Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V10_1/V10_155.ZIP/V10_155

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 17KB

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/AZEYBIy00VcJI:0047>;
          Sun, 22 Oct 89 18:46:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 89 18:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #155

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 10 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:
               Re: 5th orbiter?
       Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded)
                Galileo Update
       Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded)
               Galileo Update 10/13/89
   Re: The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 89 21:45:11 GMT
From: agate!typhoon.Berkeley.EDU![e-mail]  (George William Herbert)
Subject: Re: 5th orbiter?

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>     I'm all for a fifth orbiter, but I hate to see another $2 billion
>dollars spent on a design already nearly 20 years old. What about
>Enterprise (the drop-test vehicle, of course :-) )? Correct me if I'm
>wrong, but didn't NASA, in the 1970's intend to upgrade Enterprise to
>a space-worthy vehicle after drop testing?
>     If the book I read is correct, Challenger (Structural Test Article-99)
>was to become the drop test vehicle after Enterprise (Orbiter Vehicle-100)
>was upgraded. NASA relaized that Challenger's airframe was lighter, so they
>changed their mind - Challenger was built into a fully-functional orbiter,
>and Enterprise was left a drop-tester.
>     I'm sure Enterprise's weight problem could be reduced, with all of the
>things NASA has learned building orbiters. The assembly lines are open
>already, so it seems rather convenient. What is Enterprise doing now?
>I think its sitting in some hangar somewhere out West. What will it be
>doing? Sitting in the Smithsonian. Seems like a waste to me...

Enterprise underwend significant shake and vibration testing.  Flying it
would be a monumantally bad idea.  The airframe was stressed way too much
to be safe to use anymore.


****************************************
George William Herbert  UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!)
[e-mail]  [e-mail]
----------------------------------------

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 22:31:21 GMT
From: dftsrv!drax![e-mail]  (Loren (Buck) Buchanan)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
>
>|  The activist groups say if their legal appeal fails they will
>|  attempt to disrupt the countdown and stop the launch by
>|  trespassing on the Kennedy Space Center.
>
>  These people don't have the slightest care about law do they? If you
>were the launch officer and there was a Luddite on the pad, would you
>abort and set the program back (at least) several years?

It would be tempting to abort the launch, have the people arrested, and
sue them for damages.  What does it cost to abort a launch (include
all personnel costs) and add onto that lawyers fees?  I am certain that
this would bankrupt Christic and would put a serious dent in fund
raising for similar groups.

I think that launching with a Luddite on the pad would set the Space
Program back a whole lot.  The courts would tie things up for years and
the only winners will be the lawyers (naturally :-).

B Cing U

Buck

Loren "Buck" Buchanan | internet: [e-mail] | standard disclaimer
CSC, 1100 West St.    | uucp: ...!ames!dftsrv!drax!buck   | "By the horns of a
Laurel, MD 20707      | phonenet: [phone] or 9898  | sky demon..."

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

Date: 12 Oct 89 23:14:56 GMT
From: usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update


                       GALILEO DAILY REPORT
                         11 OCTOBER 1989

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:  17 October at 12:57 p.m. EDT is the new
launch date for Galileo.

                             General

Spacecraft

     The spacecraft is still in its launch ready state and is
being monitored constantly both at KSC and at Pasadena.
     A PF/R was opened, analyzed, and dispositioned on the
attachment of the PRDs (Pressure Release Device) to the RTGs.

LCET

     LCETs #1 and #2 are both being manned around the clock when
spacecraft telemetry analysis is in process.

                             Details

Spacecraft

     The spacecraft continues to operate satisfactorily from
power supplied by the RTGs.  However, temperature control
engineering has requested that the orbiter air conditioning to
the spacecraft be raised from 52 deg F to 58 deg F.  The basis
of this request was the RPM temperature which is at its lower
acceptable limit as specified in the launch commit criteria.
The orbiter temperature was raised as per JPL's request on the
evening of 10 October.  Appropriate paper is in process that
will allow the inlet temperature to be varied from
48 deg F to 60 deg F.  This in turn will allow for any future
adjustment as a normal operation of the prelaunch activities.
     As reported on 9 October, during the mating
of the PRD (Pressure Release Device) to the RTG two additional
washers were installed on each of the four screws used to attach
the PRDs to each of the RTGs.  Questions were raised on the
action taken, that is, the installation of the washers.  PF/R
54340 was opened to document the concern expressed by General
Electric.  Subsequent analysis was made on the overall
incident.  The primary points were: 1) that during the insertion
of the screws the engagement of the screws into the insert
locking mechanism was misinterpreted as the screw bottoming out,
2) two washers were added to reduce the gap which in turn
reduced the amount of screw engagement in the insert locking
mechanism, 3) both JPL and GE engineers agreed that the last one
turn into the locking mechanism was required, 4) the JPL
technician, that did the hands-on work, and the engineer, that
witnessed the work, agreed that two screw turns into the locking
element were achieved, 5) that there would be no impact to the
mission if one screw backed out.  Additional analysis was done
at JPL, and after review of the total picture, the Project
Manager declared that no further action was necessary; in short,
that the attachment of the PRDs to the RTGs was satisfactory.

               Schedule Discussion and Assessment

     It was announced this afternoon that the new launch date is
17 October at 12:57 p.m. EDT.  The count will be resumed on
Monday, 16 October at L-19 hours at 5:57 p.m. EDT.  Shortly
after the countdown is picked up the IUS is scheduled to be
powered for its final prelaunch conditioning and checks.


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

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

Date: 13 Oct 89 15:53:12 GMT
From: dinl![e-mail]  (kevin w. holroyd)
Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Loren (Buck) Buchanan) writes:
|In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (bill davidsen) writes:
|>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Peter E. Yee) writes:
|>
|>|  The activist groups say if their legal appeal fails they will
|>|  attempt to disrupt the countdown and stop the launch by
|>|  trespassing on the Kennedy Space Center.
|>
|>  These people don't have the slightest care about law do they? If you
|>were the launch officer and there was a Luddite on the pad, would you
|>abort and set the program back (at least) several years?
|
|It would be tempting to abort the launch, have the people arrested, and
|sue them for damages.  What does it cost to abort a launch (include
|all personnel costs) and add onto that lawyers fees?  I am certain that
|this would bankrupt Christic and would put a serious dent in fund
|raising for similar groups.
|
|I think that launching with a Luddite on the pad would set the Space
|Program back a whole lot.  The courts would tie things up for years and
|the only winners will be the lawyers (naturally :-).
|
|B Cing U
|
|Buck
|
|Loren "Buck" Buchanan | internet: [e-mail] | standard disclaimer
|CSC, 1100 West St.    | uucp: ...!ames!dftsrv!drax!buck   | "By the horns of a
|Laurel, MD 20707      | phonenet: [phone] or 9898  | sky demon..."

Hi Buck!,

Maybe they could be prosecuted like the anti-abortionists under the federal
law that requires 3(?) times the damages to be repaid?

BTW does anyone else find it humorous that Galileo is once again having
problems with the "Church"?  History truly repeats itself.


--
*******************************************************************************
Kevin W. Holroyd            *
CFI Aspen Flying Club            * Got tired of last .signature file
Denver CO.                *
*******************************************************************************

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

Date: 13 Oct 89 22:57:18 GMT
From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov![e-mail]  (Ron Baalke)
Subject: Galileo Update 10/13/89


                       GALILEO DAILY REPORT
                         13 OCTOBER 1989

                             General

Spacecraft

     The spacecraft still remains in its launch ready state.  A
"no ops" command was sent today to reinitialize the command lost
timer.
     Only one additional CDU (Command Detector Unit) subcarrier
lock indication was obtained since the transmittal
to the current time of 5:45 p.m.

LCET

     Status remains the same; there are no problems.

STS

     IUS:  The IUS continues to make open circuit voltage checks
on their flight batteries.  It should be noted that they have to
power up in order to perform their battery checks and in the
process they check their telemetry.  No problems have been
reported.

     Atlantis:  "A decision on an official launch date for
Atlantis or the STS-34 mission is expected on Saturday,
Oct. 14." KSC Public Affairs Office, 13 October 1989

                             Details

Spacecraft

     The CDU (Command Detector Unit) subcarrier lock phenomenon
is being monitored and analyzed both at JPL and KSC.  At KSC,
RFI (radio frequency interference) monitoring has been
established for the 2115 Mhz signal emanating from a commercial
carrier.  Measurements have been made at the launch pad of this
signal for purposes of adjusting the comparable measurements
being made by the EMC/RFI KSC group in the O&C Building.  The
hopes are that during the occurrence of CDU lock, there would be
a corresponding change in amplitude or shift in frequency of the
2115 signal that is constantly being radiated.  However, the
probability of such a corrolation is considered small.
     A preliminary search of the records for CDU subcarrier lock
indications has been made for the RPM thermal conditioning test
conducted at the pad on 27 September through 1 October.  There
have been no lock indications found to date.  In addition, it
must be recognized that the configuration at the pad has changed
between then and now; the carry-on umbilicals have been
disconnected, the payload bay doors closed, and GSE removed.
Again, it must be emphasized that these tests are being
performed for completeness and understanding and that there has
not been a violation of the launch commit criteria.

               Schedule Discussion and Assessment

     The current schedule is still for 17 October at 12:57 p.m.
EDT.  There will be a mission status meeting on L-2 days on
15 October and on L-1 day on 16 October when the launch date
will be firmed.


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

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

Date: 14 Oct 89 04:18:29 GMT
From: pyramid!oliveb!mipos3!omepd![e-mail]  (Bob Stettler)
Subject: Re: The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts


In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (nick szabo) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Al Viall) writes:
>>Another question. Looking through the press release for Galileo, to which
>>I thank Peter Yee for sending through the net, I had read that the craft
>>would make a double earth flyby(i.e. the VEEGA track).
>>Why was this track chosen, considering that it would be more fruitfull to
>>just get the craft to Jupiter in one piece.
>
>This story cannot be repeated enough times.

I agree.

>                                           Originally Galileo was supposed
>to launch on the Shuttle in early 1986 with a Centaur upper stage
>powerful enough to go straight to Jupiter.>First the Shuttle shutdown
>delayed the launch 3 1/2 years.  Then NASA decided that the liquid-fueled
>Centaur, which was not involved in the Challenger explosion, was just too
>risky for a manned spacecraft.  So, to save the hides of our intrepid 'nauts,
>Galileo will now launch with the solid-fueled IUS.  This stage is far too
>weak to go directly to Jupiter, so it will get Gravity Assists from Venus,
>Earth, and Earth again (thus VEEGA).   What a convoluted way to get around
>the solar system.

This is only the last few years of this sad saga of buereaucratic entangle-
ment.  There's more, much more, dating all the way back to 1975.  The full
story of Galileo (as reported in the Oct 9 AW&ST and elsewhere) is the
following:

1975 - NASA decides that the proposed Jupiter orbiter mission will be the
first planetary spacecraft launched on the shuttle (an auspicious event).

1977 - Although nearly killed by Congress the Galileo program is approved
for launch in 1982 and arrival in 1985.  The IUS (Interim Upper Stage) is
to propel Galileo directly to Jupiter.

1980 - The shuttle program falls far behind schedule and Galileo's launch
is slipped (that's one) to 1984 with arrival delayed until 1986.  Since the
1984 trajectory is unfavorable NASA decides on a major engineering change.
The spacecraft is split in two, an orbiter section and an atmospheric probe
section, for separate launch. The spacecraft and the mission are completely
redesigned.

1981 - The IUS (cleverly renamed the Inertial Upper Stage) turns out to
be a dog.  NASA opts for the more powerful liquid fueled Centaur stage.
The probe and orbiter are recombined for a single launch (more rework)
and the launch date is slipped to 1985 (that's two)

1982 - David Stockman's axe falls on Galileo but the program is restored
by Congress.

1984 - More problems with the shuttle and Centaur delay the launch again
(that's three) to 1986 with arrival in 1988.

1986 - The Challenger explodes just four months before Galileo was to have
been launched.  The Centaur program is cancelled for safety reasons
(probably reasonable). Galileo is delayed again (that's four).

1987 - Galileo is scheduled again for launch in 1989. Revisiting a decision
made in 1981, the good 'ole IUS is chosen for the launch (by default). As
the stage is still inadequate, NASA is forced to choose the VEEGA
trajectory to get Galileo to Jupiter in six years.  Arrival is set in late
1995, ten years after the original arrival date.

And the rest is, as they say, history (or will be).

>Sigh.  I sure hope we learn our lesson.

Maybe NASA is learning (it could hardly avoid it in this case).  At least
three of the major planetary missions to be launched in the 90's, Mars
Observer, CRAF (Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby) and Cassini (Saturn
Orbiter) are slated to be launched by either the Titan 3 or Titan 4
boosters.


--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Stettler, Intel Corporation, JF1-58    |
2111 N.E. 25th, Hillsboro, OR 97124        |
Phone:[phone]  [e-mail] |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V10 #155
*******************