Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 05:15:43 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu 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 "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 2 Feb 93 08:31:28 GMT From: Jon Leech 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 ---- (yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov). + 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 ads@cuads.coloradu.edu. 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 (stern@cfa.harvard.edu). + + + 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 newsdesk@jplpost.jpl.nasa.gov or phone (818)-354-7170. + + 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 tr-admin@techreports.larc.nasa.gov. + + 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 - ccount@athena.mit.edu 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" Subject: Expensive shuttle toilets (Why?) Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space >jsmill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes: >>[Why is the shuttle toilet so expensive?] In <1993Feb02.123213.18122@actcnews.res.utc.com> clarke@actcnews.res.utc.com (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 Subject: Non-Profit Space Exp: What would you do with $125M/year? Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article , hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: |> In article <1kjp87INNal0@borg.cs.unc.edu> leech@cs.unc.edu (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 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 Bruce_Dunn@mindlink.bc.ca ------------------------------ Date: 2 Feb 93 17:12:41 GMT From: Jim Dumoulin Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle In article <1993Jan28.010055.1691@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (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: DUMOULIN@TITAN.KSC.NASA.GOV NASA / Payload Operations SPAN/HEPnet: KSCP00::DUMOULIN Kennedy Space Center Florida, USA 32899 ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 114 ------------------------------