellites in geostationary orbit that handle the high-rate data so they can get multiple channels of data, voice, and video.

The space station mostly maintains an orientation where the main part tracks the surface of the Earth, so there is a definite "down," though the flight attitude changes. An omnidirectional antenna allows ground stations to communicate with it as it passes over. Ground station signals will be arriving at an angle that varies through an arc of 180 degrees as the station moves from horizon to horizon.

Darn. Now that you mention it, though, the antenna they moved might be the one that sends S-band through geo satellites. I don't remember.

The big Ku-band antenna is the primary path, but there are dropouts while the antenna slews from one satellite to another and also a dead zone where it can't see either of the geo satellites. ISS also has S-band and even UHF antennas as a belt-and-suspenders thing, and to assure continuous communication. When everything is in sight and working, those extra paths give them extra bandwidth.

shorty943 · 08-22-2007, 11:17 AM

It's okay Mike, I tend to be a bit Dave Allen like, I'll go off like a rocket, but you should see the huge cheeky grin I'm wearing.

The problem lies with the media mind set, sorry Mike, but there seems to be an attitude of "good news is no news". At least in the "less well regarded?" tabloids.

I know I've learned more from Greg than I do at the NASA site. Or the media.
Oh damn, Greg does that mean we have to shoot both of us?

Good to see the landing on local news tonight, all home safe and sound. Good vision as well, I watched the heat shimmer on the belly as she rolled down to nose wheel touch. Man, she gets hot coming in.
Local news this morning, the anchorman was chattering about how they come in from so far away and land on that tiny little runway. He is right, but.

I almost emailed the network and said "Yeah, and they do it dead stick to buddy". but I didn't think they would understand she comes home as a glider. Oh yes, they are damned good flyers.

All the eyes and ears is just an extension of maritime practice. Factor of safety of three.
Triple redundancy, and a spare just in case. The simplified reason of course.

Looking at that, it makes you wonder why I chose to race speedway sidecars. Take one powerful sport motorcycle, modify the hell out of the engine to get even more power, then remove all the brakes and go racing around a dirt oval track at over 100 MPH.

Space travel is safe, compared to that lunacy.

08-18-2007, 02:42 AM	#21
Miros1 Goddess for Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY State Posts: 3,303	Also heard something about a torn glove during the last EVA. Last edited by Miros1 : 08-18-2007 at 02:46 AM. Reason: Stupid board double posted.

08-18-2007, 02:46 AM	#22
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	Just a little cut through the outer layer. No risk. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-19-2007, 07:52 AM	#24
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	I'm out of my league there. I have a Dish Network satellite dish so that I can get NASA TV. OKOKOK... so I'm obsessed. There are worst things to be obsessed about! __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-20-2007, 03:32 AM	#27
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	That's fascinating, Mike. I'm the opposite. When they're EVA, it holds my attention, but I start flipping channels when they go inside. I think familiarity with the subject might be the driver. My team developed most of the EVA procedures they're doing so it's fun to watch them actually being executed in space. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-20-2007, 03:33 AM	#28
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	Speaking of the current flight, they're coming home Tuesday. That's a day early but they're running ahead of the storm. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-19-2007, 08:57 AM	#25
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	Mmm, satellite, mmmm. What the hell, I'll just keep on logging in to MyNASA.

08-20-2007, 03:51 AM	#29
mikedelaney16 Solar Max Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 201	It depends on the EVA Greg. When they are assembling or repairing things I do watch, but the whole hurry up and wait aspect of space travel slows things down and makes for not very good TV imho. This is the opposite of my glued to the box attitude during Apollo, especially after they started bringing rovers and especially Apollo 17. I think the whole space program has been suffering from the staleness of been there seen that for quite a number of years now.

08-20-2007, 06:32 PM	#30
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	I understand your point, Mike. I actually felt that way about the Apollo program. A great deal of it was the inept coverage of the events by the television networks. What's missing is detailed information about what the crew is doing. Neither NASA nor the networks has any talent for telling the public what they're planning or what's going on. Stuff from NASA PAO is all vague summaries and sales schmaltz promises and all we get from television news guys is weak attempts at injecting drama about how much it all costs. There's also way too much emphasis on NASA's programs being education for second graders. They're totally off the mark on that one. Second graders want heroes, for sure, but NASA programs are entertainment for highly intelligent adults; that's the audience they should target. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-20-2007, 09:11 PM	#31
Miros1 Goddess for Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NY State Posts: 3,303	Not to mention, second graders neither vote nor send letters to their Congresspeople!

08-21-2007, 04:00 AM	#32
mikedelaney16 Solar Max Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 201	Please note this post meanders a bit, it's something of a stream of disjointed thoughts. So you've heard me yelling at TV reporters trying to do space stories because the boss said so. It's amazing the stupid little mistakes they make, but then they're usually one of the juniors covering this space thing dropped in their lap with 60 minutes to air time and the possibility that it wont even go out as it's only B filler. A lot of space coverage, even in the Apollo era, was shoddy to say the least. We did have some decent people covering it over here in the British Isles, but they were long term resident science correspondents. They were actually chosen because they had a clue, James Burke (wikipedia link) comes instantly to mind. But then we had very high quality public service channels over here in those days. (Note the past tense). On the subject of detailed information, there are limits to how much detail the average layperson can tolerate. Lately the networks are enjoying the novelty effect of the back-flip shots, but those are wearing thin already. If they had chosen to repair the tiles, that would have been worth watching, but wouldn't have been televised except by NASA TV. The truss assembly EVAs were interesting to watch. Watching close-up shots of the damage inspection is meaningless to the average person, they haven't a clue what they're looking at. They need to make space sexy, and NASA is not the body to do that I'm afraid. They're also going to have to take a long hard look at some of their policies with regard to longterm missions such as trips to Mars. There is no way in hell you can ask people to live bottled up in a small space for years without some form of vice. Crew members will get up to stuff. That's going to be interesting.

08-21-2007, 11:03 AM	#33
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	Wot? Sorry Mike, space, not sexy? The stars the heavens, what the hell is that up there? It's fascinating to me, I can see both the Magellanic clouds, just beside the Southern Cross, with bare eyes, not even binoculars needed. The last shuttle mission, I stood out side and watched the shuttle chase the space station across the milky way. What a sight. Sorry mate, I suppose you have to have the bug or not. I'll watch any thing NASA put out. I'll watch what the networks put out on NASA. Family know this, for my 50th birthday they bought me a 30 inch telescope with a 4 inch mirror, it's beautiful, I can see the stars, man, I can see the stars. I'm still trying to track a certain early model Kodak Digital camera, because it has a CMOS sensor that sees into the near infrared. And as a bonus, the lens fits into the eye piece socket of my telescope. Then just hook her up via USB, to my laptop, I got me a portable astral lab. Hey, that's science isn't it. I can do science me. Might even get lucky one night and get a happy snap of the shuttle going over. More likely just a bunch of dots though. But, you have to try these things. No big hurry, I don't even have to travel to find a dark spot for star gazing. I live out of town, almost at the top of a hill, with nothing but farmland all round me for miles. It's perfect for someone who likes to just lay back and look up. Need to make space sexy? There is just so much to learn about up there. The photo's that Hubble sends back are absolutely stunning. What don't people find interesting? I think some of those gas clouds and nebulae are the most beautiful sights. There is no artist born can do that. But then I suppose some people think paying the gas bill is an adventure.

08-22-2007, 03:34 AM	#34
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	I think you've touched on it, Shorty. Television shows try to capture dramatic imagery of what's happening, but miss the whole story of why it's happening. The story of the International Space Station is about its mission; the facility is just a box to do it in. A great part of its mission is learning how to build a spacecraft that can be flown and maintained indefinitely because that is the only way we will ever move out into the cosmos. OK, so on the last flight, they fixed and moved an antenna. End or reporting. B'b'but... what was that antenna for? (It was an omnidirectional S-band antenna that keeps the ISS in communication with Earth even when they can't send data through the TDRSS. It's good for at least one channel of full video and lots of data traffic. What? You didn't know they relay tranffic through the TDRSS? Well, neither did the guy who decided not to run the story.) __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-22-2007, 03:40 AM	#35
mikedelaney16 Solar Max Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 201	Sorry Shorty, I wasn't clear about something. Real space travel/exploration as it's televised is not sexy. Greg, like me, the guy who didn't run the story probably doesn't know what TDRSS stands for. Now what I want to know is why they chose to install an omnidirectional antenna on a space station. Does the station rotate axially? Or was it a belt and suspenders choice? And why did it need to be repaired? (I can understand why it might need to be moved) Last edited by mikedelaney16 : 08-22-2007 at 03:48 AM.

08-22-2007, 03:52 AM	#36
Greg Da Guy Wut Owns Dis Joint Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 3,566	Tracking & Data Relay Satellite System. There are two huge Ku-band relay satellites in geostationary orbit that handle the high-rate data so they can get multiple channels of data, voice, and video. The space station mostly maintains an orientation where the main part tracks the surface of the Earth, so there is a definite "down," though the flight attitude changes. An omnidirectional antenna allows ground stations to communicate with it as it passes over. Ground station signals will be arriving at an angle that varies through an arc of 180 degrees as the station moves from horizon to horizon. Darn. Now that you mention it, though, the antenna they moved might be the one that sends S-band through geo satellites. I don't remember. The big Ku-band antenna is the primary path, but there are dropouts while the antenna slews from one satellite to another and also a dead zone where it can't see either of the geo satellites. ISS also has S-band and even UHF antennas as a belt-and-suspenders thing, and to assure continuous communication. When everything is in sight and working, those extra paths give them extra bandwidth. __________________ Who are all these people and what do they know?

08-22-2007, 11:17 AM	#37
shorty943 Banned Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 805	It's okay Mike, I tend to be a bit Dave Allen like, I'll go off like a rocket, but you should see the huge cheeky grin I'm wearing. The problem lies with the media mind set, sorry Mike, but there seems to be an attitude of "good news is no news". At least in the "less well regarded?" tabloids. I know I've learned more from Greg than I do at the NASA site. Or the media. Oh damn, Greg does that mean we have to shoot both of us? Good to see the landing on local news tonight, all home safe and sound. Good vision as well, I watched the heat shimmer on the belly as she rolled down to nose wheel touch. Man, she gets hot coming in. Local news this morning, the anchorman was chattering about how they come in from so far away and land on that tiny little runway. He is right, but. I almost emailed the network and said "Yeah, and they do it dead stick to buddy". but I didn't think they would understand she comes home as a glider. Oh yes, they are damned good flyers. All the eyes and ears is just an extension of maritime practice. Factor of safety of three. Triple redundancy, and a spare just in case. The simplified reason of course. Looking at that, it makes you wonder why I chose to race speedway sidecars. Take one powerful sport motorcycle, modify the hell out of the engine to get even more power, then remove all the brakes and go racing around a dirt oval track at over 100 MPH. Space travel is safe, compared to that lunacy.