Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V16_1/V16NO114.ZIP/V16NO114

Internet Message Format | 1993-07-13 | 38KB

Date: Wed,  3 Feb 93 05:15:43
From: Space Digest maintainer <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Subject: Space Digest V16 #114
To: Space Digest Readers
Precedence: bulk


Space Digest                Wed,  3 Feb 93       Volume 16 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
       Diffs to sci.space/sci.astro Frequently Asked Questions
                   Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
       Non-Profit Space Exp: What would you do with $125M/year?
             Space Station Freedom Media Handbook - 3/18
                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: 2 Feb 93 08:31:28 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Diffs to sci.space/sci.astro Frequently Asked Questions
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,sci.answers,news.answers

Archive-name: space/diff

DIFFS SINCE LAST FAQ POSTING (IN POSTING ORDER)

(These are hand-edited context diffs; do not attempt to use them to patch
old copies of the FAQ).

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.16 FAQ.intro
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06410    Tue Feb  2 13:25:32 1993
--- FAQ.intro    Tue Feb  2 13:25:23 1993
***************
*** 96,101 ****
--- 96,104 ----
          Viewing Images
          Online Archives
          NASA Ames
+          NASA Astrophysics Data System
+          NASA Jet Propulsion Lab (Mission Information and Images)
+          NASA Langley (Technical Reports)
          NASA Spacelink
          National Space Science Data Center
          Space And Planetary Image Facility
***************
*** 148,154 ****
      9   Space shuttle answers, launch schedules, TV coverage
          Shuttle launchings and landings; schedules and how to see them
          How to receive the NASA TV channel, NASA SELECT
-          Dial-A-Shuttle and how to use it
          Amateur radio frequencies for shuttle missions
          Solid Rocket Booster fuel composition


===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.16 FAQ.data
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06420    Tue Feb  2 13:25:35 1993
--- FAQ.data    Tue Feb  2 13:25:22 1993
***************
*** 84,89 ****
--- 84,129 ----
      ([e-mail]).


+     NASA ASTROPHYSICS DATA SYSTEM
+
+     The ADS is a distributed data retrieval system which is easy to use and
+     provides uniform access to ground-based and space-based astronomy data
+     from NASA data centers across the country. It currently has over 140
+     data catalogs of radio, infrared, optical, UV, and X-ray data which can
+     be queried by position or any other parameter in the catalog. The ADS
+     also provides tools to manipulate and plot tabular results. In addition,
+     ADS has a Beta version of an Abstracts Service which allows users to
+     query over 125,000 abstracts of astronomy papers since 1975 by authors,
+     keywords, title words, or abstract text words.
+
+     ADS use requires direct Internet access. For more info and to sign up to
+     become a user, email [e-mail]. The User's Guide and
+     "QuickStart" Guide are available by anonymous FTP to sao-ftp.harvard.edu
+     in directory pub/ads/ADS_User_Guide (PostScript files).
+
+     Contact Carolyn Stern Grant ([e-mail]).
+
+
+     NASA JET PROPULSION LAB (MISSION INFORMATION AND IMAGES)
+
+     pubinfo.jpl.nasa.gov (128.149.6.2) is an anonymous FTP site operated by
+     the JPL Public Information Office, containing news releases, status
+     reports, fact sheets, images, and other data on JPL missions. It may
+     also be reached by modem at (818)-354-1333 (no parity, 8 data bits, 1
+     stop bit).
+
+     Contact [e-mail] or phone [phone].
+
+     NASA LANGLEY (TECHNICAL REPORTS)
+
+     techreports.larc.nasa.gov is an anonymous FTP site offering technical
+     reports. To get started, cd to directory pub/techreports/larc/92 and
+     retrieve files README and abstracts.92. Most files are compressed
+     PostScript.
+
+     Contact [e-mail].
+
+
      NASA SPACELINK

      SpaceLink is an online service located at Marshall Space Flight Center
***************
*** 221,233 ****
      objects, and general astronomy information in directory /pub/astro. This
      site is mainly for European users, but overseas connections are
      possible.
-
-     mandarin.mit.edu (18.82.0.21) has the following data available via
-     anonymous FTP in directory /astro: StarChart v3.2, orbital elements for
-     bright comets and asteroids, the Yale Bright Star catalog, Saguaro
-     Astronomy Club Deepsky and Double Star databases, some PC astronomy
-     programs, and possibly more. Get astro/README. Contact
-     [e-mail] with questions.

      The Ames archives contain a database of 8,436 galaxies including name,
      RA, declination, magnitude, and radial velocity in MISC/galaxy.dat.
--- 261,266 ----

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.16 FAQ.schedule
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06450    Tue Feb  2 13:25:42 1993
--- FAQ.schedule    Tue Feb  2 13:25:25 1993
***************
*** 36,53 ****
      planetary encounters. SELECT has recently begun carrying much more
      secondary material (associated with SPACELINK) when missions are not
      being covered.
-
-
-     DIAL-A-SHUTTLE AND HOW TO USE IT
-
-     Dial-A-Shuttle is a pay-per-call (900) service run by the National Space
-     Society during shuttle missions. Call (909)-909-6272 24 bours a day from
-     two hours before launch to the post-landing press conference. Include
-     live communications between the astronauts and Mission Control and
-     special updates and interviews. Cost is $2/first minute +
-     $0.45/additional minutes. Limited to US and maybe Canada.
-
-     NASA SELECT offers better coverage (for free) if you can get it.


      AMATEUR RADIO FREQUENCIES FOR SHUTTLE MISSIONS
--- 36,41 ----

===================================================================
diff -t -c -r1.16 FAQ.groups
*** /tmp/,RCSt1a06470    Tue Feb  2 13:25:47 1993
--- FAQ.groups    Tue Feb  2 13:25:22 1993
***************
*** 70,78 ****
      by its network of local chapters. Supports a general agenda of space
      development and man-in-space, including the NASA space station.
      Publishes _Ad Astra_, a monthly glossy magazine, and runs Shuttle
!      launch tours, Dial-A-Shuttle and Space Hotline telephone services. A
!      major sponsor of the annual space development conference. Associated
!      with Spacecause and Spacepac, political lobbying organizations.

      Membership $18 (youth/senior) $35 (regular).

--- 70,78 ----
      by its network of local chapters. Supports a general agenda of space
      development and man-in-space, including the NASA space station.
      Publishes _Ad Astra_, a monthly glossy magazine, and runs Shuttle
!      launch tours and Space Hotline telephone services. A major sponsor
!      of the annual space development conference. Associated with
!      Spacecause and Spacepac, political lobbying organizations.

      Membership $18 (youth/senior) $35 (regular).

***************
*** 99,107 ****
      work-in-progress. Conducts a research program including
      mass-drivers, lunar mining processes and simulants, composites from
      lunar materials, solar power satellites. Runs the biennial Princeton
!      Conference on Space Manufacturing. Developing a Lunar Polar Probe
!      for 1992 launch to geochemically map the entire moon and search for
!      volatiles which may be frozen at the poles.

      Membership $25/year. Senior Associates ($100/year and up) fund most
          SSI research.
--- 99,105 ----
      work-in-progress. Conducts a research program including
      mass-drivers, lunar mining processes and simulants, composites from
      lunar materials, solar power satellites. Runs the biennial Princeton
!      Conference on Space Manufacturing.

      Membership $25/year. Senior Associates ($100/year and up) fund most
          SSI research.

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

Date: 2 Feb 93 18:18:18 GMT
From: "Richard A. Schumacher" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space

>[e-mail] writes:
>>[Why is the shuttle toilet so expensive?]

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Bob Clarke) writes in reply:
>[zero gee, sealing, can't test on ground]

>While I work for the company that makes/designed the space toilet (Hamilton Standard, Div
>of United Technologies) I do not work in that business group, and this response is in no
>way an 'official' response.

The points you raise are true, but are they relevent? Skylab had a perfectly good
toilet in use for scores of days on end 20 years ago. Why not just reuse that design?
Add incremental improvements, if you like; it shouldn't have cost anything like
$23 million.

I'll bet a can of Coke that some contractor or other (with generous NASA supervision)
is working on Yet Another toilet design for Space Station Fred not derived from the
Skylab toilet or from either incarnation of the shuttle toilet, and which will go
through some number of cycles of testing and correction after deployment, etc.

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

Date: 2 Feb 1993 16:38:18 GMT
From: Jon Leech <[e-mail]>
Subject: Non-Profit Space Exp: What would you do with $125M/year?
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Herman Rubin) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Leech) writes:
|> >    Not to come down too hard, but obviously such numbers of people do
|> >not exist.
|> I disagree on both counts.

    Yes, I figured you would.

    It's an observable fact that people do not contribute much money
to space groups. Only your unsupported (albeit often expressed)
opinion says things might be otherwise. Claiming that donations would
be much greater under the hypothetical conditions you mention is
neither convincing nor refutable (though I'd be delighted for you to
start a non-profit and prove me wrong).

    Followups to t.p.s only.

    Jon (SSI Senior Associate since 1986)
    __@/

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

Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1993 16:25:10 GMT
From: Bruce Dunn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Space Station Freedom Media Handbook - 3/18
Newsgroups: sci.space

From NASA SPACELINK:

"6_10_2_4.TXT" (21790 bytes) was created on 10-06-92

Historical Perspective

The concept of the space station goes back at least to 1869 when
Edward Everett Hale mentioned the "Brick Moon," a 200 ft. (60 m.)
diameter satellite for a crew of 37 to help navigate ships at sea, in
the Atlantic Monthly. Novelists like H.G. Wells and Jules Verne
foresaw space travel in the late 1800s. By the turn of the century,
scholars such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky were laying the foundations
of space travel to orbital stations.

The modern space station concept dates back to 1923, when the
Romanian-born Hermann Oberth published his serious theoretical
treatise on the possibilities of large, liquid-fueled rockets. "Die Rakete
zu den Planet-enraumen" ("The Rocket to Interplanetary Space") was
the opening shot in a debate about the meaning of the space station
that was to last for more than six decades. Oberth envisioned a
voyage to Mars, and perceived that a refueling depot in outer space
(or "weltraumstation") would serve as a staging point for the journey.
He quickly realized that a station in space could do many other
things which would further justify its construction.

In the twenties, other visionaries, mostly Germans, joined Oberth in
his advocacy of this unheard of technology. A space station was, at
this time, symbolic of a wide range of Earth-orbital activity, such as
astronomy, meteorology, cartography, and military reconnaissance.
The word "weltraumstation" was a shorthand description for the
entire gamut of orbital spaceflight technology.

Wernher von Braun was one such young enthusiast. A protege of
Oberth, he rose in the thirties to become the premier rocket
designer-engineer of his time. Unfortunately, the cost of building a
rocket--the first logical step into space--was so high that the only
patron available was the state of Nazi Germany. Von Braun saw the
V2 as an intermediate step towards the much grander vision of a
manned mission to Mars. He and other visionaries such as Krafft
Ehricke left Germany at war's end to work for the United States.
Thus, serious space station thinking came to the United States in
1945.

In the fifties, many groups began to think of the immediate and
practical uses of space, both civilian and military. Von Braun was in
the forefront of the space race, but he dreamed of a space station in
permanent Earth-orbit that would satisfy a wide range of scientific,
economic, and political objectives--and serve as a base for future
missions to the moon and to Mars. He postulated that to get to that
step, the United States should first build a small testbed orbital
laboratory. Others agreed in principle, and the debate continued: How
long should such an orbital laboratory last? What was its primary
function--to test man, or technology, or both? How many crew?
Would it be resupplied? What altitude and inclination? Should it be
built in space, or on the ground and deployed in space?

NASA, created in 1958, became the forum for the space station
debate. In 1960, space station advocates from every part of the
fledgling space industry gathered in Los Angeles for a Manned Space
Station Symposium where they agreed that the space station was a
logical goal but disagreed on what it was, where it should be put, and
how to build it.

In 1961, President Kennedy decided that the moon was a target
worthy of the American spirit and heritage. A lunar landing has an
advantage over a space station: everyone could agree on the
definition of landing on the moon, but few could agree on the
definition of a space station. This disagreement was healthy. It forced
station designers and advocates to think about what they could do,
the cost of design, and what was necessary. What were the
requirements for a space station? How could they best be met? The
requirements review process started informally in 1963 and
continued for 23 years. NASA officials asked the scientific,
engineering, and business communities over and over again--What
would you want? What do you need? The answers flowed in, and
NASA scientists and engineers puzzled over how to organize these
wants and needs into an orderly, logical, sequence of activity. Was
the station a laboratory, observatory, industrial plant, launching
platform or drydock? If it was all of these things, how much crew
time should be devoted to each?

In the sixties, working quietly in the shadow of the gigantic
Apollo/Saturn program, space station designers and planners began
to come to grips with the tough questions of safety, hardware,
money, and manpower. Working from 1964 through 1966, they
settled on the modular approach: a pay-as-you-go program that
offered something to everyone. With incremental funding, NASA
managers could provide an incremental space station. Yet cost
remained a problem. Design costs were always eclipsed by operations
costs. The longer a station stayed up in space, the more it would cost
to operate and resupply.

In 1967 and 1968, NASA planners started looking at an advanced
logistics vehicle concept for the space station. They already had a
dependable transportation system (Saturn) to launch station
modules. What they needed was a relatively inexpensive way to
resupply the station. This reusable spacecraft would shuttle between
Earth and the space station. Hence, the name "Shuttle" was selected
in the summer of 1968.

NASA officials felt that the station/shuttle combination served
everybody's needs well. The station had always been a logical step
into space. The problem was that not everyone in the country agreed
that developing space technology was a logical thing to do. The
station program was caught in the shifting tides of politics and
culture. Furthermore, the station and the shuttle began to be
perceived as two separate entities, which had not been anyone's
original intention. In 1970, plans to launch modules via Saturn
technology were canceled, and station designers were told to scale
down their modules to fit inside the shuttle, which would now do

double duty as launch and resupply vehicle.

Thus, in 1972, in the approval of a reusable space transportation
system, the space station concept itself was approved. The
transportation segment, called the Space Shuttle, would be developed
first. The space station itself would await the future. But before the
Shuttle could be developed and made operational for a space station,
the Saturn would be used as both a launch vehicle and the spacecraft
for America's first space station: Skylab.

Skylab was launched in 1973 and performed the first American
experiments in long-duration, manned spaceflight. Even though
Skylab had a short life and was not equipped for resupply of key
expendable items, it did foreshadow the promise of a permanently
manned laboratory in space. The Skylab effort proved that humans
could live and work in space for extended durations, and more than
100 different experiments in life and materials science, Earth and
solar observation were conducted successfully.

When the first Space Shuttle flew, in April of 1981, once again the
space station was considered the next logical step in manned
spaceflight. In May of 1982, a Space Station Task Force was formed,
and a year later produced an initial space station concept. Cabinet-
level departments and agencies studied the concept, and in January
of 1984, President Reagan committed the nation to the goal of
developing a permanently manned space station within a decade.
The Space Station Program Office was established in April of that
year, and in April of 1985, eight contractors were selected to do a
detailed definition of the space station. In March of 1986, the
Systems Requirements Review settled on a dual-keel configuration
for the space station, affording a better microgravity environment,
more capacity for attached payloads, and better location for the
servicing bay than a single transverse boom. The United States
reduced the number of its laboratory modules to one when the
Europeans and Japanese decided to provide one each.

The definition and preliminary design phase ended in January 1987,
followed by cost analysis and a review of technical design issues. The
Development Contracts were announced in December 1987. These
efforts resulted in the Baseline Configuration, which was the basis for
the April 1989 Media Handbook. Since then, the program has
undergone several reviews which have resulted in the configuration
discussed in this document. As part of its appropriation for Fiscal
Year 1991, the Congress directed NASA to redesign the space station
and to reduce development funding for the project by about $6
billion for years 1991-1996. NASA completed the "restructuring" of
the space station program in the spring of 1991 and directed
development contractors to incorporate design changes to make the
station cheaper, smaller, easier to assemble and require fewer Space
Shuttle missions to assemble.

In November of 1991, the Program conducted an integrated
Preliminary Design Review (PDR) of the "restructure" man-tended
configuration. A PDR of the permanently manned configuration is
planned for 1992. Critical Design Reviews (CDR) of space station
components and systems also are scheduled to start in 1992,
culminating with an integrated CDR of the man-tended phase in early
1993. Completion of the CDR will mark a major milestone in the
Freedom program as it signals the end of the design phase and the
start of the major manufacturing phase.

In addition, the Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program
made several recommendations pertaining to the Space Station
Program.

Now that these difficult reviews and changes have been completed,
the program can continue on schedule to a First Element Launch in
early 1996.

An International Perspective

Formal international agreement among the dozen nations to
participate in the Space Station Freedom program took place in
Washington on September 29, 1988, the very day Shuttle Discovery
returned the U.S. to manned spaceflight after a 32-month pause.
In his 1984 State of the Union Address, when President Ronald
Reagan directed NASA to develop a permanently manned space
station, he also stressed international participation. "NASA will invite
other countries to participate," he declared, "so we can strengthen
peace, build prosperity and expand freedom for all who share our
goals."

Japan, Canada and nine of the 13 nations involved with the European
Space Agency (ESA) soon expressed interest in order to augment
their own unmanned space efforts. Most of these nations had already
discussed utilization requirements of a prospective space station as
early as 1982, so the announcement came as no surprise.

Right after the State of the Union Address, negotiations began on
cooperation in the space station definition and preliminary design
phase. By the spring of 1985, ESA, Japan and Canada each had signed
a memoranda of understanding to share in the benefits and risks of
an international space station devoted to the peaceful uses of space.
A year later, in mid-1986, the four partners had achieved program-
level agreement on flight hardware contributions. Then they began
formal negotiations on detailed design, development, operations and
utilization of the space station. These negotiations were successfully
concluded in June of 1988 with both multilateral intergovernmental
agreements and bilateral memoranda of understanding signed in
Washington on September 29. Signatories of the agreements were
the U.S., Japan, Canada and nine of the 13 ESA member countries
(Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany,
the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom).
Thus, Space Station Freedom is an international endeavor.
International cooperation is traditional in NASA programs, and a key
objective of the U.S. civil space program is the promotion of
international cooperation in space.

Canada specializes in remote sensing, space science, technology
development and communications in its space efforts. Building upon
the Remote Manipulator System which has served the Space Shuttle
for more than a decade, Canada chose to develop a Mobile Servicing
System for Space Station Freedom.

Program management for Canada's space station activities is the
responsibility of the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). The CSA was
created in December 1990 to centralize and better coordinate
Canadian space efforts. It is under the auspices of the ministry of
industry, science and technology.

Building on their experience with Spacelab aboard the Shuttle, ESA
plans to build an attached pressurized module and a man-tended
free-flyer for the program. Already ESA is forming user communities
for the station, and the member nations are planning to develop a
new expendable launch vehicle (Ariane 5) and a reusable manned
spacecraft, Hermes. The European Council of Science Ministers
affirmed space station program participation in Rome in January of
1985 and reaffirmed it in November of 1987 at The Hague.
Japan's contribution centers on the development and commercial use
of the Japanese Experiment Module. A relative newcomer to space
activity, Japan seeks advances in scientific observation,
communications, materials processing, life sciences, and technology
development.

Based upon an $8 billion international contribution to the Space
Station Freedom program, the partners will share in the utilization
and in the operations costs according to the following formula: the
U.S. has a 71.4 percent share, ESA and Japan 12.8 percent each, and
Canada 3 percent.

A Utilization Perspective

The United States has begun the development of Space Station
Freedom in cooperation with Japan, Canada, and the European Space
Agency. The planned early uses of the station encompass a broad
spectrum of research disciplines including life sciences, material
sciences, astrophysics, Earth sciences, planetary sciences, and
commercial applications. A "user" is any individual, group or agency
responsible for the development or operation of a payload,
experiment, instrument, or mission utilizing a component of the
program.

Based upon the needs expressed by many potential users over the
past seven years, plus reviews by scientific panels, independent
boards and commissions, the initial requirements have been
established. The program objectives have been finalized, and formal
plans and documents are being prepared to allocate and
accommodate a broad mix of experiments and investigations in all
disciplines. It is NASA's intention to utilize the station's unique
environment and capabilities to the fullest extent possible for science
research, the development of new technologies, and the support of
the user communities, and to enable human exploration of the Solar
System.

The official NASA program objectives are to:

*       establish a permanently manned multipurpose facility in low
Earth orbit (LEO) in the 1990s;

*       enhance and evolve mankind's ability to live and work safely
in space;

*       stimulate technologies of national importance by using them to
provide Space Station Freedom capabilities;

*       provide long-term, cost-effective operation and utilization of
continually improving facilities for scientific, technological,
commercial and operational activities enabled or enhanced by the
presence of man in space;

*       promote substantial international cooperation in space;

*       create and expand opportunities for private-sector activity in
space;

*       provide for the evolution of the Space Station Freedom to meet
future needs and challenges;

*       foster public knowledge and understanding of the role of
habitable space system capabilities in the evolution of human
experience outside the Earth's atmosphere.

When Space Station Freedom is completely assembled, a broad
spectrum of research in all the disciplines of life sciences, materials
sciences, astrophysics, Earth science, and planetary sciences will be
conducted. This will be accomplished with both manned and
unmanned elements. The manned facility in a low Earth orbit (180-
240 n.m.) will consist of four pressurized modules. Three of these
modules--one each from the U.S., Europe and Japan--will serve as
laboratories. The U.S. laboratory is designed to handle projects that
need a stable microgravity environment for materials research as
well as research and development in basic physics, chemistry, and
biology. The European and Japanese modules are designed primarily
for research in fluid physics, life sciences and materials processing.
The fourth module provides a habitation area for rest, recreation and
health for the entire crew.

In addition, payloads can be attached to the transverse boom,
external to the pressurized modules. Utility ports provide power and
data resources.

The ESA will provide the Columbus Free-Flying Laboratory. This
unmanned pressurized laboratory will provide a long-term research
environment, of up to six months, free of manmade disturbances.
In summary, there will be a variety of manned, man-tended and
unmanned user opportunities for science in, on and around the space
station.


A Futuristic Perspective

Evolution planning for the long-term use of Space Station Freedom
has been part of the program since its beginning. At the very start,
NASA's Administrator called for the design of a "station we can buy
by the yard," suggesting add-ons, developments and enhancements.
The Space Station Task Force included a "Year 2000" concept that
showed growth of the preliminary design, and Phase B contractor
studies included system requirements for evolution of the station.
Early in the program, two Space Station Evolution Workshops were
held in Williamsburg, Virginia, to explore station development. By
1985, it was decided that the Office of Space Station should manage
the evolutionary growth activities. NASA's Office of Exploration
requested the Office of Space Station to look at the impacts of
accommodating exploration missions. By 1987 the National Research
Council Committee on Space Station endorsed the baseline
configuration and urged NASA to study "alternative evolutionary
paths."

On July 20, 1989, the twentieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar
landing, President Bush charted a new course for the human
exploration of space when he challenged America to "go back to the
moon, back to the future. And this time to stay. And--a journey into
tomorrow--a manned mission to Mars." The new "Space Exploration
Initiative" (SEI) included the evolutionary growth of the space
station to support lunar and Mars flight. The Advanced Studies
Program managed by NASA Headquarters and implemented by
Langley Research Center continues to examine requirements,
concepts, and options for space station evolution.

From an engineering standpoint, these evolutionary changes will be
accommodated by "hooks and scars." A "hook" is aerospace jargon for
a design feature for the addition or update of computer software at
some future time. Similarly, a "scar" is jargon for a design feature to
enable upgrade of hardware at some future time, analogous to the
space on a car's dash that allows you to add a radio at a later time.

Future Configuration
Freedom's development beyond Permanently Manned Capability
(PMC), achieved by the year 2000, will be characterized by upgrades
in three broad areas: increased resources, new functional capabilities
and incorporation of new technologies. Increased resources will
reduce time-sharing and increase schedule flexibility, permitting
enhanced scientific and technical utilization of Freedom. Included
among the planned additions for example, is a fourth photovoltaic
array module to increase Freedom's power level to 75 kilowatts
(kW). New functional capabilities will improve the station's
operational characteristics. For example, improved Communications
and Tracking (C&T) capabilities can support communications with
next-generation satellites. Upgrading Freedom's systems with
advanced technologies will result in reduced operations costs,
increased productivity and increased crew safety. For example, crew
time availability will be increased because advanced automation and
robotics (A&R) can perform tasks that otherwise would be conducted
by astronauts.

Lunar and Mars Mission Support
As a critical research laboratory in support of the SEI, Freedom will
provide facilities for life sciences research that will enable mankind
to live permanently in Earth orbit, go back to the moon and on to
Mars. It is essential that scientists better understand how extended
exposure to the near zero-gravity environment affects people before
we embark on long-duration space trips. The development of
techniques to counter the effects of near weightlessness is a key goal
of life sciences research on Freedom. The opportunity to examine
microorganisms, plants and animals over several generations in a
low-gravity space environment is unprecedented. Similarly, human-
factors research will examine the physiological and psychological
conditions needed to maintain a productive crew over a long period
of time. The full life sciences research program will also include
studies in operational medicine, biomedical research, space biology,
exobiology and biospheric research. The program retains the
flexibility to evolve the configuration to serve as a "node" or staging
base for manned lunar missions.

Space Station Freedom will serve as a testbed for technologies
needed for SEI applications, including closed-loop life support
systems and automated fault detection and repair systems.


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: 2 Feb 93 17:12:41 GMT
From: Jim Dumoulin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
> Just a reminder- 7 years ago today- 11:38am EST....
> So, where were you when the Challenger disaster took place?
>
  For the past few days, I've read responses to this post and have hoped
the flurry of responses would die down.  Each post stirs up emotions most
of us would rather forget and I've been reluctant to add my experiences
to the heap.   My feelings were, "It's over and we've finally put it
behind us.  Let's get on with it."

  Well, last night I was walking past my bookshelf and next to the 20 or
so books I have about the accident in my SPACE collection, I remembered a
book I have called "To Engineer is Human".   I bought it because it had a
picture of Challenger on the cover. It was mostly about other notable
failures in our transportation system, primarly the failure of bridges.
The reoccurring theme of the book was that engineering design is a cyclic
process of inovation and optimization followed by catastrophic failure.
The author stated that we learn more from any one failure than we do from
an entire string of successes.  I suppose Challenger is the "Talcoma Narrows"
of our generation and something that none of us will ever be allowed to
forget.

Where was I when it happened?

   I worked for NASA in the Spacelab and Experiment Integration Divison.
Every test stand in the Operations and Checkout (O&C) building was
filled with payloads awaiting their turn for launch.  Normally, I worked
the C-1 console (Payload Operations) in Firing Room 1 for horizontal
payloads. However, the primary payload on 51-L (TDRSS) was a vertical
payload and the secondary payload (Spartan-Halley) didn't have any
telemetry that could possibly cause a Launch Commit Criteria Violation,
so our team wasn't working the launch.  We flipped thru a number of pad
camers and then went down to wave to the crew as they left for the launch
pad.  I continued working and at the 20 min hold, I hopped in my car and
drove to as close to the pad as allowed.  I was at the park site for the
Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) in front of the Launch Control Center (LCC)
about 3 miles away from pad 39-B at the time of launch.

I listened to the count on my 2-meter while a friend nearby had a hand held
scanner flipping thru the KSC RF nets.  It was a cold  day and we listened
to the ice inspection teams clear the pad and watched them drive to the fall
back point.  A the time of the launch it was a crisp clear and starting to
get a little warmer.  We watched the explosion in shock and disblief
and scanned the falling debris with binoculars hoping to see the shuttle
intact.  I remember hearing the KSC security officer stationed on the roof
of the LCC ( with the astronaut families).  He'd seen enough launches to know
it was bad but didn't know what to say to them.  I turned behind me and
looked up to the roof as well.

  We knew it wasn't possible but we kept hoping.  I focused the binoculars
on an SRB parachute that was fluttering down and listened to a chatter of
rescue crews being told it was too dangerous to enter the area.  Debris
seemed to fall forever.

  We hopped into my car and quickly drove back to the O&C building.  There
were no other cars on the road and we wanted to get back before the
road's opened up. KSC policy keeps the road clear of tourists after a launch
incase emergency personnel need to travel somewhere in a hurry.   In the
O&C, most of us crammed into our payload test area and tried to get more
information.  We had plenty of camera views of an empty launch pad but the
NASA select channel was silent.  Nobody was trying to cover up anything but
the PAO crews were in as much shock as we were and were having difficulty
concentrating on getting information out to the public.  We didn't even have
a TV set to find out what the networks were saying.

 Emergency procedures went into effect at KSC. Off site phone lines were
automatically cut to all but select stations.  This keeps the limited
number of phone circuits into the center free for emergency use.  The firing
room, payload control rooms and the data center was sealed off.  Computer
memories were dumped and stored.  All data and video tapes were duplicated
and all paper and notes (including anything in the trash cans) were bagged
and sealed.  Preserving information that could help understand the problem
was the number one priority.


The entire experience and the years of recovery leading up to STS-26R
deeply affected everyone here and thru failure has made space transportation
a little safer.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Jim Dumoulin                      INTERNET: [e-mail]
   NASA / Payload Operations      SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::DUMOULIN
   Kennedy Space Center
   Florida, USA  32899



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

End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 114
------------------------------