Date: Thu, 4 Feb 93 05:11:55 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #124 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 4 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 124 Today's Topics: Advanced Solid Rocket Program An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) extreme responses to Challenger transcript (3 msgs) Gps Satellites IRAS - 10 Years Ago (2 msgs) material properties of alu 2219 Polar Orbit Space Station Media Handbook - 7/18 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: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 10:45:41 -0500 From: Lawrence Curcio Subject: Advanced Solid Rocket Program Newsgroups: sci.space I just got my monthly copy of the GAO's _Reports and Testimony_. They have a (characteristically unfavorable) review of the Advanced Solid Rocket Program. OK. I thought that solid rockets were politically out. Now it seems we are developing solid boosters that will take the shuttle into orbit by themselves (have I got that right?) So tell me - how do you get a thrust profile out of solid propellant rockets that won't squash the astronauts or burn up the vehicle in the lower atmosphere? How do you get sufficient throttling on the suckers to make them controllable in such a mission? How big are these puppies going to be? Any other good stuff? If you have any more liesure, what about HCl pollution and Al2O3 dust? BTW Don't get me wrong - as a model (flying but not homemade) rocket enthusiast, I *LIKE* solid propellant rockets. At the age of 45, though, I don't let my propeller beanie interfere with my cynicism. Regards, -Larry C. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 93 10:29:45 EST From: "John F. Woods" Subject: An 'agitator' replies (was: Clinton's Promises...) Newsgroups: sci.space aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >>They've been stuck at a low level of activity... >I look at their launch manifests and then look at ours. I think we are the >ones stuck at the low level of activity. But they *are* stuck at a low level of activity. One launch a *day* is hardly interesting! Of course, *we* are stuck at statistically NO level of activity... >>>Let me get this straight, our system costs ten times as much as theirs >>>and only gives 20% of the time in space. Yet you think it is more advanced? >>Yes, because we're the ones developing the upcoming generations of space >>transport. >Like what? I believe he means the giant conveyor belt planned to transport money to "space" contractors that never build space hardware. Note that in this key technological field, the US program is, indeed unequalled in the world. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 14:36:52 GMT From: "Carl M. Kadie" Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes: [...] >Had you simply posted that fabricated transcript, you would have been >flamed for posting something inappropriate and frankly libelious (yes, >you accuse NASA of a coverup. That's libelious). And it would have ended. [...] There is no such a crime as libel against the government (i.e. seditious libel) in the U.S. anymore. - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- I do not represent any organization; this is just me. = kadie@cs.uiuc.edu = ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:14:31 GMT From: hathaway@stsci.edu Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.org.eff.talk In article <1knhm2INNfti@transfer.stratus.com>, tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes: > In article <1993Feb3.021308.6018@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (Tesuji) writes: >>It has been amusing to see the extreme responses to the posting of the >>Challenger transcript; the burghers with their torches are storming the >>castle again. > > Had you simply posted that fabricated transcript, you would have been > flamed for posting something inappropriate and frankly libelious (yes, > you accuse NASA of a coverup. That's libelious). And it would have ended. > > The extreme reactions come from the fact that you don't have the BALLS ^^^^^ Hey, the poster _could_ be a woman or a eunuch. Some of us find the equating of courage with testosterone to be offensive. GUTS doesn't cut it either (guts = intestines => internal testicles). But don't let offensiveness stop you (or anyone else) from posting whatever you care to. While I too had personal reasons to be pained by the tasteless posting, the poster's lack of humanity and courage does not diminish _mine_. And your example of sexism provides me a welcome opportunity to combat such. Wm. Hathaway > to even post it under your own name, you feel you have to hide behind > an anonymous posting service. > > Go away, squirm back under the rock you crawled out of. And kindly don't > bother those of us who find skulking in the shawdows to be offensive. > -- > Tarl Neustaedter tarl@sw.stratus.com > Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer > Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 16:21:58 GMT From: Mary Shafer Subject: extreme responses to Challenger transcript Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,comp.org.eff.talk On Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:14:31 GMT, hathaway@stsci.edu said: WH> In article <1knhm2INNfti@transfer.stratus.com>, tarl@coyoacan.sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes: > In article <1993Feb3.021308.6018@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (Tesuji) writes: >>It has been amusing to see the extreme responses to the posting of the >>Challenger transcript; the burghers with their torches are storming the >>castle again. > > Had you simply posted that fabricated transcript, you would have been > flamed for posting something inappropriate and frankly libelious (yes, > you accuse NASA of a coverup. That's libelious). And it would have ended. > > The extreme reactions come from the fact that you don't have the BALLS WH> ^^^^^ WH> Hey, the poster _could_ be a woman or a eunuch. Some women have balls. And most of us can tell the difference between metaphor and anatomy. WH> Some of us find the WH> equating of courage with testosterone to be offensive. GUTS doesn't WH> cut it either (guts = intestines => internal testicles). By that logic, GUTS = OVARIES. That has some interesting implications in the digestive process. For what it's worth, women manufacture testosterone, just as men manufacture estrogen. The relative quantities vary, of course. -- Mary Shafer DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov Of course I don't speak for NASA "A MiG at your six is better than no MiG at all." Unknown US fighter pilot ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 22:14:34 CET From: Gianni Piccoli Subject: Gps Satellites Does anybody know where I can find details on the GPS Satellites. In particular, as I use a GPS receiver on an aircraft, I would like to know in advance how many satellites are in sight in a particular moment in a particular place. Also I am interested in knowing the future plans for GPS and when new satellites will be placed in orbit. Thank you very much to anyone who can help me. GIANNI PICCOLI TORINO-ITALY (Internet mc1275@mclink.it) ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 93 15:25:26 GMT From: Tom Glinos Subject: IRAS - 10 Years Ago Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary In article <93033.204827GMS@psuvm.psu.edu> Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU writes: >W/r the anniversery of IRAS ...... > >Does anyone else remember the comet IRAS-Aracki-Alcock? (sp?) I was in Tuscon the evening of closest approach. I watched it travel the sky in "real-time" through a 16" scope. It was wonderful. -- ================= Prediction, 1993, Year the UNIX | Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics industry collapsed | tg@utstat.toronto.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:22:23 GMT From: hathaway@stsci.edu Subject: IRAS - 10 Years Ago Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article <93033.204827GMS@psuvm.psu.edu>, Gerry Santoro - CAC/PSU writes: > W/r the anniversery of IRAS ...... > > Does anyone else remember the comet IRAS-Aracki-Alcock? (sp?) > > I was living in suburban Pittsburgh at the time and took my 8" scope > out to the observing site of the Amateur Astronomer Association > of Pittsburgh to really see the comet. > > As I recall, it was almost full-moon size and simply a ghostly round > object. It moved *real* fast -- covering most of the sky in only 4 days! > > I even managed to get my father and lots of neighbors to make the > trip out from light-polluted skies to watch it. An accomplishment > in itself! > > I've seen many comets -- but that is one I will never forget! > > gerry santoro (gms@psuvm.psu.edu) | > academic computing/speech communication -(*)- > penn state university ..... | ..... > Yes!!! - I followed it for a week from when it was Draco, around the pole, and into the sunset. It was clear every night and I got lots of good looks at it, including some real-time motion as it passed very close to some stars. In a very few minutes, you could see its position shift. Most impressive. I had a yard full of viewers one night. (And I met a very impressive lady that same week, with whom I subsequently carried on a long association - I remember the two together.) Many memories of that long-ago spring. Wm. Hathaway STScI, Baltimore, MD ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 1993 16:39:02 GMT From: Hakan Kayal Subject: material properties of alu 2219 Newsgroups: sci.space I am looking for material properties of aluminum 2219. Does somebody know obout it or can give me some references . Thank you ------------------------------ Date: 3 Feb 93 07:02:28 EST From: Chris Jones Subject: Polar Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb2.235514.1@acad3.alaska.edu>, nsmca@acad3 writes: >Why does the US launch polar orbit missions from Vandenburg? other than for >military missions? I wonder is they know about Poker Flats here in Alaska >which has many of the same benfits as Vandenburg (open spaces) but nicely is >near the pole.. As I said yesterday (in <21681@ksr.com>), for polar orbit the latitude of the launch site doesn't matter (except that a launch site at either pole would have lots of longitude lines along which to launch in order to achieve polar orbit). I expect Vandenburg is easier to reach than Poker Flats (lessening transport costs to the the site and operating costs of the site), and has the advantage of already having the infrastructure for launching satellites (along with over 30 years' experience). I don't know specifically why it was chosen, but it seems a reasonable guess that the US looked for a suitable site from a range safety point of view which was already secure (since spy satellites were often placed into polar orbits). -- Chris Jones clj@ksr.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:38:01 GMT From: Bruce Dunn Subject: Space Station Media Handbook - 7/18 Newsgroups: sci.space From NASA SPACELINK: "6_10_2_5_5.TXT" (21701 bytes) was created on 10-15-92 Program Description Program Phases Phase A Concept Phase (Requirements & Architecture) from Authorization of the SSTF (5/82) to Award of the Phase B Contracts (4/85) Concepts for a space station go back to the last century. Within NASA, conceptual studies and workshops go back to the early 1960s. The 1972 decision to develop the Shuttle first delayed the Space Station Program until May of 1982, when NASA Administrator James Beggs authorized the Space Station Task Force (SSTF). In addition to organizing a new project and office, the SSTF conducted three major activities: 1) A major effort to define realistic missions that were enabled by or materially benefited from the permanent presence of humans in space. 2) Definition studies to define system requirements and interfaces, supporting systems and trade studies, a preliminary system design and detailed plans for the development phase. And 3) advanced development activities. From August 1982 to April 1983, NASA funded the studies called "Space Station Needs, Attributes and Architectural Options." In addition, a Mission Requirements Working Group was established to direct the industry studies and to integrate in-house activities and special studies such as the Space Science Board and Space Applications Board studies. This group was supported by three Mission Area Panels: 1) Science and Applications; 2) Commercial; and 3) Technology Development. The Working Group also maintained liaison with the international community which performed similar studies. Using the results of these studies and input from the various groups, NASA briefed the President and Cabinet in December 1983. In January 1984 the President directed NASA to build the space station within a decade. 1984 was the year for formulating the overall NASA management structure, reviewing requirements, conducting independent user and science community assessments and developing a reference configuration that the Phase B contractors could bid against. President Reagan reaffirmed the Space Station Program in the January 1985 State of the Union address. The first half of 1985 involved obtaining international participation and commitment for the program. Phase B Definition and Preliminary Design Phase from Award of Phase B Contracts (4/85) to Award of Phase C/D Contracts (12/87) In April of 1985, Phase B commenced with the four NASA Work Package Centers each awarding parallel definition contracts for their respective responsibilities. The eight definition contractors defined the system requirements, developed supporting technologies and technology-development plans, performed supporting systems and trade studies, developed preliminary designs, and defined system interfaces and developed plans, cost estimates, and schedules for the Phase C/D activities. The Phase B definition studies were initiated in April 1985 and ended in January 1987. The contracts were awarded to the following: * MSFC (Work Package 1): Boeing Aerospace, Martin Marietta * JSC (Work Package 2): McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International * GSFC (Work Package 3): General Electric and RCA * LeRC (Work Package 4): Rocketdyne, TRW The results of the definition studies were synthesized and integrated into the Phase C/D Requests for Proposals (RFPs) released by each Work Package Center in April 1987. Also in the spring of 1985, NASA signed bilateral memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with Canada, ESA and Japan that provided a framework for cooperation on the space station during Phase B. The user requirements were being reviewed and refined by various groups, committees and workshops. The results updated the Mission Requirements Data Base, and in June 1985, the "Functional Requirements Envelope" was established to augment the Phase B RFPs. By March 1986, the program reached a major milestone called the Systems Requirements Review (SRR) a traditional programmatic point that marks the point where the basic characteristics of the space station have been decided. This SRR process focused on technical decisions that, in May of 1986, established the baseline configuration called the "Dual Keel." As a result of the Challenger accident in January of 1986, NASA went through an exhaustive evaluation period during which, among other Shuttle topics, management of major programs, such as space station, was examined. The NASA Management Study, led by ex-Apollo Program Manager General Samuel Phillips, made management, programmatic and organizational recommendations, many of which were implemented. Among these was the establishment of three levels of management: 1) the Headquarters Office of Space Station; 2) the Space Station Program Office, later located in Reston, Virginia; and 3) individual Space Station Project Offices at those NASA Centers primarily involved with the program. The space station work was then allocated to those Centers in "Work Packages" that reflected the Center's expertise. In effect, this was a shift from the former "Lead Center" concept to a Level II program office located at Headquarters. In August and September 1986, the program was subjected to an intense review by a specially constituted Critical Evaluation Task Force (CETF) which reaffirmed the soundness of the Dual Keel baseline configuration established at the SRR, but added resource nodes at the end of the Laboratory and Habitation Modules and revised the assembly sequence accordingly. Meanwhile, the Operations Task Force was organized to focus operations planning by conducting a systematic assessment of station operations. This major effort produced a report that considered various options for achieving operations goals. In 1987, a number of reviews by various independent groups and committees including the National Research Council (NRC) were conducted. The NRC, chaired by ex-NASA Administrator Dr. Robert Seamans, concluded in September that the program was a formidable challenge to NASA as the architect and program manager, but the commitment to the space station is, and must be, national in character. The NRC also endorsed the revised baseline configuration (what is now called Space Station Freedom) and stated that the nation's long-term goals in space should be clarified before committing to the evolutionary Block 2, or "Dual Keel" configuration. In September 1987 the Space Station Science Operations Study Team examined science opportunities, operations, planning and management and concluded with a set of effective recommendations that were considered for Phase C work. That year, 1987, was also a significant procurement period for the program. In addition to the four Work Packages, three separate, competitive procurements were conducted to support detailed design and development. The contracts awarded in 1987 are listed on page 20. The contracts awarded in December were for Phase C and D. With these contracts in place, Phase B ended and Phase C - Detailed Design began. Phase C Detailed Design from the Award of Phase C/D Contracts (12/87) to the Critical Design Review (1992) Although many people use the term "Phase C/D," meaning both the design (C) and development (D) phases together, they are really two separate and distinct activities. The term C/D is used primarily because the same contractor generally does both the design and development including the manufacturing. Therefore, the contracts for these two major groups of activities are typically awarded together. However, in classical systems engineering, the detailed design takes the results of Phase B to the point of preparing detailed engineering drawings and specifications for hardware and software, which are design activities. However, nothing is actually built in Phase C except perhaps some test or prototype articles. Once the design passes a Critical Design Review, the design is "frozen" and handed off to the development Phase D where actual manufacturing begins. Due to adjustments in funding levels, analysis of program costs and adjustments in contractor work, schedules and responsibilities, the design phase got off to a busy start. The major engineering activity for 1988 was the Program Requirements Review (PRR) which proceeded on schedule. The PRR provides a critical review and assessment of the Level I requirements stated in the Program Requirements Document (PRD), and necessary Level III requirements to assure complete and consistent specification of program requirements. The Level I Office of Space Station review was completed in May 1988; the Level II Space Station Program Office review was completed in June 1988; and the Level III Work Package Centers review was completed in November 1988. Also, 1988 was the year for finalizing the details of the Work Package prime contractors once the program funding levels were made and money was appropriated. This allowed prime contractors to determine when they could get their subcontractors onboard and begin staffing up for their work assignments. During the last half of 1988, the negotiations of international agreements regarding Phase C/D/E were completed and the agreements were signed on September 29, 1988, the same day as the STS-26 launch. This event culminated the efforts of the international partners and the U.S. to determine how they would work together to develop and operate Space Station Freedom. Various committees and workshops occurred during 1988 to continue the review of requirements from all disciplines, including the sciences, advanced technology and commercialization opportunities. Another 1988 activity involved a major effort to determine the optimum launch and assembly sequence to provide an earlier man-tended capability. 1988 was also filled with preparation of reports required by Congress on various topics. Major reports were delivered at the average rate of one per month. Phase C activities concluded in the fall and winter of 1988 included fulfillment of the required staffing, facility construction planning, development of an associate contractor relationship that would simplify the program integration process and release of two more Requests for Proposals (RFPs); one on the Test Control and Monitor System (TCMS) in September and one for the Flight Telerobotic Servicer in November. During 1989, the program was faced with severe budget cuts. A Configuration Budget Review (CBR) Team was formed in July to develop preliminary options for presentation to space station management and the international partners. Three separate Level I/II Control Boards were convened to analyze the options and recommendations. These three Control Boards were held in August, September and October 1989. The results of this "rephasing" were briefed to Congress and were implemented by changes to the Program Requirements Document. These results maintained the first element launch in March 1995, but delayed the assembly/complete milestone 18 months, while making some significant system and subsystem changes. The CBR kept the station element design essentially the same. In January 1990, the External Maintenance Task Team (EMTT) was formed to address concerns regarding the amount of extravehicular activity (EVA) required to maintain the station. The EMTT was co- chaired by Dr. William F. Fisher, astronaut, and Mr. Charles Price, Chief of the Robotics Systems Development Branch at NASA's Johnson Space Center. They were given the authority to review all aspects of Space Station Freedom external maintenance and repair. They conducted a seven-month investigation, concluding that about 3,200 hours of EVA, annually, would be needed to maintain the station, but made several recommendations which, if implemented, could reduce EVA to 500 hours annually. To address the findings and recommendations of the EMTT, a complementary program-wide team was formed in June 1990 called the External Maintenance Solutions Team (EMST). The EMST was chaired by Dr. William E. Simon of JSC and was chartered to develop solutions to the problems regarding Space Station Freedom external maintenance identified by the EMTT. The EMST's two-month study concluded that about 3,500 hours of EVA would be required annually, but this could be reduced to about 485 hours by implementing their solutions. In June 1990, the Level II Resources "Turbo Team" was formed to reduce the weight of the station and the housekeeping power requirements. Throughout 1990, Preliminary Design Reviews (PDR's) were held. In all, over 80 separate design reviews were conducted during the year. The preliminary design of nearly every major component, subsystem and system was reviewed. This culminated with the Integrated System PDR (ISPDR) in November-December of 1990. This resulted in a baseline station design whidch was accepted by all program participants. A 1991 fiscal year budget shortfall of more than $550 mission, along with Congressional direction to significantly reduce out-year spending, prompted NASA to initiate an assessment of the Space Station Freedom Program. This effort, known as restructuring, was initiated in October 1990 and culminated with a report to Congress in March 1991. The Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S. Space Program (the Augustine Committee) made several recommendations pertaining the Space Station Freedom in its December 1990 Report. As a result of these reviews and recommendations, Space Station Freedom was extensively redesigned. The new design is cheaper, smaller, easier to assemble in orbit and will require fewer Shuttle flights to build. The U.S. Laboratory and Habitation Modules are 40 percent shorter and can be outfitted and verified on the ground. The truss is now pre-integrated and can be tested with all subsystems before launch. This significantly reduces EVA time needed to build and maintain the station. During November 1991, the Man-tended Configuration Preliminary Design Review was conducted. This review focused on the major programmatic interfaces between the three different work packages, the International Partners and the station's hardware and software elements. This major milestone confirmed the validity and maturity of the design and was a complete program success. Phase D Development (Manufacturing) after Critical Design Review (1993) The development phase will be accomplished in four steps: 1) equipment manufacture, test, and qualification; 2) integration of all equipment in a central facility for integration, test, and verification; 3) software integration and certification; and 4) launch package integration. The manufacture of the various components of the space station will begin following the Critical Design Review. The flight elements are vital parts of an orbital complex that must provide safe and usable operational environment over the long term. They will be designed, developed, fabricated and assembled in high quality aerospace development centers by experienced people following proven procedures. Many of these centers and personnel have experience with the Shuttle or Apollo programs. Existing capital equipment, tooling and production test equipment will be utilized extensively to minimize costs. Standard manufacturing processes will be employed to assume a dependable, high quality product. The manufacturing of equipment will be performed at various locations. For example, the modules will be manufactured in Huntsville, Alabama; the truss assembly is Huntington Beach, California; and the power supply in Canoga Park, California. The Laboratory Module, for example, comprises several subsystems. The structure includes thepressure shell assembly, hatches and racks that will be used to house experiments, payloads and consumables. The Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS), the Thermal Control System (TCS), Electrical Power System (EPS), Audio and Video Systems and Data Management System (DMS) are also subsystems of the Laboratory Module. Some of these components will be manufactured by Boeing's subcontractors and other work package contractors at various locations throughout the U.S. These components, together with those built by Boeing at Huntsville, will be assembled into the U.S. Laboratory. The assembly and acceptance testing of the U.S. Lab, as with the Habitation Module and Logistics Elements, will take place in Huntsville. Unlike other space programs where the total spacecract is assembled on the ground, assembly of space station elements must occur on-orbit and will, therefore, require training of astronaut crews in near-zero gravity conditions to practice performing the delicate and complex assembly maneuvers safely and efficiently. Such training will be perfomed in large water immersion facilities such as the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory at JSC and at a similar facility at MSFC. The astronauts will be working under water with structural mockups of flight hardware that will simulate their spatial mass and inertia characteristics to gain experience in handling these elements prior to on-orbit actual assembly. Prior to launch, all elements are sent to the Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Here, the launch packages are assembled and thoroughly tested. Tests are performed to verify that flight software and hardware are compatible and correctly installed. The program development has distinct phases. The initial phase calls for the first element launch to occur in the first quarter of 1996. Man-tended capability (MTC) will be met in the second quarter of 1997. The MTC phase culminates with the permanently manned capability (PMC) of the station with at least a 4-person crew in 2000. Seventeen Shuttle flights with four Advanced Solid Rocket Motors (ASRM) flights will be needed to complete the initial phase. On the eighteenth flight, the centrifuge will be added. An Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV), capable of returning space station crew members to Earth in an emergency, will be in place prior to permanent staffing of the station. During the initial phase substantial accomodations will be available to microgravity materials and life sciences researchers. The Follow-on Phase will result in further enhancements consistant with national policy. Phase E Operations (Overlaps Phase D) from First Element Launch 1996 to End of Life Six Shuttle flights will be needed for station assembly to achieve MTC. Following MTC, four Shuttle flights per year are scheduled for station assembly and maintenance. There also will be three utilization flights per year during MTC operations. During these utilization flights, the Shuttle will dock at the station for 13 days or more. A crew of up to seven will be onboard the Shuttle. Four of the crew will devote their time to support space station user activities. During this period experiments requiring human intervention will be conducted. Experiments that require quiescent operation for an extended period can be left onboard the station to operate while the station is unattended. The crew will have been trained in the handling of the experiments and their results. Following PMC the station will be permanently staffed by at least a four person crew, two of whom will be dedicated to supporting space station user activities. Planning for the space station operations and utilization is designed to maximize the use of onboard resources. Operations planning for the long, medium and short range is centrally managed to account for system user demands, ensuring an integrated schedule is available at each stage of payload development, checkout and flight. Below this level, detailed planning is distributed to the actual users and to operators of the space station. This arrangement provides these groups with the flexibility to meet rapidly changing conditions and to accommodate unexpected payload research opportunities. The Space Station Control Center (SSCC) at the Johnson Space Center will perform station systems management and interact with a Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC) at the Marshall Space Flight Center, which will work with users either individually or through user-provided operations centers. Predefined allocations will govern distribution of available resources among both U.S. and international users of the manned base. An execution plan for payload operations will provide for experiments the crew will conduct, autonomous experiments and those operated remotely via the station's information system by investigators in laboratories on Earth. Experiment scheduling will be according to requirements for resources such as crew time and power. Payload integration also will use a distributed operations concept. Users will be able to integrate their experiments into racks and onto pallets at multiple user-operated sites certified by NASA. These sites will allow users to check payload hardware and software interfaces for proper operation before the payloads are transported to the launch site. Logistics operations for the manned base will be concentrated at KSC. With the space station in orbit for at least 30 years, maintenance and servicing will be performed routinely. Station design provides for Orbital Replacement Units (ORU's), which a crewmember can remove and replace inside the pressurized volume, or by robots or EVA for externally mounted payloads. Critical replacements units will be stored onboard, and others will be on the ground ready for transport in logistics elements as needed. 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: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 15:19:00 GMT From: Mark Brown Subject: Today in 1986-Remember the Challenger Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle | jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) writes: |The Challenger accident deeply affected people who never met the |astronauts, *tens of millions of people*, people who didn't forget |about it after the reporters left the Cape. To those who believe that |the drive to explore is an important part of the human spirit, space |exploration certainly qualifies as a significant struggle. In |addition to the obvious profound unhappiness associated with the |event, it nearly resulted in shutting down the entire space program, |a great example of ruin and a potential tragedy in its own right. |In literature, tragedies are not distinguished by the body count, but |by the context and results. I was working at TI when it happened; what I remember most was a comment from our department head, an Old Timer named Moize Adney: "Well, let's get up there and try again". We almost didn't. I'm glad we did. -- Mark Brown IBM PSP Austin, TX.| Fear the Government (512) 838-3926 VNET: MBROWN@AUSVMQ| that fears your privacy. MAIL: mbrown@testsys.austin.ibm.com | Keep personal cryptography legal. DISCLAIMER: My views are independent of IBM official policy. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 124 ------------------------------