🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <105898@bu.edu> steelie@csa.bu.edu (James Howard) writes:
>
> Ok, so the title is a bit misleading.  But it doesnt seem far from
>the truth, according to what you read in the press.   To my eyes,
>there is absolutely NO WAY to get 70% of the original mission data
>through the backup antenna.    What was the data rate 4 or 5 months
>ago.. 40bps?    

I believe that's 70 % of the mission objectives, not 70 % of the
original mission data.  They've cut imaging science studies down
because of the great deal of bandwidth images requires.  I'm not
sure what the data rate is currently.  Check out the old updates
archived at ames.arc.nasa.gov.

> 
>I dont care how much they throw around terms like "compression" , it
>doesnt fool me.   Anyone who has ever used a computer knows that 
>a 300bps modem is barely in the same species as a 19.2k.  (for analogy's sake)

True, but I still got a lot of work done with an old 300bps modem
and dumb terminal wake back when.

> 
>When will NASA come out and admit that it's busted, and the original mission
>is practically dead?

I've never heard anyone from NASA claim that the probe was anything
but broke.  Although the mission is trimmed down, it's far from dead.
I'm still hopeful that the hammering will work.
>
>  James
>
>P.S.  I think NASA has great press control.. If I hadn't been reading
>this group I would never have know anything substantial was wrong with
>Galileo.

Hmm, I haven't seen that many press reports about Galileo at all.
The only ones I explicitly remember were on CNN and they definitely
mentioned it.  They even included a graphic of what the antenna
probably looks like.
--
Ed McCreary                                               ,__o
mccreary@sword.eng.hou.compaq.com                       _-\_<,
"If it were not for laughter, there would be no Tao."  (*)/'(*)