Message-ID: <gYblRsa00UkV4DmU5R@andrew.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 89 00:20:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #498

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 9 : Issue 498

Today's Topics:
		     space news from May 8 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 89 03:06:10 GMT
From: jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 8 AW&ST

[Don't remember whether I mentioned this last time or not...  One of
my German readers filled me in on why the new West German space agency
is technically a private company:  "In Germany all Government employees
are bound into a rather tight salary schedule which gives lower wages than
in the respective private sector.  Thus the new DARA (Deutsche Agentur
fuer Raumfahrt = German Space Agency) was formed as 'private' company to
be able to pay the salaries needed to get qualified staff."]

[For those interested in antimatter propulsion, CERN has just taken
back (from Fermilab) the world record for antiproton production.
The numbers still aren't high enough for any practical purpose except
producing Nobel Prizes, though.]

Sen. Barbara Mikulski, new chairman of one of the key Senate subcommittees
overseeing NASA funding, warns scientists that NASA funding is an investment,
not "a giveaway program or entitlement".

First formal meeting of the National Space Council will aim at setting a new
policy on remote sensing satellites.  Surprisingly, DoD is expected to support
continuing Landsat funding, as they make quite a bit of use of it.

Aerospace Plane project decides to continue parallel funding for both main
propulsion contractors through late 1990, instead of making a choice now.
Neither has a significant advantage, and they are different enough that
retaining both is felt to provide useful redundancy.  Of course, this does
complicate life for the airframe bidders, who have to be ready to handle
either.

Soviets slip first manned shuttle flight to 1992, to permit installation
and testing of advanced redundant flight-control systems.  [One would
suspect that completing development of said systems is the real issue.]
Soviet cosmonauts criticize current system as giving the crew inadequate
ability to intervene in case of trouble, and say that planning for orbital
flight tests is not well organized.  Igor Volk [chief test pilot for the
program] says that the next flight will not occur until late next year at
the earliest, and will be unmanned.  The third mission will probably be
manned, with Volk in command.

The Soviet shuttle cosmonauts are a separate group from the Soyuz crews.
They were selected primarily for aircraft flight-test experience and then
trained as cosmonauts, with training still putting considerable emphasis
on aircraft testing.

Boris Gubanov, principal designer of Energia, says Soviets are studying
a winged, flyback version of Energia's core, using shuttle technology.
Equipping the strap-on boosters with wings is also being looked at.  So
far the strap-ons have not been recovered, but they are built to use a
parachute recovery system now being developed.  Gubanov also says that
two upper stages are under development for Energia:  a "small propulsion
module", roughly similar to NASA's OMV, for maneuvering in low orbit, and
an oxyhydrogen upper stage to put 18 T into Clarke orbit, 32 T into lunar
trajectory, or 28 T into Mars/Venus trajectory.

Valery Barsukov, a prominent Soviet planetary scientist, says that Soviet
planetary activity will focus on Mars for the rest of the century, aiming
at an orbiter/lander mission in 1994, a rover/sample-return mission in
1998, and a manned mission hoped to occur before 2025.  The 1994 mission
will use two identical orbiter/lander spacecraft, with the lander carrying
an instrumented balloon, small "meteorological pods", and one or more
surface penetrators.  Consideration is being given to building two complete
backup spacecraft, which would be launched in 1996 to either repeat the
1994 mission if it failed, or conduct similar studies on Phobos.  He says
the Soviets have no immediate plans for Venus or the Moon, although they
are interested in joint lunar missions with the US.

Soviet Union and its US marketing rep, Space Commerce Corp, offer to supply
Energia launches to orbit the US space station.  This would save NASA the
multi-billion-dollar costs of developing its own Shuttle-C proposal.  The
Soviets have designed an Energia cargo pod with a 122x18ft volume, compared
to 82x15 for Shuttle-C.  Payload masses are similar -- 50-75 T -- but there
is a planned upgrade path that could put up to 200 T on Energia.  Specific
prices and schedules are not yet available, since Energia is not officially
operational yet, but price per kilo is expected to be comparable to that
of Proton [i.e., cheap] and the Soviets have said that if a customer with
a 100 T payload appeared, it could be in orbit next year.

SCC also plans to bid to Goddard under the upcoming procurement for
commercial sounding-rocket services, using Soviet Cyclone rockets.
Art Dula, its president, says:  "I'd like to bring some Soviet vehicles
over and launch them from [the Cape].  We're an American launch vehicle
service provider -- all the laws encourage launch vehicle service
providers from the US.  We are such a provider.  We happen to use
Russian hardware, just as [Space Services Inc] used Canadian hardware
[for its launch in March]."

Magellan is on its way, after an aborted launch attempt April 28 and a
successful one May 4.  The April attempt hit some computer problems first,
and this stalled launch long enough for a hydrogen recirculation pump to
short and stop.  The pumps circulate liquid hydrogen through the engines
to keep them cold and avoid thermal shock or formation of hydrogen-gas
bubbles on engine start.  The pumps stop 6 seconds before engine start
and the failure would not have endangered the shuttle.

The successful Magellan launch clears the Eastern Test Range for a number
of other missions which have been waiting impatiently, notably the
first Titan 4 (early-warning satellite), a Titan 34D (either a military
comsat or an eavesdropping satellite), and a pair of Deltas (a Navstar
and an Indian comsat).  Some of the scheduling pressure was relieved
when the USN postponed further Trident 2 testing to permit a nozzle
redesign in the wake of the March 21 failure.

NASA will recommend killing the space station if Congress orders a cut
or $600-800M or more.  Such a cut is not at all unlikely.  NASA is
fighting with one foot in a bucket because it's in the middle of a
management shuffle, with key people (notably Truly) holding office
on an acting basis only.

Senate criticizes lack of cooperation between DoD and NASA, notably
the USAF's unwillingness to let NASA use Titan 4s.  "[DoD wants] its
own little space empire."

SDI [!] encourages NASA to accelerate retrieval of LDEF.  LDEF will
reenter unless retrieved by the end of this year at the latest.  NASA
currently plans retrieval early in December, which is cutting it very
close, especially with the uncertainty of reentry predictions.  The
Hubble Telescope may slip [it did] to keep LDEF retrieval on schedule.
SDI (and NASA) are very keen on studying the effects of five years in
space on LDEF's systems, including support equipment that was not
originally meant as experiments.  Particularly interesting are effects
of atomic oxygen on composites and solar cells, the number of space-
debris and micrometeorite collisions, and the effects of thousands of
day/night thermal cycles.

NRC committee strongly supports construction of the Aerospace Plane
prototype to improve hypersonic technology, while warning that it may
not be able to achieve orbit even with an auxiliary rocket system.

USAF moves to "normalize" space operations, emphasizing launches by
military technicians rather than contractors [the "own little space
empire" rears its head again], and standardization of payloads and
interfaces to permit last-minute selection of hardware.  The USN, on
the other hand, is wondering whether it can depend on space assets
controlled by the USAF, and the Army can't get excited about the idea
at all.

Future SDI shuttle payloads will depend on cost and lead time.  A
senior SDI commander observes that preparing the Starlab (SDI Spacelab)
mission for flight included 26 boxes of paperwork to support a NASA
safety analysis, which seems excessive.
-- 
You *can* understand sendmail, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V9 #498
*******************