Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT/SPACEDIG/V16_1/V16NO124.TXT

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 36KB

Date: Thu,  4 Feb 93 05:11:55
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #124
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Thu,  4 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
                    Advanced Solid Rocket Program
          An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
         extreme responses to Challenger transcript (3 msgs)
                            Gps Satellites
                     IRAS - 10 Years Ago (2 msgs)
                   material properties of alu 2219
                             Polar Orbit
                 Space Station Media Handbook - 7/18
                Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger

    Welcome to the Space Digest!!  Please send your messages to
    "[e-mail]", and (un)subscription requests of the form
    "Subscribe Space <your name>" to one of these addresses: listserv@uga
    (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle
    (THENET), or [e-mail] (Internet).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed,  3 Feb 1993 10:45:41 -0500
From: Lawrence Curcio <[e-mail]>
Subject: Advanced Solid Rocket Program
Newsgroups: sci.space

I just got my monthly copy of the GAO's _Reports and Testimony_. They
have a (characteristically unfavorable) review of the Advanced Solid
Rocket Program.

OK. I thought that solid rockets were politically out. Now it seems we
are developing solid boosters that will take the shuttle into orbit by
themselves (have I got that right?) So tell me - how do you get a thrust
profile out of solid propellant rockets that won't squash the astronauts
or burn up the vehicle in the lower atmosphere? How do you get
sufficient throttling on the suckers to make them controllable in such a
mission? How big are these puppies going to be? Any other good stuff? If
you have any more liesure, what about HCl pollution and Al2O3 dust?

BTW Don't get me wrong - as a model (flying but not homemade) rocket
enthusiast, I *LIKE* solid propellant rockets. At the age of 45, though,
I don't let my propeller beanie interfere with my cynicism.

Regards,
-Larry C.

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 10:29:45 EST
From: "John F. Woods" <[e-mail]>
Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...)
Newsgroups: sci.space

[e-mail] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
>>They've been stuck at a low level of activity...
>I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the
>ones stuck at the low level of activity.

But they *are* stuck at a low level of activity.  One launch a *day* is hardly
interesting!  Of course, *we* are stuck at statistically NO level of
activity...

>>>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs
>>>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced?
>>Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space
>>transport.
>Like what?

I believe he means the giant conveyor belt planned to transport money to
"space" contractors that never build space hardware.  Note that in this
key technological field, the US program is, indeed unequalled in the world.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 14:36:52 GMT
From: "Carl M. Kadie" <[e-mail]>
Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk

[e-mail] (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

[...]
>Had you simply posted that fabricated transcript, you would have been
>flamed for posting something inappropriate and frankly libelious (yes,
>you accuse NASA of a coverup. That's libelious). And it would have ended.
[...]

There is no such a crime as libel against the government (i.e.
seditious libel) in the U.S. anymore.

- Carl

--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me.
 = [e-mail] =

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:14:31 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.org.eff.talk

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tesuji) writes:
>>It has been amusing to see the extreme responses to the posting of the
>>Challenger transcript; the burghers with their torches are storming the
>>castle again.
>
> Had you simply posted that fabricated transcript, you would have been
> flamed for posting something inappropriate and frankly libelious (yes,
> you accuse NASA of a coverup. That's libelious). And it would have ended.
>
> The extreme reactions come from the fact that you don't have the BALLS
                                                                   ^^^^^
Hey, the poster _could_ be a woman or a eunuch.  Some of us find the
equating of courage with testosterone to be offensive.  GUTS doesn't
cut it either (guts = intestines => internal testicles).  But don't
let offensiveness stop you (or anyone else) from posting whatever you
care to.  While I too had personal reasons to be pained by the tasteless
posting, the poster's lack of humanity and courage does not diminish _mine_.
And your example of sexism provides me a welcome opportunity to combat such.

Wm. Hathaway

> to even post it under your own name, you feel you have to hide behind
> an anonymous posting service.
>
> Go away, squirm back under the rock you crawled out of. And kindly don't
> bother those of us who find skulking in the shawdows to be offensive.
> --
>          Tarl Neustaedter    [e-mail]
>          Marlboro, Mass.    Stratus Computer
> Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 16:21:58 GMT
From: Mary Shafer <[e-mail]>
Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.org.eff.talk

On Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:14:31 GMT, [e-mail] said:

WH> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tesuji) writes:
>>It has been amusing to see the extreme responses to the posting of the
>>Challenger transcript; the burghers with their torches are storming the
>>castle again.
>
> Had you simply posted that fabricated transcript, you would have been
> flamed for posting something inappropriate and frankly libelious (yes,
> you accuse NASA of a coverup. That's libelious). And it would have ended.
>
> The extreme reactions come from the fact that you don't have the BALLS
WH>                                                                    ^^^^^
WH> Hey, the poster _could_ be a woman or a eunuch.

Some women have balls.

And most of us can tell the difference between metaphor and anatomy.

WH> Some of us find the
WH> equating of courage with testosterone to be offensive.  GUTS doesn't
WH> cut it either (guts = intestines => internal testicles).

By that logic, GUTS = OVARIES.  That has some interesting implications
in the digestive process.

For what it's worth, women manufacture testosterone, just as men
manufacture estrogen.  The relative quantities vary, of course.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
[e-mail]                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all."  Unknown US fighter pilot

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 22:14:34 CET
From: Gianni Piccoli <[e-mail]>
Subject: Gps Satellites

Does anybody know where I can find details on the GPS Satellites.

In particular, as I use a GPS receiver on an aircraft, I would like to
know in advance how many satellites  are in sight in a particular
moment in a particular place.
Also I am interested in knowing the future plans for GPS and  when
new satellites will be placed in orbit.

Thank you very much to anyone who can help me.

GIANNI PICCOLI   TORINO-ITALY
(Internet  [e-mail])

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 15:25:26 GMT
From: Tom Glinos <[e-mail]>
Subject: IRAS - 10 Years Ago
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary

In article <[e-mail]> Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU <[e-mail]> writes:
>W/r the anniversery of  IRAS ......
>
>Does anyone else remember the comet IRAS-Aracki-Alcock?  (sp?)

I was in Tuscon the evening of closest approach.
I watched it travel the sky in "real-time" through a 16" scope.
It was wonderful.
--
=================
Prediction, 1993, Year the UNIX        | Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
industry collapsed            | [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:22:23 GMT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: IRAS - 10 Years Ago
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro

In article <[e-mail]>, Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU <[e-mail]> writes:
> W/r the anniversery of  IRAS ......
>
> Does anyone else remember the comet IRAS-Aracki-Alcock?  (sp?)
>
> I was living in suburban Pittsburgh at the time and took my 8" scope
> out to the observing site of the Amateur Astronomer Association
> of Pittsburgh to really see the comet.
>
> As I recall, it was almost full-moon size and simply a ghostly round
> object.  It moved *real* fast -- covering most of the sky in only 4 days!
>
> I even  managed to get my father and lots of neighbors  to make the
> trip out from light-polluted skies to watch it.  An accomplishment
> in itself!
>
> I've seen many comets -- but that is one I will never forget!
>
> gerry santoro  ([e-mail])                            |
> academic computing/speech communication                     -(*)-
> penn state university                                  .....  |  .....
>

Yes!!! - I followed it for a week from when it was Draco, around the pole,
and into the sunset.  It was clear every night and I got lots of good
looks at it, including some real-time motion as it passed very close
to some stars.  In a very few minutes, you could see its position shift.
Most impressive.  I had a yard full of viewers one night.  (And I
met a very impressive lady that same week, with whom I subsequently
carried on a long association - I remember the two together.)  Many
memories of that long-ago spring.

Wm. Hathaway
STScI, Baltimore, MD

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

Date: 3 Feb 1993 16:39:02 GMT
From: Hakan Kayal <[e-mail]>
Subject: material properties of alu 2219
Newsgroups: sci.space

 I am looking for material properties of aluminum 2219.
Does somebody know obout it or can give me some references .
Thank you

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

Date: 3 Feb 93 07:02:28 EST
From: Chris Jones <[e-mail]>
Subject: Polar Orbit
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <[e-mail]>, nsmca@acad3 writes:
>Why does the US launch polar orbit missions from Vandenburg? other than for
>military missions? I wonder is they know about Poker Flats here in Alaska
>which has many of the same benfits as Vandenburg (open spaces) but nicely is
>near the pole..

As I said yesterday (in <[e-mail]>), for polar orbit the latitude of the
launch site doesn't matter (except that a launch site at either pole would have
lots of longitude lines along which to launch in order to achieve polar orbit).
I expect Vandenburg is easier to reach than Poker Flats (lessening transport
costs to the the site and operating costs of the site), and has the advantage
of already having the infrastructure for launching satellites (along with over
30 years' experience).  I don't know specifically why it was chosen, but it
seems a reasonable guess that the US looked for a suitable site from a range
safety point of view which was already secure (since spy satellites were often
placed into polar orbits).
--
Chris Jones    [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:38:01 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Media Handbook - 7/18
Newsgroups: sci.space

From NASA SPACELINK:

"6_10_2_5_5.TXT" (21701 bytes) was created on 10-15-92


Program Description

Program Phases

Phase A
Concept Phase (Requirements & Architecture) from Authorization of
the SSTF (5/82) to Award of the Phase B Contracts (4/85)

Concepts for a space station go back to the last century. Within NASA,
conceptual studies and workshops go back to the early 1960s. The
1972 decision to develop the Shuttle first delayed the Space Station
Program until May of 1982, when NASA Administrator James Beggs
authorized the Space Station Task Force (SSTF). In addition to
organizing a new project and office, the SSTF conducted three major
activities: 1) A major effort to define realistic missions that were
enabled by or materially benefited from the permanent presence of
humans in space. 2) Definition studies to define system requirements
and interfaces, supporting systems and trade studies, a preliminary
system design and detailed plans for the development phase. And 3)
advanced development activities. From August 1982 to April 1983,
NASA funded the studies called "Space Station Needs, Attributes and
Architectural Options." In addition, a Mission Requirements Working
Group was established to direct the industry studies and to integrate
in-house activities and special studies such as the Space Science
Board and Space Applications Board studies. This group was
supported by three Mission Area Panels: 1) Science and Applications;
2) Commercial; and 3) Technology Development. The Working Group
also maintained liaison with the international community which
performed similar studies. Using the results of these studies and
input from the various groups, NASA briefed the President and
Cabinet in December 1983. In January 1984 the President directed
NASA to build the space station within a decade.

1984 was the year for formulating the overall NASA management
structure, reviewing requirements, conducting independent user and
science community assessments and developing a reference
configuration that the Phase B contractors could bid against.
President Reagan reaffirmed the Space Station Program in the
January 1985 State of the Union address. The first half of 1985
involved obtaining international participation and commitment for
the program.

Phase B
Definition and Preliminary Design Phase from Award of Phase B
Contracts (4/85) to Award of Phase C/D Contracts (12/87)

In April of 1985, Phase B commenced with the four NASA Work
Package Centers each awarding parallel definition contracts for their
respective responsibilities. The eight definition contractors defined
the system requirements, developed supporting technologies and
technology-development plans, performed supporting systems and
trade studies, developed preliminary designs, and defined system
interfaces and developed plans, cost estimates, and schedules for the
Phase C/D activities.

The Phase B definition studies were initiated in April 1985 and
ended in January 1987. The contracts were awarded to the following:

*       MSFC (Work Package 1): Boeing Aerospace, Martin Marietta
*       JSC (Work Package 2): McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell
International
*       GSFC (Work Package 3): General Electric and RCA
*       LeRC (Work Package 4): Rocketdyne, TRW

The results of the definition studies were synthesized and integrated
into the Phase C/D Requests for Proposals (RFPs) released by each
Work Package Center in April 1987.

Also in the spring of 1985, NASA signed bilateral memoranda of
understanding (MOUs) with Canada, ESA and Japan that provided a
framework for cooperation on the space station during Phase B.
The user requirements were being reviewed and refined by various
groups, committees and workshops. The results updated the Mission
Requirements Data Base, and in June 1985, the "Functional
Requirements Envelope" was established to augment the Phase B
RFPs.

By March 1986, the program reached a major milestone called the
Systems Requirements Review (SRR) a traditional programmatic
point that marks the point where the basic characteristics of the
space station have been decided. This SRR process focused on
technical decisions that, in May of 1986, established the baseline
configuration called the "Dual Keel."

As a result of the Challenger accident in January of 1986, NASA went
through an exhaustive evaluation period during which, among other
Shuttle topics, management of major programs, such as space station,
was examined. The NASA Management Study, led by ex-Apollo
Program Manager General Samuel Phillips, made management,
programmatic and organizational recommendations, many of which
were implemented. Among these was the establishment of three
levels of management: 1) the Headquarters Office of Space Station; 2)
the Space Station Program Office, later located in Reston, Virginia;
and 3) individual Space Station Project Offices at those NASA Centers
primarily involved with the program. The space station work was
then allocated to those Centers in "Work Packages" that reflected the
Center's expertise. In effect, this was a shift from the former "Lead
Center" concept to a Level II program office located at Headquarters.
In August and September 1986, the program was subjected to an
intense review by a specially constituted Critical Evaluation Task
Force (CETF) which reaffirmed the soundness of the Dual Keel
baseline configuration established at the SRR, but added resource
nodes at the end of the Laboratory and Habitation Modules and
revised the assembly sequence accordingly.

Meanwhile, the Operations Task Force was organized to focus
operations planning by conducting a systematic assessment of station
operations. This major effort produced a report that considered
various options for achieving operations goals.

In 1987, a number of reviews by various independent groups and
committees including the National Research Council (NRC) were
conducted. The NRC, chaired by ex-NASA Administrator Dr. Robert
Seamans, concluded in September that the program was a formidable
challenge to NASA as the architect and program manager, but the
commitment to the space station is, and must be, national in
character. The NRC also endorsed the revised baseline configuration
(what is now called Space Station Freedom) and stated that the
nation's long-term goals in space should be clarified before
committing to the evolutionary Block 2, or "Dual Keel" configuration.
In September 1987 the Space Station Science Operations Study Team
examined science opportunities, operations, planning and
management and concluded with a set of effective recommendations
that were considered for Phase C work.

That year, 1987, was also a significant procurement period for the
program. In addition to the four Work Packages, three separate,
competitive procurements were conducted to support detailed design
and development. The contracts awarded in 1987 are listed on page
20.

The contracts awarded in December were for Phase C and D. With
these contracts in place, Phase B ended and Phase C - Detailed Design
began.


Phase C
Detailed Design from the Award of Phase C/D Contracts (12/87) to
the Critical Design Review (1992)

Although many people use the term "Phase C/D," meaning both the
design (C) and development (D) phases together, they are really two
separate and distinct activities. The term C/D is used primarily
because the same contractor generally does both the design and
development including the manufacturing. Therefore, the contracts
for these two major groups of activities are typically awarded
together. However, in classical systems engineering, the detailed
design takes the results of Phase B to the point of preparing detailed
engineering drawings and specifications for hardware and software,
which are design activities. However, nothing is actually built in
Phase C except perhaps some test or prototype articles. Once the
design passes a Critical Design Review, the design is "frozen" and
handed off to the development Phase D where actual manufacturing
begins.

Due to adjustments in funding levels, analysis of program costs and
adjustments in contractor work, schedules and responsibilities, the
design phase got off to a busy start. The major engineering activity
for 1988 was the Program Requirements Review (PRR) which
proceeded on schedule. The PRR provides a critical review and
assessment of the Level I requirements stated in the Program
Requirements Document (PRD), and necessary Level III requirements
to assure complete and consistent specification of program
requirements.

The Level I Office of Space Station review was completed in May
1988; the Level II Space Station Program Office review was
completed in June 1988; and the Level III Work Package Centers
review was completed in November 1988. Also, 1988 was the year
for finalizing the details of the Work Package prime contractors once
the program funding levels were made and money was appropriated.
This allowed prime contractors to determine when they could get
their subcontractors onboard and begin staffing up for their work
assignments.

During the last half of 1988, the negotiations of international
agreements regarding Phase C/D/E were completed and the
agreements were signed on September 29, 1988, the same day as the
STS-26 launch. This event culminated the efforts of the international
partners and the U.S. to determine how they would work together to
develop and operate Space Station Freedom. Various committees and
workshops occurred during 1988 to continue the review of
requirements from all disciplines, including the sciences, advanced
technology and commercialization opportunities. Another 1988
activity involved a major effort to determine the optimum launch
and assembly sequence to provide an earlier man-tended capability.
1988 was also filled with preparation of reports required by
Congress on various topics. Major reports were delivered at the
average rate of one per month.

Phase C activities concluded in the fall and winter of 1988 included
fulfillment of the required staffing, facility construction planning,
development of an associate contractor relationship that would
simplify the program integration process and release of two more
Requests for Proposals (RFPs); one on the Test Control and Monitor
System (TCMS) in September and one for the Flight Telerobotic
Servicer in November.

During 1989, the program was faced with severe budget cuts. A
Configuration Budget Review (CBR) Team was formed in July to
develop preliminary options for presentation to space station
management and the international partners. Three separate Level
I/II Control Boards were convened to analyze the options and
recommendations. These three Control Boards were held in August,
September and October 1989. The results of this "rephasing" were
briefed to Congress and were implemented by changes to the
Program Requirements Document. These results maintained the first
element launch in March 1995, but delayed the assembly/complete
milestone 18 months, while making some significant system and
subsystem changes. The CBR kept the station element design
essentially the same.

In January 1990, the External Maintenance Task Team (EMTT) was
formed to address concerns regarding the amount of extravehicular
activity (EVA) required to maintain the station. The EMTT was co-
chaired by Dr. William F. Fisher, astronaut, and Mr. Charles Price,
Chief of the Robotics Systems Development Branch at NASA's Johnson
Space Center. They were given the authority to review all aspects of
Space Station Freedom external maintenance and repair. They
conducted a seven-month investigation, concluding that about 3,200
hours of EVA, annually, would be needed to maintain the station, but
made several recommendations which, if implemented, could reduce
EVA to 500 hours annually.

To address the findings and recommendations of the EMTT, a
complementary program-wide team was formed in June 1990 called
the External Maintenance Solutions Team (EMST). The EMST was
chaired by Dr. William E. Simon of JSC and was chartered to develop
solutions to the problems regarding Space Station Freedom external
maintenance identified by the EMTT.  The EMST's two-month study
concluded that about 3,500 hours of EVA would be required annually,
but this could be reduced to about 485 hours by implementing their
solutions.

In June 1990, the Level II Resources "Turbo Team" was formed to reduce
the weight of the station and the housekeeping power requirements.

Throughout 1990, Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR's) were held.  In all,
over 80 separate design reviews were conducted during the year.  The
preliminary design of nearly every major component, subsystem and system
was reviewed.  This culminated with the Integrated System PDR (ISPDR)
in November-December of 1990.  This resulted in a baseline station
design whidch was accepted by all program participants.

A 1991 fiscal year budget shortfall of more than $550 mission, along
with Congressional direction to significantly reduce out-year
spending, prompted NASA to initiate an assessment of the Space
Station Freedom Program.  This effort, known as restructuring, was
initiated in October 1990 and culminated with a report to Congress
in March 1991.

The Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program (the
Augustine Committee) made several recommendations pertaining the
Space Station Freedom in its December 1990 Report.

As a result of these reviews and recommendations, Space Station Freedom
was extensively redesigned.  The new design is cheaper, smaller, easier
to assemble in orbit and will require fewer Shuttle flights to build.

The U.S. Laboratory and Habitation Modules are 40 percent shorter
and can be outfitted and verified on the ground.  The truss is now
pre-integrated and can be tested with all subsystems before launch.
This significantly reduces EVA time needed to build and maintain
the station.

During November 1991, the Man-tended Configuration Preliminary Design
Review was conducted.  This review focused on the major programmatic
interfaces between the three different work packages, the International
Partners and the station's hardware and software elements.  This major
milestone confirmed the validity and maturity of the design and was a
complete program success.

Phase D
Development (Manufacturing) after Critical Design Review (1993)

The development phase will be accomplished in four steps:  1) equipment
manufacture, test, and qualification; 2) integration of all equipment
in a central facility for integration, test, and verification; 3)
software integration and certification; and 4) launch package integration.
The manufacture of the various components of the space station will begin
following the Critical Design Review.

The flight elements are vital parts of an orbital complex that must
provide safe and usable operational environment over the long term.
They will be designed, developed, fabricated and assembled in high
quality aerospace development centers by experienced people following
proven procedures.  Many of these centers and personnel have experience
with the Shuttle or Apollo programs.  Existing capital equipment, tooling
and production test equipment will be utilized extensively to minimize
costs.  Standard manufacturing processes will be employed to assume a
dependable, high quality product.

The manufacturing of equipment will be performed at various locations.
For example, the modules will be manufactured in Huntsville, Alabama;
the truss assembly is Huntington Beach, California; and the power
supply in Canoga Park, California.

The Laboratory Module, for example, comprises several subsystems.
The structure includes thepressure shell assembly, hatches
and racks that will be used to house experiments, payloads and
consumables.  The Environmental Control and Life Support System
(ECLSS), the Thermal Control System (TCS), Electrical Power System
(EPS), Audio and Video Systems and Data Management System (DMS) are
also subsystems of the Laboratory Module.  Some of these components
will be manufactured by Boeing's subcontractors and other work package
contractors at various locations throughout the U.S.  These components,
together with those built by Boeing at Huntsville, will be assembled
into the U.S. Laboratory.  The assembly and acceptance testing
of the U.S. Lab, as with the Habitation Module and Logistics Elements,
will take place in Huntsville.  Unlike other space programs where
the total spacecract is assembled on the ground, assembly of space
station elements must occur on-orbit and will, therefore, require
training of astronaut crews in near-zero gravity conditions to practice
performing the delicate and complex assembly maneuvers safely and
efficiently.  Such training will be perfomed in large water immersion
facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory at JSC and at
a similar facility at MSFC.  The astronauts will be working under
water with structural mockups of flight hardware that will simulate
their spatial mass and inertia characteristics to gain experience
in handling these elements prior to on-orbit actual assembly.

Prior to launch, all elements are sent to the Space Station
Processing Facility (SSPF) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
Here, the launch packages are assembled and thoroughly tested.
Tests are performed to verify that flight software and hardware
are compatible and correctly installed.

The program development has distinct phases.  The initial phase calls
for the first element launch to occur in the first quarter of 1996.
Man-tended capability (MTC) will be met in the second quarter of
1997.  The MTC phase culminates with the permanently manned capability
(PMC) of the station with at least a 4-person crew in 2000.   Seventeen
Shuttle flights with four Advanced Solid Rocket Motors (ASRM) flights
will be needed to complete the initial phase.  On the eighteenth
flight, the centrifuge will be added.  An Assured Crew Return Vehicle
(ACRV), capable of returning space station crew members to Earth
in an emergency, will be in place prior to permanent staffing of the
station.  During the initial phase substantial accomodations will
be available to microgravity materials and life sciences
researchers.

The Follow-on Phase will result in further enhancements consistant with
national policy.

Phase E
Operations (Overlaps Phase D) from First Element Launch 1996 to End of Life

Six Shuttle flights will be needed for station assembly to achieve MTC.
Following MTC, four Shuttle flights per year are scheduled for station
assembly and maintenance.  There also will be three utilization
flights per year during MTC operations.  During these utilization
flights, the Shuttle will dock at the station for 13 days or more.  A
crew of up to seven will be onboard the Shuttle.  Four of the crew will
devote their time to support space station user activities.  During
this period experiments requiring human intervention will be
conducted.  Experiments that require quiescent operation for an
extended period can be left onboard the station to operate while the
station is unattended.  The crew will have been trained in the
handling of the experiments and their results.

Following PMC the station will be permanently staffed by at least a
four person crew, two of whom will be dedicated to supporting space
station user activities.

Planning for the space station operations and utilization is designed
to maximize the use of onboard resources.  Operations planning for
the long, medium and short range is centrally managed to account for
system user demands, ensuring an integrated schedule is available at
each stage of payload development, checkout and flight.  Below this
level, detailed planning is distributed to the actual users and to
operators of the space station.  This arrangement provides these
groups with the flexibility to meet rapidly changing conditions
and to accommodate unexpected payload research opportunities.

The Space Station Control Center (SSCC) at the Johnson Space Center
will perform station systems management and interact with a Payload
Operations Integration Center (POIC) at the Marshall Space Flight
Center, which will work with users either individually or through
user-provided operations centers.  Predefined allocations will
govern distribution of available resources among both U.S. and
international users of the manned base.  An execution plan for
payload operations will provide for experiments the crew will conduct,
autonomous experiments and those operated remotely via the station's
information system by investigators in laboratories on Earth.
Experiment scheduling will be according to requirements for resources
such as crew time and power.

Payload integration also will use a distributed operations concept.
Users will be able to integrate their experiments into racks and
onto pallets at multiple user-operated sites certified by NASA.
These sites will allow users to check payload hardware and software
interfaces for proper operation before the payloads are transported
to the launch site.

Logistics operations for the manned base will be concentrated at KSC.
With the space station in orbit for at least 30 years, maintenance
and servicing will be performed routinely.  Station design provides
for Orbital Replacement Units (ORU's), which a crewmember can remove
and replace inside the pressurized volume, or by robots or EVA for
externally mounted payloads.  Critical replacements units will be
stored onboard, and others will be on the ground ready for transport
in logistics elements as needed.


The material above is one of many files from SPACELINK
A Space-Related Informational Database
Provided by the NASA Educational Affairs Division
Operated by the Marshall Space Flight Center
On a Data General ECLIPSE MV7800 Minicomputer

SPACELINK may be contacted in three ways:

1) Using a modem, by phone at 205-895-0028

2) Using Telnet, at spacelink.msfc.nasa.gov

3) Using FTP capability. Username is anonymous and Password is guest.
Address is 192.149.89.61.


--
Bruce Dunn    Vancouver, Canada   [e-mail]

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

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:19:00 GMT
From: Mark Brown <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

| [e-mail] (John F. Woods) writes:
|The Challenger accident deeply affected people who never met the
|astronauts, *tens of millions of people*, people who didn't forget
|about it after the reporters left the Cape.  To those who believe that
|the drive to explore is an important part of the human spirit, space
|exploration certainly qualifies as a significant struggle.  In
|addition to the obvious profound unhappiness associated with the
|event, it nearly resulted in shutting down the entire space program,
|a great example of ruin and a potential tragedy in its own right.
|In literature, tragedies are not distinguished by the body count, but
|by the context and results.

I was working at TI when it happened; what I remember most was a comment
from our department head, an Old Timer named Moize Adney:

"Well, let's get up there and try again".

We almost didn't. I'm glad we did.
--
Mark Brown       IBM PSP Austin, TX.| Fear the Government
[phone]   VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ| that fears your privacy.
MAIL: [e-mail] | Keep personal cryptography legal.
       DISCLAIMER: My views are independent of IBM official policy.

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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 124
------------------------------