[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Another new? idea
- To: bmansur <bmansur@oc.edu>, David <David@InterWorld.com>, hous0042 <hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu>, jim <jim@bogie2.bio.purdue.edu>, KellySt <KellySt@aol.com>, lparker <lparker@destin.gulfnet.com>, rddesign <rddesign@wolfenet.com>, stevev <stevev@efn.org>, "T.L.G.vanderLinden" <T.L.G.vanderLinden@student.utwente.nl>, zkulpa <zkulpa@zmit1.ippt.gov.pl>
- Subject: RE: Another new? idea
- From: Brian Mansur <bmansur@oc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 06 Mar 96 15:27:00 PST
- Encoding: 19 TEXT
Brian 3:30 PM CT 3/6/96
>Brian
>We will probably need course corrections to make 100% certain that the
>retro-reflector stays in the beam. So we'll probably end up having to put
a
>load of thrusters on anyway. Bumber!
>Tim
>If the computers of the array detect that the array is moving out of the
>beam, they could use some large reflective "flaps" to correct the course.
Of
>course also a few masers could be used to do that.
Brian
Flaps? Hmmmm, I wonder how we could rig those without adding too much
support structure. Definitely worth considering. Might be easier than
tilting the whole mirror.