GWS102@psuvm.psu.edu (11/08/90)
I'm working on a co-op with GE Astro-Space, the contractor chosen to do the wor
k on the APAE ( Attached Payload Accommodations Equipment). We recieved a stop
work order from NASA on tuesday and I was wondering if anyone else had heard a
ny more news about his or the status of the other Work Packages? Email can be
sent to my PSU address.
Glenn Szydlowski
GWS102@PSUVM.PSU.EDUaws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/08/90)
In article <90311.130321GWS102@psuvm.psu.edu> you write: >I'm working on a co-op with GE Astro-Space, the contractor chosen to do >work on the APAE ( Attached Payload Accommodations Equipment). We recieved >a stop work order from NASA on tuesday and I was wondering if anyone else >had heard any more news about his or the status of the other Work Packages? As a result of the 91 appropriation, NASA is to redesign the station in 90 days. This redesign is to provide a modular incrimentally growable design buildable within more reasonable budget numbers. They are also to assume reasonable launch numbers for the Shuttle and make better use of cheaper expendables. One thing being dropped by NASA is the experiments attached to the truss (which it sounds like you work on). This may be killed entirely however there are people attempting to save it. It is hoped that the attach points can stay in the design and if scientists can get funding, they can fly experiments. IMHO, this is a good thing. NASA is finally realizing that their previous design just won't work. For the first time in a long time, things are moving in the right direction. If things continue this way, we just *MIGHT* get a real space station. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) (11/08/90)
In response to requests for Freedom info, in comparison to LLNL, here is some more...... +In terms of differences with Freedom, the LLNL station is bigger but +provides a little less power. It also would require free flying +platforms to be associated with it for microgravity. I suspect the +CDSF or a modified Spacelab would do just fine. - Freedom includes microgravity and life science capability, without the additional expense of these free-flyers. The LLNL/Free-flyer system combination is not useful for life sciences. Freedom also has some polar orbit free-flyers for Earth Observation activites, which LLNL does not have. Freedom weighs 250 tonnes, over six times as heavy as LLNL. Freedom will not be habitable until the fourth assembly flight, when it will achieve "Man Tended Capabilty", scheduled for Jan 97. After about flight 11, in Nov 97, Permanently Manned Capability will be achieved. After the last of the appropriated flights, it will achieve "Assembly Complete" configuration. The station will then operate for thirty years. It is designed like an aircraft, with Orbital Replaceable Units, allowing it to be repaired and maintained on orbit. The Freedom habitable volume is not much more than Skylab, but the science does not need volume. Initial crew size is 4, growing to 8 when the international modules are attached. Oh yes, it is international, US pays about 70 %, Canada 4 % and ESA and Japan pay about 13 % each. So pretty well everybody on this net has an interest...... Canada provides a mobile Remote Servicer robot with a large manipulator arm. Japan and ESA each provide one habitable science module. History:- Phase-A was 5/82 until award of Phase-B contracts in 4/85. Phase-B ran from 4/85 to 12/87. Phase-C contracts were awarded 12/87, and is currently in progress. Phase-C will culminate with a Critical Design review in 1992. Phase-D will begin 1992. First element launch is schedule 3/95, and Assembly Complete in 1998. +(Freedom will take over 50 flights of the Shuttle). Most of this +advantage is due to the use of+ inflatables. - Freedom will take less than 30 flights, I think the number authorized is 28. LLNL weighs much less than Freedom, because it has only a tiny fraction of the science capability and equipment. Freedom's solar arrays were recently reduced by half, now two pairs of panels will provide about 37.5 KW. Each panel is 32 by 108 feet. The Freedom truss structure has now been shortened to a little less than 150 metres. the solar panels are at right angles to the truss. The station is equippped with hydrazine thrusters to prevent orbital decay. I will leave it at that for now. Happy to answer any questions if I can.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (11/09/90)
In article <9011072137.AA15699@iti.org>, aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: >IMHO, this is a good thing. NASA is finally realizing that their previous >design just won't work. Funny, the redesign was mandated by CONGRESS, not NASA.
aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/09/90)
In article <0093F685.39E5A120@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>: >>IMHO, this is a good thing. NASA is finally realizing that their previous >>design just won't work. > >Funny, the redesign was mandated by CONGRESS, not NASA. I know, that's not my point. My point is that NASA could have dragged its feet and kept up with buisness as usual. That would have worked for another year or so. The significance is that recent signs are that NASA is accepting the need to change the design and is responding. We aren't out of the woods yet, but it is a good sign. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/14/90)
In article <2676@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: >Freedom includes microgravity and life science capability, without >the additional expense of these free-flyers... And without their additional capabilities. >The LLNL/Free-flyer >system combination is not useful for life sciences... How so? What does Fred have in intrinsic capabilities -- as opposed to problems that can be fixed by just shipping up the right equipment -- that LLNL doesn't? Note that LLNL has variable gravity, which Fred lacks and which is of some substantial importance. >Freedom also >has some polar orbit free-flyers for Earth Observation activites, Not any more it doesn't. They have been split off as independent projects, which is what they really were all along. They had absolutely nothing to do with the space station. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.com (Mike McManus) (11/14/90)
In article <9011072137.AA15699@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > As a result of the 91 appropriation, NASA is to redesign the station in > 90 days. This redesign is to provide a modular incrimentally growable ^^^^^^^^ > design buildable within more reasonable budget numbers. They are also to > assume reasonable launch numbers for the Shuttle and make better use of > cheaper expendables. Ackkk! What exactly constitutes a "redesign"? New concept? Partial rework? Total rework from top to bottom? Detailed engineering? Given the pace at which things have gone up to now, what can be done for SSF in 90 days? -- Disclaimer: All spelling and/or grammar in this document are guaranteed to be correct; any exseptions is the is wurk uv intter-net deemuns,. Mike McManus Mike.McManus@FtCollins.NCR.COM, or NCR Microelectronics ncr-mpd!mikemc@ncr-sd.sandiego.ncr.com, or 2001 Danfield Ct. uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!garage!mikemc Ft. Collins, Colorado (303) 223-5100 Ext. 378