Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V09_4/V9_434.ZIP/V9_434

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 15KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/8YPIEbm00UkZ1f605Q>;
          Sun, 14 May 89 05:17:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 14 May 89 05:17:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #434

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 434

Today's Topics:
        Re: using Enterprise for braking tests
          Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST
         Re: citizens in space -- risk silli
        Re: using Enterprise for braking tests
              NSS Hotline Update
        Re: Private spending for space science
            Re: New Orbiter Name Announced
               Re: more 747 drop tests?
          Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST
       Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 May 89 22:54:47 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]
Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:


   In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>A related question - how consistent has NASA been in upgrading the steering
>>and braking systems of Enterprise? ...

>I expect that using Enterprise for such testing would probably require a
>complete refit of brakes at least, and possibly landing gear as well.  It
>would not be free, but I suspect it would be worthwhile.

Don't forget the Convair 990 (now known as the LSRA, or Landing Systems
Research Aircraft).  This plane is at Ames-Dryden to have a Shuttle main
landing gear installed in the fuselage.  I think it will be just forward
of the 990 main landing gear.  When the Shuttle gear is extended, it's
below the 990 gear.  A fairly simple control system is being designed to
drive the system to match the Shuttle landing loads profile.  The pilot
just flies low (and level) over the runway and voila! you can assess the
improvements.

This should be _very_ interesting to watch from a safe distance :-)
Flight test is rarely boring.























--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

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

Date: 12 May 89 07:10:33 GMT
From: unmvax!polyslo![e-mail]  (John McKernan)
Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????

We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand
built rocket that was thrown away after every use. The idea of a reusable
rocket is really very sound in theory, although it turns out to be a bit
difficult to execute (especially by a government bureaucracy). With 20/20
hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was
probably the way to go.

John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems
before it butts in with tomorrow's.

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

Date: 11 May 89 16:55:00 GMT
From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu![e-mail]
Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silli


    Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the
engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity
and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers
promoted.

Alan M. Carroll                "And there you are
[e-mail]           Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'"
CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana    ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll

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

Date: 12 May 89 23:00:53 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]
Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stuart Warmink) writes:

   There seems to be plenty of speculation about using the good old
   Enterprise for landing and braking tests. Does any body know exactly
   what state that orbiter is in? I.e. avionics, power systems, external
   surfaces etc.

Enterprise never had TPS tiles; it's covered with black-painted plastic foam,
somewhat denser than styrofoam.  This was fragile and easily damaged--I have
a small chunk of it that I picked up off the hangar floor.

I suspect that anything useable in the other orbiters was cannibalized before
the vehicle went to the Smithsonian.

--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

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

Date: 11 May 89 20:08:00 GMT
From: arisia!cdp![e-mail]
Subject: NSS Hotline Update


This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline Update:
Tuesday May 9, 1989.

Acting Nasa administrator Dale Myers stated that NASA will request
President Bush to terminate the Space Station program if congress
cuts anywhere from $600 to 800 million from the agencies FY'90
budget request.  Currently the House and Senate are both seeking
about a $1 billion cut from NASA's budget request.  Senator Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD) Chairperson of the HUD-IA subcommittee which funds
NASA, stated that she will do all she can to support NASA's budget
request, but the subcommittee should be prepared to trim NASA's
budget.

The Space Shuttle Atlantis ended its mission with a perfect landing
on the Concrete runway, 22 at Edwards Air Force Base at 3:45pm EST
Monday May 8, 1989.  The mission's primary objective was met with
the successful deployment of the Magellan Venus Radar Mapping
Spacecraft.  The planetary probe, the first launched by the US in
11 years is, as of May 9, 1989, at least 700,000 miles from Earth,
streaking toward Venus.  JPL reports that the spacecraft is
operating normally without a clitch.  The overall flight of the
Shuttle Atlantis has gone fairly smooth, with the exception of a
broken fax machine, and a failed computer.  The crew wanted to fix
the fax machine themselves but were ordered not to by ground
control.  The failed computer brought science experiments to a halt
in the last day of the mission.  But in a space workers first, the
crew was able to replace the computer, in a first time ever in-
flight replacement of computer hardware.

18 members of the House of representatives lead by Rep. Dave
McCurdy called on Vice President Dan Quayle to maintain support for
the development of the National Aerospace Plane.  The National
Space Council is scheduled top meet May 25th to discuss the
program.  Acting NASA Adm. Dale Myers said that NASA has offered
to continue NASP Research for three or four more years before
conduction design and definition studies.  Under the
Administrations approach to the problem, NASA would do the work and
receive $100 million from the Pentagon to support the work.  Its
been estimated that it will require a $4 billion dollar investment
to get the NASP to the flight test phase by late '94 to early '95.

At KSC..
Three main engines were installed into the Space Shuttle Columbia
today, with testing scheduled to take place latter this week.  The
Orbiter's commode was reinstalled today with functional testing due
to be completed next week.  The Orbiter will remain in the OPF
until late June, when it will be moved to the VAB to be mated with
its external tank, and solid rocket boosters.

At the AIAA annual meetings last week Martin Marietta unveiled a
full size mockup to the Flight Telerobotic Servicer.  The servicer
is a crucial part of the space station because it will allow
assembly and repair of the Space Station with out Astronauts
leaving the work modules.  With most of the assembly work carried
out directly by robots the amount of time spent outside of the
station by the astronauts is minimized.  The robots are expected
to be test flown in 1991 and 1993.

A Note to all Mississippi Phone Tree Participants:
The Appropriations Markup is scheduled to take place in the House
of Representatives before Memorial Day Recess!

*** Please Continue your CALLS and or LETTERS to: ***

Rep. Jamie Whitten - House Appropriations Chairperson.
     - Tell'm like it is!  Lets keep America in Space!

This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space
Society's Space Hotline.  This message will be updated May 14,
1989.

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

Date: 11 May 89 20:05:14 GMT
From: [e-mail]  (Daniel Alexander Davis)
Subject: Re: Private spending for space science

Tough.  I'm a college student going to Carnegie Mellon.
I make $5,000 a year.  I spend $20,000.  This has no indication
on how valuable my statements may or not be.  If you
think it does, we should step outside.  I'll even promise to
support space industries as soon as I'm able.  Thanks for
the understanding.

Dan Davis.

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

Date: 12 May 89 18:40:32 GMT
From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!cveg!hcx![e-mail]  (JAMES WILLIAM SMITH)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Marc Bonin) writes:
> It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has
> a fictional counterpart

But Columbia has a fictional counterpart, tho it's more of a
"sluttle" than a shuttle:

FRANK:  My assistants...
CROWD:  HEY FRANK, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR COKE?
FRANK:  Columbia...

Doesn't UT show the RHPS anymore?  :-)

 /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|  James W. Smith, University of Arkansas   |                                |
|  ...uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!jws3@hcx     |    We must love one another    |
|  harry!hcx![e-mail]       |            or die.             |
|  Telenet:  jws3@130.184.7.209             |                  --A. Clarke   |
|  515 Skyline Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72701  |                                |
 \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/

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

Date: 12 May 89 17:44:44 GMT
From: ncrlnk!ncrcce![e-mail]  (Wayne D. T. Johnson)
Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:
>One will be as soon as NASA gets around to it.  The aircraft has already
>been bought and is in storage (!) awaiting the modifications.  Getting it
>going wouldn't be a problem if there was a specific reason.  Dusting
>off Enterprise and making it flight-ready, with up-to-date landing gear
>and brakes, would probably take longer.

Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can
do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for?

--
Wayne Johnson                 (Voice) 612-638-7665
NCR Comten, Inc.             (E-MAIL) [e-mail] or
Roseville MN 55113                    [e-mail]
These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten.

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

Date: 12 May 89 22:18:00 GMT
From: skipper![e-mail]
Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Henry Spencer) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>  (Robert Casey) writes:
>>I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something)
>>and was not flightworthy.  Any truth to this?

>   No damage that I know of.  It's overweight and well below normal orbiter
>   specs, but that's another story.  If you did a thorough refit on it, you
>   could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due
>   to the overweight structure.

I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it
was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for
flight.  To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical
structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements
(i.e. wing spars) were cut.  GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted
were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods
(actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the
Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element.
The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think
any were completely severed.  After all, it's still strong enough to be
ferried.

Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment.

--

M F Shafer
NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility
[e-mail] or [e-mail]

NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're
doing, and everybody's happy this way.

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

Date: 12 May 89 09:24:52 GMT
From: agate![e-mail]  (William Baxter)
Subject: Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST)

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes:
>Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V????

The Saturn V was thrown away for the same reason that the ISF was
shunned.  It was the only way to protect a big, new project from a
comparison it could not withstand--the Space Shuttle compared with the
Saturn V, or the Space Station compared with ISF.

The Saturn V was thrown away during James Fletcher's first stint as NASA
administrator.

The arguments made in favor of the Space Shuttle at the end of the
Apollo project are the same as those put forward now in support of NASP,
only more extreme.  The Shuttle was to use normal runways and air
traffic control, be fully reusable, cost $50 per pound to orbit
initially, dropping to $10 per pound with repeated use.  It was to push
the development of new technology in every related area.  All this with
an estimated development cost of $5 billion.

Believe it, or not.

----

William Baxter

ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #434
*******************