IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

GAO: The DSN is actually falling apart
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post May 24 2006, 11:55 PM
Post #1





Guests






http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-06-445
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
djellison
post May 26 2006, 08:14 PM
Post #2


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14448
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Truth be told, I could go even further and say that the generosity with which DSN facilities have been made available to ESA could justify in some way a contribution from those nations...of course it's very give and take with things like this - you scratch our back..we'll scratch yours etc.

One thing that I've thought of...there was a detailed breakdown of estimated DSN costs for missions in the recent as a function of number of contacts per week, length of contacts, and facility size required etc in available in the library of the current Discovery AO
http://discovery.larc.nasa.gov/PDF_FILES/N...S-Update061.pdf

I'm not sure how the funding for a facility like this works - but I presume it's income is both from funding on a mission by mission basis as outlined in that doc, and also general DSN funding from NASA that's for maintainance and upgrades as opposed to normal running costs.

Perhaps one or the other needs a bit of a hike.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post May 26 2006, 08:36 PM
Post #3





Guests






QUOTE (djellison @ May 26 2006, 08:14 PM) *
Truth be told, I could go even further and say that the generosity with which DSN facilities have been made available to ESA could justify in some way a contribution from those nations...of course it's very give and take with things like this - you scratch our back..we'll scratch yours etc.

...

Doug


Added later (previous reply by Doug added during editing my own)

Of course, Doug, whatever the ownership and leadership of the DSN, users will have to contribute in a way or another. There is no reason (save pure generosity) that the US pay for others. This contribution can take the form of a rent, or new facilities added. But if other countries contribute with new facilities, they will sooner or later claim some leadership. And there are only two solutions:
-an international organism managed by contributor countries
-a UN organism.
That makes little difference though, except that some politicians in the US don't like the UN.

QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ May 26 2006, 08:28 PM) *
I also wouldn't be surprised if at some point after that happened that "Europe, or others" would, say, issue ESA-like press releases claiming they built the first deep space network.


I don't know to what you allude to, but I agree it would not be honest. US clearly has at least forty years in advance. Only the Russians could say they have some kind of DSN, but it was made only of ships able to receive only communications from low orbit, and some large antennas on their territory, not a network all around the world able to receive signals from mars or beyond.



This discution is becoming quick and interesting, but I don't have a DSN for me and here in France it is time to shut down my station. Bye, to the next communication window.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_DonPMitchell_*
post May 27 2006, 02:21 AM
Post #4





Guests






QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 26 2006, 01:36 PM) *
Only the Russians could say they have some kind of DSN, but it was made only of ships able to receive only communications from low orbit, and some large antennas on their territory, not a network all around the world able to receive signals from mars or beyond.


Russia has had a serious DSN since 1960, with a higher interplanetary bandwidth than the US, before the construction of the 64-meter Mars antenna at Goldstone. The Western center was in the Crimea, and the Eastern center was in Ussuriysk, and a couple big radio telescopes that also seconded at telemetry receivers near Moscow.

The Pluton system was the first component, built in 1960 near Yevpatoria. It consisted of three antennas, each of which was an array of 8 dishes on a common mount. It transmitted and received PCM coded data on decimeter and centimeter bands, and it could receive orthogonal coded (PPM) signals on a centimeter band. They also built a 32-meter dish just prior to that in Simferopol', to be used for lunar missions.

[attachment=5886:attachment] [attachment=5890:attachment]
(Pluton receiver site and transmitter site)

In the mid 1960s, a new system was constructed called Saturn, designed for the manned Moon program, but also purposed for interplanetary communication. It consisted of a great number of 25- and 32-meter antennas at a number of sites throughout the Soviet Union. The two 25-meter antennas seen in the upper right above are part of that system. Pluton was also upgraded, and began to use biorthogonal coding. They could send telemetry reliably at 400 bits/sec by then, and images at up to 6144 bits/sec.

[attachment=5891:attachment] [attachment=5892:attachment]
(70-meter installation, 64-meter antenna at Bear Lake)

In the early 1970s, a 70-meter antenna was built in the Crimea, and a second built in the Eastern center in Siberia. At the time, they were the largest steerable parabolic antennas in the world (Goldstone later upgraded its 64-meter DSN to 70 meters, with extensions to the dishes). This system, called Kvant ("quantum"), was used for Venera-13 and later missions. It's still in use today, and has been upgraded to be essentially identical to the American system. The two Russian 70-meter dishes, and the three American ones have been used together a few times, like during the Vega mission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Richard Trigaux_*
post May 27 2006, 07:30 AM
Post #5





Guests






Thanks DonPMitchell to bring more exact info than I did.

So we have larges dishes available in Russia for PRACTICAL use (and they were already used).

What interesses me is to have practically available facilities, to be used in missions.

A common technical control would be fine.

After, what politicians say, it is MY antenna, I don't care, so long as THEIR antenna is actually used to receive OUR data when this data is coming.

Of course we are still today with most of the US DSN used for US missions, and russian antennas used for russian missions, it is quite normal. There are still now few users. But things will change, and it will require sooner or later a better technical direction, together with a common economical/political management in a form or another.

By the way, ESA used the DSN, but MERs used the european Mars satellite as a relay. Accounting such feats in terms of political revenges or involving the Irak problem is definitively petty. Accounting in bucks may be unavoidable. Saying it is INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION would be clever.

Sorry Doug and some others, nobody was never able to explain me for what purpose boundaries were created. As far as I know, it is an old custom dating back to the chimpazees, who have a sharp notion of clan territory. But today we are clever and nice guies comitted to build a pleasant world for us all. This will not remove boundaries right now, but the way of evolution is toward more and more international cooperations, international bodies, international authorities, etc. Even the US who don't like the UN, created the WTO, world bank, and others. Especially about space, it will lead to more and more international cooperations and international projects, India using european rockets and the DSN, etc. Even the ISS problems will not reverse this tendency, I think, it will just make people more cautious.

Anyway going more international will be necessary, from down to earth reasons (bucks) to more philosophical reasons (sending a spaceship to stars, in the name of who?)

Back to DSN, a country like France still own Guyana and many islands in south Pacific and south Indian ocea, which are desert or politicaly stable. They could provide many places for antennas at longitudes where there are not many stable countries. Emerging countries like India or Brazil could be interested too.

Perhaps the furure legal ownership of the DSN will be some kind of formal shares society, where everyone will bring something (US first, of course) in exchange of a guarantee on availability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post May 27 2006, 07:39 AM
Post #6


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14448
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 27 2006, 08:30 AM) *
But things will change, and it will require sooner or later a better technical direction, together with a common economical/political management in a form or another.
...
By the way, ESA used the DSN, but MERs used the european Mars satellite as a relay.



On the first point - I don't see any change. Those 'doing space' are developing the resources to talk their assets. The DSN needs more cash for maintainance and upgrading, but it doesnt require external management. To be honest, demanding an external body manages the DSN is a bit like a kid trying to steal someone elses sweets.

And MER used Mars Express as little more than a tech-demo to check compatability and functionality of the UHF payload on MEX - as a percentage of data returned, MEX would be considerably less than a percentage point.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- BruceMoomaw   GAO: The DSN is actually falling apart   May 24 2006, 11:55 PM
- - Analyst   No Reply yet, although without the DSN no planetar...   May 26 2006, 09:14 AM
|- - Richard Trigaux   Things will not spontaneously become better. DSN ...   May 26 2006, 10:44 AM
|- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 26 2006, 06...   May 26 2006, 11:44 AM
||- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ May 26 2006, 11...   May 26 2006, 02:28 PM
||- - djellison   QUOTE (Jim from NSF.com @ May 26 2006, 12...   May 26 2006, 03:28 PM
||- - Jim from NSF.com   QUOTE (djellison @ May 26 2006, 11:28 AM)...   May 26 2006, 07:01 PM
|- - Chmee   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 26 2006, 06...   May 26 2006, 07:42 PM
- - Analyst   (Upfront and/or operating) costs? Size (70m) and p...   May 26 2006, 12:21 PM
|- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (Analyst @ May 26 2006, 12:21 PM) A...   May 26 2006, 02:45 PM
- - RNeuhaus   What would be the solution? More 70 meters antenna...   May 26 2006, 04:03 PM
- - Richard Trigaux   A suggest RNeuhaus, there exist new antenna techno...   May 26 2006, 05:46 PM
- - djellison   Were there any problems w.r.t. politicis, one coul...   May 26 2006, 06:22 PM
- - elakdawalla   There was a lengthy presentation by Bob Preston fr...   May 26 2006, 06:46 PM
|- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (elakdawalla @ May 26 2006, 06:46 P...   May 26 2006, 07:12 PM
||- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 26 2006, 08...   May 26 2006, 11:01 PM
|- - RNeuhaus   QUOTE (elakdawalla @ May 26 2006, 01:46 P...   May 26 2006, 07:29 PM
- - djellison   There is already international involvement to some...   May 26 2006, 07:44 PM
|- - AlexBlackwell   QUOTE (djellison @ May 26 2006, 07:44 PM)...   May 26 2006, 07:48 PM
||- - Bob Shaw   QUOTE (AlexBlackwell @ May 26 2006, 08:48...   May 26 2006, 10:48 PM
|- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (djellison @ May 26 2006, 07:44 PM)...   May 26 2006, 08:23 PM
|- - AlexBlackwell   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 26 2006, 08...   May 26 2006, 08:28 PM
- - djellison   Truth be told, I could go even further and say tha...   May 26 2006, 08:14 PM
|- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (djellison @ May 26 2006, 08:14 PM)...   May 26 2006, 08:36 PM
|- - DonPMitchell   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 26 2006, 01...   May 27 2006, 02:21 AM
|- - Richard Trigaux   Thanks DonPMitchell to bring more exact info than ...   May 27 2006, 07:30 AM
|- - djellison   QUOTE (Richard Trigaux @ May 27 2006, 08...   May 27 2006, 07:39 AM
|- - garybeau   Regardless of how much money is spent upgrading th...   May 27 2006, 01:26 PM
- - djellison   ESA is slowly getting there with a DSN of it's...   May 27 2006, 07:05 AM
- - DonPMitchell   Space programs have a long history of "Not In...   May 27 2006, 03:57 PM
|- - helvick   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ May 27 2006, 04:57 ...   May 27 2006, 05:04 PM
||- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (helvick @ May 27 2006, 05:04 PM) N...   May 29 2006, 01:14 PM
|- - Richard Trigaux   QUOTE (DonPMitchell @ May 27 2006, 03:57 ...   May 29 2006, 12:58 PM
- - DonPMitchell   I agree, Kourou is strategically important, it wou...   May 27 2006, 05:31 PM


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:53 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.