作者：蒋迅 华盛顿特区 ( Washington, D.C. ) Source: WorldAtlas.com 早就知道美国首都 华盛顿特区 ( Washington, D.C. ) 大体上是一个等边菱形。它的面积很小，只有177平方公里 (北京市的面积是16410平方公里)。没有想到的是从太空中看华盛顿特区，竟然可以把它的边界看得如此清楚。 Source: Cities at Night: An Orbital Perspective 这张照片是美国宇航员 Donald Pettit 从国际空间站对地球拍摄的。看过这张照片之后，我想问一句：大家注意到这张照片怎么能如此清晰呢？想象一下：国际空间站正以每秒7公里的速度在340公里的高空中环绕地球运行。如果快门速度是千分之一秒，那么也有7米的位移。因此，即使是在白天拍摄也要把相对运动速度考虑进去。更何况夜间的暴光时间需要一两秒钟。答案是，Donald Pettit 安装了一个轨道跟踪系统 (orbital tracking system)。其实这个系统不是计划内的项目，而完全是他在空间站里突发奇想，利用休息时间和在空间站上备用零件和废弃零件自己组建的。下面是他正在拍摄地球时的一个镜头。 从本文的连接可以看到更多美丽的夜景， 包括北京和天津 。有人担心，NASA的卫星把大陆看的太仔细了。其实，真正的间谍卫星拍的照片应该比这个清晰的多，我们是看不到的。国际空间站和航天飞机上的宇航员没有必要费那个劲儿。请把北京天津的卫星照就当风景照欣赏吧。 Links: Russian cosmonaut Fyodor Yurchikhin, Expedition 24 flight engineer, works with High Definition Video (HDV) camera equipment in the Zvezda Service Module of the International Space Station City Lights of Beijing and Tianjin NASA网站公布的北京和天津地区夜景照片
Artist's impression of NASAs Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which is shifting from an exploration phase to more focused scientific research. Image Credit: NASA/GSFC http://www.space.com NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Gets New Moon Mission By SPACE.com Staff posted: 16 September 2010 NASA launched the $504 million LRO probe in June 2009 along with a piggyback probe that crashed into the shadows of a crater at the moon's south pole in October of that year in a hunt for water ice, which it found. The spacecraft is about the size of a Mini Cooper car and equipped with seven instruments to observe the moon. 图片为艺术想象效果， $504 million LRO probe 表明了LRO价格不菲，而起尺寸 不过接近于Mini Cooper car 。
作者：蒋迅 Source: NASA ASK 有一天在阅读NASA的一篇文章“ Ten Systems Engineering Lessons Learned ”(系统工程的十条经验) 时看到了下面的一段话： When you are in college and you copy someone else's work, it's called plagiarism, and it can get you kicked out of school. In the world of engineering, this is called good engineering practice, and it often results in awards and promotions. 在学校里，如果你抄了别人的作业，那叫剽窃，你可能会被开除。但是在工业界，那是一个受到鼓励的良好习惯，而这个良好习惯却被工程师们忽略了。每天，我们看到工程师们在重复别人已经做过的设计，或者写出别人早就写过得程序。他们为什么不查一查文献呢？为什么不请教一下有经验的老专家呢？你可以说别人技术保密。但至少从软件工程方面来说，我相信网上免费的程序和开源代码、开源软件足够软件工程师们日常使用了， Google Code 上有许多。如果软件工程师不能利用这些资源，那结果将是浪费时间和经费。 利用开源资源的另一个好处是，你可以比较容易地使人确信你的应用是建立在一个可信的基础上的，因为大型开源包往往是有许多人(包括名人)参与的，许多结果已经被验证过，或者有理论研究作后盾。而且这些开源包打都充满活力，新的功能不断出现，已有的错误不断被修正。这些因素都帮助软件工程师们节省了精力和时间。何乐而不为呢？ 我想说，这里我们鼓励的“抄袭”并不是学校里的“剽窃”，它们有本质的不同。学校里的“剽窃”是将别人的工作算作自己的工作，并声称是自己的工作。而我们要鼓励的“抄袭”则是在承认前人的工作的基础上进一步丰富了别人的工作。这一点体现在开源的协议上：你必须承认别人的工作并在转卖自己的应用时把自己的原程序开源。 这篇文章实际上是写给做系统工程的带头人的，而且十条经验都是非技术性的。它们是： 大多数问题都是非技术性的 要了解并定义你的团队 找好一个导师 不要重复发明 注意完成工作的是人而不是职位 打破障碍以便开诚布公地交谈 与做实际工作的人沟通 警惕“统一思想” 建立并保持主人翁意识和责任感 培养继承人
NASA的大气层照片显示大气的层次 蒋迅 老师《从航天器看地球大气层》 http://www.sciencenet.cn/m/user_content.aspx?id=354650 里第一张图片的大图，以及最后一张图。 下载 它们。 可是，从照片还可以清晰地看到大气层的不同层次是怎么看出来的？ 相关：Take a deep breath and then read this http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2010/06/16/take-a-deep-breath-and-then-read-this/ 以下图片无商业用途。 (1) Sunset from the ISS http://www.internet-d.com/?p=9581 Explanation: What are these strange color bands being seen from the International Space Station? The Sun setting through Earths atmosphere. Pictured above, a sunset captured last month by the ISSs Expedition 23 crew shows in vivid detail many layers of the Earths thin atmosphere. Part of the Earth experiencing night crosses the bottom of the image. Above that, appearing in deep orange and yellow, is the Earths troposphere, which contains 80 percent of the atmosphere by mass and almost all of the clouds in the sky. Above the troposphere, seen as a light blue band with white clouds, is the stratosphere, part of the Earths atmosphere where airplanes fly and some hardy bacteria float. Above the stratosphere, visible as a darker blue bands, are higher and thinner atmospheric levels that gradually fade away into the cold dark vacuum of outer space. Sunset is not an uncommon sight for occupants of the International Space Station, because it can be seen as many as 16 times a day. (2) Infographic: Earth's Atmosphere Top to Bottom (infographic by Telescopes for Beginners) http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/earth-atmosphere-layers-atmospheric-pressure-infographic-0326/
Who should read this Blog? Any first-time PI, who intends to write a proposal to NASA for funding. Or anyone who is interested in knowing how a U.S. funding agent decides on which proposals to fund or not. Background for posting these old notes: A friend of mine is serving on a review panel to decide the fate of 350 proposals. This reminded me of my past experience as a panel member, which I shared (reluctantly) with some of my colleagues. If you dont know some of the abbreviations in my notes below, you may assume its a government agent (such as NASA, NOAA, NSF), or a program (such as ESE/NRA), or an institute/center (such as JPL, APDRC), or an ocean model (OGCM), or a data product (such as ECCO). Dear colleagues, Toni (not her real name) encouraged me to forward my notes to you, the notes I took during and after I severed on a NASA panel to review proposals. I am reluctant, because I don't like to put things in writing. However, I trust her good intention, so here it is, with some additions in bold-faced fonts. Regards, Zuojun 1) For this panel, there were 128 proposals. No mail reviews conducted. 2) Each of the 20 some panel members received a FedEx package a month before the panel meeting. 3) There were about three weeks of time for reviewers to read the assigned proposals, to write the reviews, and to submit them electronically. The web site was closed for review submission one week before the panel met in D.C. In theory, each reviewer should have enough time to finish the assignment, working on one proposal per day (meaning reading a proposal and writing the review). In practice, I read on average two proposals per day, some read 4-5 proposals per day just before the deadline for web submission, and some never submitted much writing before the deadline. My point here is that the proposal has to be very well written to convince the reviewers of its value. 4) When the panel finally met, each proposal was given about 15 minutes of time for the primary reviewer to have the opening remark, followed by the two secondary reviewers, questions and comments were then welcomed by the panel members before their votes were counted. The reviewers were allowed to change their original scores for many reasons... (The most important one was triggered by the exercise the program manager did at the beginning of the panel meeting: He started the meeting with Group 0 proposals, about five of them all together. When Group 0 was finished, we realized that they were post child for Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair proposal ratings. Following that exercise, some of the reviewers adjusted their scores during the rest of the week.) 5) The panel's votes were calculated into one score, which was entered as 1/4 of the final score. So, a dynamics primary reviewer in favor of the proposal was critical, so were the opinions of the secondary reviewers, because the rest of the panel did not read the proposal in discussion. Each panel member was given the whole collection of the 128 abstracts before the meeting, and one may request a copy of a proposal of particular interest to him. There was a copy available for the panel at the time of discussion as well. 6) The role of the program manager: He read all the 128 proposals and made notes of his opinions. He also spoke of his views whenever he wanted to, and sometimes quite authoritatively . 7) Final show: three blocks for each subject, core physical oceanography, air-sea fluxes, new instrument development, etc. The program manager went over each block, citing his reasons for the placement (ranking of proposals) and asking for advice. My notes/hints taken during the panel meeting: 1) Write well; including logically organizing the proposal, giving detailed work plan (year by year ), and using larger fonts and italicized or bold-faced fonts to highlight the hypothesis, etc. (Toni asked:How about the English? Yes, good English is very important. This remark is not directed to non-native speakers, because I read some poorly written proposals by English-speaking colleagues.This was before I became a freelance English editor.) 2) Emphasize the proposal's relevance to ESE/NRA, especially what the PI can give back to NASA! 3) Know the past literature well, including citing seminal papers in the field as (30-year-) old as they may be; 4) Attach unpublished manuscript and pubs in press (so the reviewers can't complain, even if they don't have time to read any). Also, some reviewers were critical about PIs' past experience (in terms of pubs in the proposed field), they might give a low score to a proposal simply because the PI never before did any work on the subject (say biology, or numerical modeling); 5) Don't propose new field research, use existing fund instead to get at least one pub out first); 6) Don't assume the reviewers are from the same field (unlike NSF's mail review process); e.g., some satellite people reviewed a numerical modeling proposal, and gave a low score because he didn't know what penetrative shortwave radiation meant in an OGCM, and didn't see an equation for it nor any explanation for how to implement the term; the last two points were valid criticisms though; 7) Validation, validation, validation; some numerical modeling proposals without validation component by field observations can be rated down; 8) Follow the budget rules (1/4 million dollars/year for this NRA); 9) Disclose related funding (especially those from NASA for similar type of work); 10) If collaborating with NOAA personnel, one should be extremely cautious about the relevance with NASA (why should NASA fund this proposal, not NOAA?) and ask for NO money for buying NOAA computing facility). My other thoughts/observations: 1) The primary reviewer is very important, but the secondary reviewers with strong-opinions are also critical because each casts 1/4 of the overall score; 2) Consensus form: Wording was required to match the overall score, the only score that the PI will see, especially for those at 3 or lower; more weaknesses were asked for proposals on the bubble in case they are turned down at the end due to limited funds available; 3) Two okay proposals may help to bring one UP for funding? 4) ECCO is considered NASA product/investment, so someone should validate/use it. Right now, ECCO is mostly used by ECCO people at JPL; so you should write a proposal using ECCO; 5) If one might lose his job when this proposal doesn't get funded, the manager might want to save his career. My advice for NOAA researchers: One should look at the statistics: How many NOAA (related) people actually get funded by NASA (before spending any time on writing NASA proposals).
作者：蒋迅 Jerry Woodfill (左) 和阿波罗13号宇航员Fred Haise 写完“ 现象丛生的阿波罗13号 ”一文后，我感觉余言未尽，我觉得应该说一说介绍阿波罗13号获救有13个不可或缺的条件的NASA工程师Jerry Woodfill。 Jerry Woodfill 原来是Rice大学篮球队的队员，他就是靠这一项篮球奖学金上的这所大学。所以可以说他就是一个靠体育上大学的特招生。但是他的篮球技能并不出色，也就是一个板凳队员。用他自己的话说，他保持着Rice大学投篮命中率最低的一位。Jerry Woodfill 上的是电子系，他的学习也不是太好。在这种情况下，任何人都会为自己的前途担心了。Jerry Woodfill 也不例外。 就是在这个关键时刻，美国总统肯尼迪到Rice大学给了他的著名演讲“ We Choose to go to the Moon ”。“我们决定在这个十年间登月，…，不是因为它们简单，而是因为它们困难，…。”我不知道为什么肯尼迪选择了在Rice大学做那次演讲，而不是在近在近在咫尺的NASA控制中心。肯尼迪一定不知道在下面的听众席上有一位正在为自己的前途担忧的Rice大学篮球队的板凳队员Jerry Woodfill。他深深地被肯尼迪的演讲打动了。于是他决定从此高挂战靴，努力学习，希望自己能亲自加入这个令人振奋的登月计划中。 终于，他成功了。他在Rice大学电子系获得了两个学士学位。在他毕业的时候，他进入位于休斯顿的NASA宇航控制中心。在阿波罗计划中他被分配开发宇航员的预警系统。尼尔·阿姆斯特朗登月用了这个系统，阿波罗13号上更是他的这个系统通知了宇航员。他参与了解救三位宇航员的行动，并最终得到了总统的奖励 (Presidential Medal of Freedom)。 如果我能开句玩笑的话，我想说，阿波罗13号获救有第14个不可或缺的条件，那就是：肯尼迪总统选择了在Rice大学做他的那次著名演讲，而在听众中正好有一位为前途而迷惑的大学生Jerry Woodfill。 这是笔者【NASA人的故事】系列中的一篇。请到 这里 继续阅读
Astronauts Train in Florida for Atlantis Liftoff Sept. 23, 2008 The seven STS-125 astronauts continue their last prelauch training at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida today. After meeting with members of the news media this morning, the crew will practice emergency egress at the launch pad, with briefings scheduled for the afternoon. During their first day of activities, the crew members practiced driving the M-113 armored personnel carrier as part of their training on emergency egress procedures. On launch day, an M-113 will be available to transport the crew to safety in the event of a contingency on the pad before liftoff. Monday evening, Commander Scott Altman and Pilot Gregory Johnson flew simulated landings in the Shuttle Training Aircraft. Image above: STS-125 Mission Specialist Megan McArthur successfully practiced driving the M-113 armored personnel carrier. Other crew members behind her are Mission Specialist John Grunsfeld, Mike Massimino, Michael Good, Gregory C. Johnson, Andrew Feustel and Commander Scott Altman. Image credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett View larger image While the astronauts activities are centered at Launch Pad 39A, space shuttle Endeavour is nearby at Launch Pad 39B where it be on standby in the unlikely event that a rescue mission for the Atlantis's crew would be necessary. After Endeavour is cleared from its duty as a rescue vehicle, workers will move it to pad 39A in preparation for liftoff on mission STS-126 to the International Space Station in November.
标签: nasa
