Look here: http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/QuickLooks/gravpbQL.html
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/gp-b.htm Something of interest from Wikipedia. Wikipedia defines the 400 miles as being nautical, thus the metric altitude would be 741 km, not 650 km. Which means due to the ambiguity of the term miles, the media and others are falsely assuming miles stated are statute and not nautical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/spinoffs/detector.html Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Gravity+Probe+B%22+km What is interesting from the google search is that 400 miles sometimes appears as 640 km and other times 650 km. I'm just wondering how exact the orbit will be. How much variation is tolerated? Is 400 miles (either statute or nautical) just a rounded number given to the media or will it be solidly adhered to? Euric ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, 2004-04-16 19:57 Subject: [USMA:29545] NASA is at it again > Dear All, > > Over the last few days, I have been hearing excitedly breathless reports > about the 'Gravity Probe B' space mission. Sadly, all of the data I heard on > radio was in old inch-foot-pound measures. > > For example: > . the craft is to fly at 400 miles high > . the gyroscope sphere was to be an almost perfect 1.5 inches diameter > (when it wasn't 'about the size of a golf ball) > . if the gyroscope was expanded to the size of the Earth its biggest bulge > would be 8 feet > . the Dewar flask to contain the science module is 9 feet tall > . the Dewar flask holds 645 gallons of superfluid liquid helium > > I suspected that the radio stations were simply reporting directly from a > NASA site, and sure enough, I found it at: > > <http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/f_gpb-parts.html> > > It amused me somewhat to see this line: > > 'If Albert Einstein were alive today he'd be relaxing in his easy chair, > pipe in hand, very calmly awaiting the results of this historic mission and > probably marvelling at the technology it takes to probe his 89 year-old > theory'. > > Perhaps, what they meant to say was: > > 'If Albert Einstein were alive today he'd be "frantically worrying " while > . . . awaiting the results "(he couldn't possibly know who was doing what > conversions, from what old measures, with what conversion factors, and with > what errors)" of this historic mission and probably marvelling at the > technology "(at least wondering how NASA could possibly produce such > advanced technology when they are clearly dedicated to the encouragement of > seriously old and proven difficult-to-use measures)" it takes to probe his > 89 year-old theory'. > > Let us hope that the remaining components of this mission aren't equally > suffering from the same mish-mash of old and new measuring units that led to > the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter. > > I can only hope for the best for this extremely important mission, as quiet > confidence in sound technology, well-applied, is clearly out of order given > the above context. > > Cheers, > > Pat Naughtin > Geelong, Australia > -- > >
