Re: NASA orbit simulation software

kevin willoughby <kevinwilloughby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery <flanner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the various centers have workforces that know their particular
software very well indeed.
But like I said, this means that there is a real problem with exchanging
data between the centers as the people at the other center aren't going
to know how the data was arrived at if it was derived from software that
they are unfamiliar with.

Orbital parameters have a fixed format - how they were arrived at is
irrelevant.

References, please?

Ever set of orbital parameters I've ever seen is in the same format.

My own experiences in various software systems suggest that while there
may be an abstract "fixed format", a dozen different programs will have
at least ten different formats.

But mathematical equations are much more well defined that computer
algorithms.

An on-topic example, what's the best launch configuration? Single Stage
to Orbit has lots of advantages -- it's just not easy to build. Multiple
stages? History now demonstrate that works, but there are complications
like staging. Parallel launch? The Sputnik launchers demonstrate this
works, but as payloads increase this gets complex. Hybrid parallel like
the Space Shuttle -- that works most of the time, but we have to
acknowledge the final flights of Challenger and Columbia. Serial stages
(e.g., Saturn V) work, but with much complexity for "staging".

So what? There isn't a dozen different kinds of orbits with this one
doing a loop-de-loop and that one doing a corkscrew.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

.