Return-path: 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/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:58:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <8a4P7nW00VcJM4=U43@andrew.cmu.edu> Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Thu, 29 Mar 90 01:57:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: SPACE Digest V11 #195 SPACE Digest Volume 11 : Issue 195 Today's Topics: Astronaut selection, and HST Re: Will we lose another orbiter? Payload Summary for 03/26/90 (Forwarded) Hubble Space Telescope Update (Forwarded) - 03/28/90 Galileo Update - 03/28/90 Intelsat Recovery (3 of 3) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 28 Mar 90 09:52:04 GMT From: cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!utzoo!sq!msb@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Mark Brader) Subject: Astronaut selection, and HST Two topics of recent discussion in these groups are topics of articles in the new (April/May) issue of "Air & Space / Smithsonian" magazine. One article is about how NASA selects astronauts from the large numbers of people who apply, and in particular, from the 106 of those people that they actually interviewed a few months ago. (They're planning to repeat this process every 2 years.) The other is about the various tasks planned for the Hubble Space Telescope when it finally gets into orbit, and includes a picture of longtime sci.astro-nomer Bill Jefferys. (His group is to use it to examine various nearby stars for a period of years so as to tell, from their motions, whether they have planets.) -- Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com "[Jupiter's] satellites are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no influence on the Earth and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist." -- Francesco Sizi, quoted by T. Cox This article is in the public domain. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 09:42:06 GMT From: mcsun!ukc!axion!news@uunet.uu.net (swaraj jeyasingh) Subject: Re: Will we lose another orbiter? From article <6927@timbuk.cray.com>, by lfa@timbuk.cray.com (Lou Adornato): > In message 53783@microsoft.UUCP andyro@microsoft.UUCP (Andrew ROSENBERG) write: >>I don't know about the rest of you, by when Challenger bit the dust (or >>water), it profoundly affected me. The STS program was the epitome of >>American technology, the culmination of years of work of the best minds >>in America. Then one day, POOF. It made me doubt all technology. For months >>I went around, wondering how skyscrapers didn't fall, why cars didn't slide >>off of roads, how planes get off the ground, ballpoint pens. > > One of the root causes of the Challenger accident, was public pressure > to launch on schedule. This was caused by the public's inability to understand just > how complex and demanding launching an experimental aircraft can be. Once people > stop taking technology for granted, they start learning. Maybe in the long run Challenger > will have made us stronger by making us see the danger in having 90% of our population > (and 100% of our policy makers) technologically illiterate. > Well, i dont know about the general public but I must admit I felt as Andrew did back in 86. Admittedly, being across the pond one hears (and thus believes) more media hype about how wonderful the reusable space truck was than accurate engineering type news. Neither did I have access to the net then. But it is easier to be wise after the event. How many of us, supposedly more informed types (relatively), were also carried along by the public optimism and thus taken aback by the tragedy. In any case, perhaps the public's faith was not entirely misplaced, as NASA did have a good saftey record till then. Moreover public scepticsm is even worse than naivety as evidenced by the furore over the use of RTGs in Galileo etc. A little knowledge..... [stuff deleted] >> What should be done? We should continue launching >>and hope for the best, but take every chance to improve design and safety, >>and be prepared for the occasional big loss. > > That's precisely what is being done. But there are limits, and there always will be. > When the big loss comes, we pick up the pieces, mourn our dead, and get on with it. > There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. My feelings exactly. However, I do wonder if it is possible if the basic shuttle design is so fundamentally flawed (as some people have said) that it always going to be a worry and always going to require an army of engineers to keep it flying. Personally I don't think so but I wonder if anyone else has any such misgivings. I *hope* that as flights build up, reliability will improve and a "reusable space truck service" will yet emerge; albeit with the odd hiccup. Swaraj Jeyasingh sjeyasingh@axion.bt.co.uk British Telecom Research Labs Ipswich UK. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 09:18:32 GMT From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) Subject: Payload Summary for 03/26/90 (Forwarded) PAYLOAD STATUS REPORT MONDAY, MAR. 26, 1990 Patricia E. Phillips NASA Public Affairs, Kennedy Space Center ASTRO-1/STS-35 The ASTRO-1 payload was installed in the Space Shuttle Columbia's payload bay Tuesday, Mar.20. ASTRO-1 is the first primary horizontal payload to be flown since Mission 61-A in Oc- tober, l985. A full schedule of testing and verification work lies ahead. The Crew Equipment Integration Test (CEIT), the orbiter to payload interface verification test (IVT), and the end-to-end test -- which tests communications between firing room, orbiter, payload, satellite relays, and all participating NASA centers-- are all scheduled to be completed by the middle of this week. Pre-flight processing for ASTRO-1 will include regularly- scheduled BBXRT servicing, including one today, as well as con- tinued contamination control and temperature monitoring. Astronaut Jeff Hoffman, a Mission Specialist on STS-35, performed a special fit check Friday on the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UIT), prior to CEIT. Wearing an extravehicular ac- tivity (EVA) glove and a full helmet, Hoffman verified that there is room for his hand to easily slide into position to manipulate film during a spacewalk, should one be required. The entire flight crew participated in the CEIT over the weekend. Joining Hoffman were Commander Vance Brand, Pilot Guy Gardner, Mission Specialists John "Mike" Lounge and Robert Parker, and Payload Specialists Ronald Parise and Samuel Dur- rance. They worked in the cockpit, crew cabin, and on stands around the payload bay. Columbia, with ASTRO-1 aboard, is currently scheduled to be moved to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) for mating with the external tank/solid rocket booster stack no earlier than April 8. Rollout to Launch Pad 39A is targeted for April 16, with launch on May 9. SPACELAB LIFE SCIENCES (SLS-1)/STS-40 Powered-on Spacelab subsystems testing have been completed in preparation for mating the Spacelab module with the rack and floor assembly. The entire STS-40 crew came to KSC recently for the two-day Mission Sequence Test. Commander Bryan O'Connor; Pilot Sid Gutierrez; Mission Specialists Tamara Jernigan, Rhea Seddon and James Bagian; and Payload Specialists Drew Gaffney and Millie Hughes-Fulford donned clean room garb and checked out the status of Spacelab equipment that is currently undergoing integration and testing in the Operations and Checkout (O&C) Building. Based on anomalies discovered during testing, a low-G centrifuge will be removed and replaced. No impact is seen to the schedule of continued SLS build-up, integration, and testing. Three upgraded computers with advanced microcode capabilities have been installed, replacing older units. Func- tional testing of the General Purpose Workstation (GPWS) has been completed. This week, the team will move the experiment rack and floor assembly to a test stand for module mating and integration activities. All of the racks have been assembled. This required the as- sembly of 10 racks, plus integration of the two other racks that are maintained in the Spacelab module in an assembled condition. SLS-1, scheduled for August aboard Columbia, will be the first Space Shuttle mission dedicated to life sciences research. Spacelab will convert Columbia's payload bay into a biological research laboratory. The research agenda includes investigations in these areas: cardiovascular/pulmonary, renal/endocrine, blood system, immune system, musculoskeletal, and neurovestibular topics. INTERNATIONAL MICROGRAVITY LABORATORY (IML)/STS-42 Rack buildup and integration continues in the Operations and Checkout (O&C) building. The Radiation Monitoring Container/Dosimeter Experiment has been turned over to KSC for processing work. Final plans are in process for turnover of the The Gravitational Plant Physiology Facility (GPPF). IML is scheduled to fly aboard Columbia in December. The seven-member crew includes: Commander Ronald Grabe; Pilot Stephen S. Oswald; Missions Specialists Manley "Sonny" Carter, Norman Thagard, and William Readdy; and Payload Specialists Ulf Merbold and Roberta Bondar. Also a Spacelab long module flight, IML-1 will study the ef- fects of microgravity, with an emphasis on material processes and living organisms. Five international space science research or- ganizations are working with NASA on IML: the European Space Agency (ESA), the Canadian Space Agency (CSA), the French Na- tional Center for Space Studies (CNES), the West German Research and Development Institute for Air and Spacecraft (DLR), and the National Space Development Agency of Japan (NASDA). ##### NOTE TO EDITORS/NEWS DIRECTORS: Videos of STS-35 and STS-40 processing activities are available as follows: STS-35/Astronaut Jeff Hoffman performing UIT checks; STS-40/Entire crew checking out module. To obtain these videos, contact the KSC News Center Audio-Video department at 407-867-7819. Still photography on several processing activities will be available later this week. ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 18:04:59 GMT From: zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Hubble Space Telescope Update (Forwarded) - 03/28/90 Hubble Space Telescope Update March 28, 1990 HST UPDATE: NASA's Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was transferred to Pad 39-B at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida on Sunday. Preparations are underway to install HST in Discovery's payload bay today. After the mechanical and electrical connections have been made, an interface verification test will commence. On Friday, engine technicians replaced a teflon coated seal at the joint between the engine 2 low pressure fuel turbo pump and the orbiter main propulsion system. No leakage was detected after the seal was replaced. A leak was detected at this joint during the helium signature test last week. A partial helium signature leak test will be rerun on the liquid hydrogen system early tomorrow. An engine flight readiness test is planned this week. HST is scheduled for launch on April 12. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 21:52:39 GMT From: snorkelwacker!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@BLOOM-BEACON.MIT.EDU (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update - 03/28/90 GALILEO MISSION STATUS March 28, 1990 Today the Galileo spacecraft is 74 million miles from Earth, 72 million miles from the Sun. Its speed along its orbit is 83,436 mph, and the spacecraft has now rolled up 285 million miles since launch. The second post-Venus sequence is now controlling spacecraft activities, and will continue to do so through April 23. The sequence was sent to the spacecraft last Thursday and became active this Monday. This sequence includes, in addition to routine tasks like sun-pointing and cruise- science data transmission, scheduled time for the first of several trajectory-correction maneuvers planned for the Venus-Earth cruise. These maneuvers will shape the Galileo flight path for the planned Earth gravity-assist flyby scheduled for December 8 this year. The spacecraft health is excellent. The telemetry data rate was raised this morning from 10 to 40 bits per second to take advantage of improving Earth-spacecraft geometry. All general thermal control temperatures and tank pressures are within acceptable ranges. A total of 1821 real-time commands has been transmitted to Galileo. Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov 4800 Oak Grove Dr. | Pasadena, CA 91109 | ------------------------------ Date: 28 Mar 90 05:41:20 GMT From: nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!ofa123!Wales.Larrison@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Wales Larrison) Subject: Intelsat Recovery (3 of 3) o "Your Shuttle Costs are too low!" The costs I'm using are from the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment independent assessment of shuttle costs for their report "Space Transportation Systems - A Buyer's Guide" (July 1988). These are not NASA's cost estimates, but from an assessment of the true average costs of the shuttle system performed by the OTA, an independent group which reports directly to Congress. According to the report, and verified by my conversations with the OTA, these costs include an assessment of all the Shuttle-associated costs from all NASA centers, and includes mission support, mission training, ETs, SRBs, ground turnaround and refurbishment, and other associated shuttle costs. There are some important assumptions - primarily the use of long term average costs. This is in accord with standard economic and accounting practices - for example, McDonnell-Douglas did not price their first MD-11 aircraft at $3 billion (the development cost), but priced it at the long term average price they expect over a buy of several hundred aircraft. Similarly, NASA should not charge the marginal cost of an additional flight (a substantially lower cost basis). Yes, there are other ways of allocating costs, but this seems (to me) to be the most sensible, and most supportable approach from economic and technical grounds. For further references, I would recommend "Pricing Options for the Space Shuttle", Congressional Budget Office, March 1985 (which must be updated for current baseline budgetary costs, but a good overall discussion); "Pricing Policies to Compensate for Cost Growth in the Space Transportion System", General Accounting Office, 1982 (also must be updated with current budgetary costs); "Understanding the Cost Basis for Space Shuttle Pricing Policies", by B.A. Stone in Journal of Parametrics, Vol 3., No.1 (general methodologies); and "Reducing Launch Operations Costs", U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, September 1988. o "Why Doesn't Intelsat Pay for an entire Flight?" The Intelsat-VI series of satellites were designed for compatibility with the Space Shuttle (as well as Titan and Ariane). When fully configured for launch, including Apogee and Perigee Kick motors, it occupied about 1/3 of a shuttle payload bay in length. The system to be returned does not have apogee and perigee kick motors, so it should be somewhat shorter and lighter, but to be conservative I assumed it would still require 1/3 of the payload bay. There is no current pricing policy for shuttle usage, but I assumed the old formula would apply - allocating the cost by fraction of weight or volume, and adjusting upwards for a 75% percent average load factor. Since the Intelsat VI to be returned does not include its perigee or apogee kick motor (the heaviest system components), the payload will be volume driven, not weight driven. Similarly, the launched weight to return the Intelsat-VI will be substantially less than the returned weight (just the cradle and EVA tools on the way up to orbit). Costs are usually charged for launched fraction, rather than returned fraction - but I assumed the costs to the larger of the two. So, chargeable fraction is (20'/60')/.75 = .45, to be multiplied by the cost per flight (assumed to be $160-220 million). o "Can Intelsat Reuse or Resell the satellite?" Probably yes. There are about 13 Intelsat satellites planned to be launched, of which this is number 2. Rather than building a new satellite to fill out their constellation, they can probably just launch this one after refurbishment. Refurbishment should not be substantial, since the satellite is designed for 10+ years in space, and the design does not have to be changed to meet someone else's specific needs. Probably the small ACS thrusters used to circularize its orbit will be replaced (each is about $5-50,000 dollars). And, of course, the system will have to be checked out again. But if the savings are $30 million or so, there is still a substantial profit margin to break even. -- Wales Larrison ...!{dhw68k,zardoz,lawnet,conexch}!ofa123!Wales.Larrison Wales.Larrison@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V11 #195 *******************