Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V11_1/V11_195.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 19KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8a4P8E200VcJM4BE4s>;
          Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:58:25 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <8a4P7nW00VcJM4=[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:57:56 -0500 (EST)
Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #195

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 11 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
             Astronaut selection, and HST
          Re: Will we lose another orbiter?
           Payload Summary for 03/26/90 (Forwarded)
     Hubble Space Telescope Update (Forwarded) - 03/28/90
              Galileo Update - 03/28/90
              Intelsat Recovery (3 of 3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 09:52:04 GMT
From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!sq![e-mail]  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Astronaut selection, and HST

Two topics of recent discussion in these groups are topics of articles
in the new (April/May) issue of "Air & Space / Smithsonian" magazine.

One article is about how NASA selects astronauts from the large
numbers of people who apply, and in particular, from the 106
of those people that they actually interviewed a few months ago.
(They're planning to repeat this process every 2 years.)

The other is about the various tasks planned for the Hubble Space
Telescope when it finally gets into orbit, and includes a picture
of longtime sci.astro-nomer Bill Jefferys.  (His group is to use it to
examine various nearby stars for a period of years so as to tell,
from their motions, whether they have planets.)

--
Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, [e-mail]

"[Jupiter's] satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can
 have no influence on the Earth and therefore would be useless and
 therefore do not exist."    -- Francesco Sizi, quoted by T. Cox

This article is in the public domain.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 09:42:06 GMT
From: mcsun!ukc!axion![e-mail]  (swaraj jeyasingh)
Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter?

From article <[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (Lou Adornato):
> In message [e-mail] [e-mail] (Andrew ROSENBERG) write:
>>I don't know about the rest of you, by when Challenger bit the dust (or
>>water), it profoundly affected me. The STS program was the epitome of
>>American technology, the culmination of years of work of the best minds
>>in America. Then one day, POOF. It made me doubt all technology. For months
>>I went around, wondering how skyscrapers didn't fall, why cars didn't slide
>>off of roads, how planes get off the ground, ballpoint pens.
>

> One of the root causes of the Challenger accident, was public pressure
> to launch on schedule.  This was caused by the public's inability to understand just
> how complex and demanding launching an experimental aircraft can be.  Once people
> stop taking technology for granted, they start learning.  Maybe in the long run Challenger
> will have made us stronger by making us see the danger in having 90% of our population
> (and 100% of our policy makers) technologically illiterate.
>
Well, i dont know about the general public but I must admit I felt as Andrew
did back in 86. Admittedly, being across the pond one hears (and thus
believes) more media hype about how wonderful the reusable space truck was than
accurate engineering type news. Neither did I have access to the net then.
But it is easier to be wise after the event. How many of us, supposedly more
informed types (relatively), were also carried along by the public optimism and
thus taken aback by the tragedy. In any case, perhaps the public's faith was
not entirely misplaced, as NASA did have a good saftey record till then.
Moreover public scepticsm is even worse than naivety as evidenced by the
furore over the use of RTGs in Galileo etc. A little knowledge.....

[stuff deleted]

>>                   What should be done? We should continue launching
>>and hope for the best, but take every chance to improve design and safety,
>>and be prepared for the occasional big loss.
>
> That's precisely what is being done.  But there are limits, and there always will be.
> When the big loss comes, we pick up the pieces, mourn our dead, and get on with it.
> There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

My feelings exactly.

However, I do wonder if it is possible if the basic shuttle design is so
fundamentally flawed (as some people have said) that it always going to be
a worry and always going to require an army of engineers to keep it flying.
Personally I don't think so but I wonder if anyone else has any such misgivings.
I *hope* that as flights build up, reliability will improve and a "reusable
space truck service" will yet emerge; albeit with the odd hiccup.


Swaraj Jeyasingh                        [e-mail]
British Telecom Research Labs
Ipswich
UK.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 09:18:32 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Payload Summary for 03/26/90 (Forwarded)


                                PAYLOAD STATUS REPORT
                                MONDAY, MAR. 26, 1990


          Patricia E. Phillips
          NASA Public Affairs,
          Kennedy Space Center

          ASTRO-1/STS-35

               The ASTRO-1 payload  was  installed  in  the  Space  Shuttle
          Columbia's  payload  bay Tuesday,  Mar.20.   ASTRO-1 is the first
          primary horizontal payload to be flown since Mission 61-A  in Oc-
          tober, l985.

               A full schedule of testing and verification work lies ahead.
          The Crew  Equipment  Integration  Test  (CEIT),  the  orbiter  to
          payload  interface  verification  test (IVT),  and the end-to-end
          test -- which tests communications between firing room,  orbiter,
          payload,  satellite relays,  and all participating NASA centers--
          are all scheduled to be completed by the middle of this week.

               Pre-flight processing for ASTRO-1  will  include  regularly-
          scheduled BBXRT servicing,  including one today,  as well as con-
          tinued contamination control and temperature monitoring.

               Astronaut Jeff Hoffman,  a  Mission  Specialist  on  STS-35,
          performed  a  special fit check Friday on the Ultraviolet Imaging
          Telescope (UIT),   prior to CEIT.  Wearing an extravehicular  ac-
          tivity (EVA) glove and a full helmet, Hoffman verified that there
          is  room for his hand to easily slide into position to manipulate
          film during a spacewalk, should one be required.

               The entire flight crew participated in  the  CEIT  over  the
          weekend.  Joining  Hoffman were Commander Vance Brand,  Pilot Guy
          Gardner,  Mission  Specialists  John  "Mike"  Lounge  and  Robert
          Parker,  and  Payload  Specialists  Ronald Parise and Samuel Dur-
          rance.  They worked in the cockpit,  crew cabin,  and  on  stands
          around the payload bay.

               Columbia,  with ASTRO-1 aboard, is currently scheduled to be
          moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) for mating with  the
          external tank/solid rocket booster stack no earlier than April 8.
          Rollout  to Launch Pad 39A is targeted for April 16,  with launch
          on May 9.


          SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES (SLS-1)/STS-40

               Powered-on Spacelab subsystems testing have  been  completed
          in  preparation  for mating the Spacelab module with the rack and
          floor assembly.

               The entire STS-40 crew came to KSC recently for the  two-day
          Mission  Sequence  Test.  Commander  Bryan  O'Connor;  Pilot  Sid
          Gutierrez;  Mission Specialists Tamara Jernigan,  Rhea Seddon and
          James  Bagian;  and  Payload  Specialists Drew Gaffney and Millie
          Hughes-Fulford donned clean room garb and checked out the  status
          of  Spacelab  equipment  that is currently undergoing integration
          and testing in the Operations and Checkout (O&C) Building.

               Based  on  anomalies  discovered  during  testing,  a  low-G
          centrifuge will be removed and replaced. No impact is seen to the
          schedule of continued SLS build-up, integration, and testing.

               Three    upgraded    computers   with   advanced   microcode
          capabilities have been installed,  replacing older  units.  Func-
          tional testing of the General Purpose Workstation (GPWS) has been
          completed.  This week, the team will move the experiment rack and
          floor  assembly to a test stand for module mating and integration
          activities.

               All of the racks have been assembled.  This required the as-
          sembly of 10 racks,  plus integration of the two other racks that
          are maintained in the Spacelab module in an assembled condition.

               SLS-1,  scheduled for August aboard Columbia,  will  be  the
          first  Space Shuttle mission dedicated to life sciences research.
          Spacelab will convert Columbia's payload bay  into  a  biological
          research laboratory.  The research agenda includes investigations
          in these areas: cardiovascular/pulmonary, renal/endocrine,  blood
          system,   immune  system,  musculoskeletal,  and  neurovestibular
          topics.


          INTERNATIONAL MICROGRAVITY LABORATORY (IML)/STS-42

               Rack buildup and integration continues in the Operations and
          Checkout    (O&C)    building.     The    Radiation    Monitoring
          Container/Dosimeter  Experiment  has  been turned over to KSC for
          processing work.  Final plans are in process for turnover of  the
          The Gravitational Plant Physiology Facility (GPPF).


               IML  is  scheduled  to fly aboard Columbia in December.  The
          seven-member  crew  includes:  Commander    Ronald  Grabe;  Pilot
          Stephen S. Oswald; Missions Specialists Manley "Sonny" Carter,
          Norman Thagard,  and William Readdy;  and Payload Specialists Ulf
          Merbold and Roberta Bondar.

               Also a Spacelab long module flight, IML-1 will study the ef-
          fects of microgravity, with an emphasis on material processes and
          living organisms.  Five international space science research  or-
          ganizations  are  working  with  NASA  on IML: the European Space
          Agency (ESA),  the Canadian Space Agency (CSA),  the  French  Na-
          tional Center for Space Studies (CNES),  the West German Research
          and Development Institute for Air and Spacecraft (DLR),  and  the
          National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA).


                                        #####

          NOTE  TO  EDITORS/NEWS  DIRECTORS:  Videos  of  STS-35 and STS-40
          processing activities are available as follows:  STS-35/Astronaut
          Jeff  Hoffman performing UIT checks;  STS-40/Entire crew checking
          out module.  To obtain these videos,  contact the KSC News Center
          Audio-Video  department  at  407-867-7819.  Still  photography on
          several processing activities will be available later this week.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 18:04:59 GMT
From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update (Forwarded) - 03/28/90


               Hubble Space Telescope Update
                     March 28, 1990

HST UPDATE:  NASA's Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was transferred
to Pad 39-B at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida on Sunday.
Preparations are underway to install HST in Discovery's payload bay
today.  After the mechanical and electrical connections have been
made, an interface verification test will commence.  On Friday,
engine technicians replaced a teflon coated seal at the joint
between the engine 2 low pressure fuel turbo pump and the orbiter
main propulsion system.  No leakage was detected  after the seal
was replaced.   A leak was detected at this joint during the helium
signature test last week. A partial helium signature leak test will
be rerun on the liquid hydrogen system early tomorrow.  An engine
flight readiness test is planned this week.  HST is scheduled for
launch on April 12.

 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 21:52:39 GMT
From: snorkelwacker!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update - 03/28/90



                   GALILEO MISSION STATUS
                       March 28, 1990

          Today the Galileo spacecraft is 74 million miles
from Earth, 72 million miles from the Sun.  Its speed along
its orbit is 83,436 mph, and the spacecraft has now rolled up
285 million miles since launch.

          The second post-Venus sequence is now controlling
spacecraft activities, and will continue to do so through
April 23.  The sequence was sent to the spacecraft last Thursday
and became active this Monday.  This sequence includes, in
addition to routine tasks like sun-pointing and cruise-
science data transmission, scheduled time for the first of
several trajectory-correction maneuvers planned for the
Venus-Earth cruise.  These maneuvers will shape the Galileo
flight path for the planned Earth gravity-assist flyby
scheduled for December 8 this year.

          The spacecraft health is excellent.  The telemetry
data rate was raised this morning from 10 to 40 bits per
second to take advantage of improving Earth-spacecraft
geometry.  All general thermal control temperatures and
tank pressures are within acceptable ranges. A total of
1821 real-time commands has been transmitted to Galileo.

 Ron Baalke                       |    [e-mail]
 Jet Propulsion Lab  M/S 301-355  |    [e-mail]
 4800 Oak Grove Dr.               |
 Pasadena, CA 91109               |

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 90 05:41:20 GMT
From: nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123![e-mail]  (Wales Larrison)
Subject: Intelsat Recovery (3 of 3)


   o "Your Shuttle Costs are too low!"  The costs I'm using are from the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment independent assessment of
shuttle costs for their report "Space Transportation Systems - A Buyer's
Guide" (July 1988).  These are not NASA's cost estimates, but from an
assessment of the true average costs of the shuttle system performed by
the OTA, an independent group which reports directly to Congress.
According to the report, and verified by my conversations with the OTA,
these costs include an assessment of all the Shuttle-associated costs
from all NASA centers, and includes mission support, mission training,
ETs, SRBs, ground turnaround and refurbishment, and other associated
shuttle costs.  There are some important assumptions - primarily the use
of long term average costs.  This is in accord with standard economic
and accounting practices - for example, McDonnell-Douglas did not price
their first MD-11 aircraft at $3 billion (the development cost), but
priced it at the long term average price they expect over a buy of
several hundred aircraft.  Similarly, NASA should not charge the
marginal cost of an additional flight (a substantially lower cost
basis). Yes, there are other ways of allocating costs, but this seems
(to me) to be the most sensible, and most supportable approach from
economic and technical grounds. For further references, I would
recommend "Pricing Options for the Space Shuttle", Congressional Budget
Office, March 1985 (which must be updated for current baseline budgetary
costs, but a good overall discussion); "Pricing Policies to Compensate
for Cost Growth in the Space Transportion System", General Accounting
Office, 1982 (also must be updated with current budgetary costs);
"Understanding the Cost Basis for Space Shuttle Pricing Policies", by
B.A. Stone in Journal of Parametrics, Vol 3., No.1 (general
methodologies); and "Reducing Launch Operations Costs", U.S. Congress
Office of Technology Assessment, September 1988.
  o "Why Doesn't Intelsat Pay for an entire Flight?"  The Intelsat-VI
series of satellites were designed for compatibility with the Space
Shuttle (as well as Titan and Ariane).  When fully configured for
launch, including Apogee and Perigee Kick motors, it occupied about 1/3
of a shuttle payload bay in length.  The system to be returned does not
have apogee and perigee kick motors, so it should be somewhat shorter
and lighter, but to be conservative I assumed it would still require 1/3
of the payload bay.  There is no current pricing policy for shuttle
usage, but I assumed the old formula would apply - allocating the cost
by fraction of weight or volume, and adjusting upwards for a 75% percent
average load factor.  Since the Intelsat VI to be returned does not
include its perigee or apogee kick motor (the heaviest system
components),  the payload will be volume driven, not weight driven.
Similarly, the launched weight to return the Intelsat-VI will be
substantially less than the returned weight (just the cradle and EVA
tools on the way up to orbit).  Costs are usually charged for launched
fraction, rather than returned fraction - but I assumed the costs to the
larger of the two. So, chargeable fraction is (20'/60')/.75 = .45, to be
multiplied by the cost per flight (assumed to be $160-220 million).
  o "Can Intelsat Reuse or Resell the satellite?"  Probably yes.  There
are about 13 Intelsat satellites planned to be launched, of which this
is number 2.  Rather than building a new satellite to fill out their
constellation, they can probably just launch this one after
refurbishment.  Refurbishment should not be substantial, since the
satellite is designed for 10+ years in space, and the design does not
have to be changed to meet someone else's specific needs.  Probably the
small ACS thrusters used to circularize its orbit will be replaced (each
is about $5-50,000 dollars).  And, of course, the system will have to be
checked out again.  But if the savings are $30 million or so, there is
still a substantial profit margin to break even.



--
Wales Larrison
...!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Wales.Larrison                             [e-mail]
714 544-0934 2400/1200/300

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V11 #195
*******************