henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/29/89)
Editorial criticizing both DoD for trying to refuse further funding for the Aerospace Plane and NASA for offering to scale it down to an "unfocused, interminable technology research effort". Soviets offer to sell multispectral digital images at 4-5m resolution, price negotiable. [Previously the only thing they've sold at that resolution has been actual photographs on film; most of their customers want digital data.] Spot's 1988 fiscal year a considerable success. In FY87 60% of Spot sales were to the French government, but that percentage is now down to 30%, mostly because of nearly 100% growth in overall sales. NASA offers to take over the Aerospace Plane, converting it to a technology development effort. 3-4 years from now, with the technology well pinned down, NASA would ask DoD to fund the test vehicle. The result, obviously, would be about a 4-year delay in the first flight. [If lucky, that is.] DoD budget cutting delays Boost Surveillance Tracking Satellite system, SDI's foot in the door toward full deployment, six months. This slips a full-scale development decision to next year, to everyone's relief. Volkov, Krikalev, and Polyakov return from Mir April 27, leaving Mir unmanned until August. The next crew's major task will be to activate the two planned add-on modules. Soviets deny reports of electrical power problems aboard Mir, although there are reports from people monitoring Mir radio traffic of discussions of electrical difficulties. Kvant's astrophysics instruments will continue to transmit data while Mir is unmanned. NASA picks Lockheed/Aerojet team to build the ASRM, despite safety panel urgings that the project be dropped. Truly says the panel did not have current information due to restrictions imposed by the bidding process, and they will now be fully briefed. The government-owned plant to build the new SRB will be privately financed, postponing the need for NASA to supply funds for it. Financial details have not been revealed. There is debate about whether this is really going to save money, although the point may be moot since OMB refused to let NASA spend anything on it in FY1990. NASA will need special approval from Congress to sign a deal with a cancellation penalty, to protect the financiers. The plant will supposedly ship its first flight-cleared motors in 1994, after which use of the current Morton Thiokol SRBs will be phased out over three years. Apart from getting rid of MT [about time!], the new motors will boost shuttle payload by about 12 klbs. The new motors will have one less field joint and the joint design will be different, but details will not be disclosed until negotiations are complete. Aerojet says the joints are designed so that the seals can be inspected right up to the moment the joint is locked in place, another improvement. The new motor is slightly fatter than the old one -- diameter 150in instead of 146in -- allowing an extra 200 klbs of fuel per motor. Motor performance will be tailored to eliminate the need to throttle back the SSMEs during the period of maximum aerodynamic pressure, another safety win. NASA begins to review space station to decide whether to delay, scale down, or just cancel if anticipated budget cuts happen. House subcommittee tells NASA to figure out by May 6 what it would do about a $400M cut in the $2G station budget for FY90, plus $500-600M off FY91. The cuts are not yet firm but are widely considered inevitable. NASA has spent over $1G to date and would need to spend another $2G or so in termination fees etc. if the project were cancelled, but this is still small compared to the full cost of the project. NASA continues to make noises about killing the project if it is cut too far, but will not say how far is too far; rumor hath it that $1.5G is about right. Station managers deny that there are any plans for a scaled-down station if the current one dies, but Marshall is known to have looked at the idea. Cancellation would, of course, mean reneging on the agreements with Canada, Europe, and Japan, at a time when the USSR is wooing potential international partners in its space program. NASA says termination would be a disaster that would conclusively prove the US is not a reliable partner. [Actually many already tend to feel that way, but station cancellation would remove any lingering doubts.] The station does have quiet a bit of Congressional support, but Congress is running out of innovative ways to fund it. NASA is not keen on a suggestion that DoD chip in, as NASA thinks such funding unreliable and the loss of control too severe. Rep. Lawrence Coughlin suggests reversing the no-commercial-payloads policy of the shuttle, in hopes that it will start earning its keep again. "We need a return on our investment." [Lordy.] Subcommittee criticizes NASA for not (quite) meeting its commitment to spend 20% of its budget on space science. Sharp criticism of cancellation of $25M for Gravity Probe B, but NASA says money is tight and it was not a high priority. Subcommittee warns NASA not to spend money on the Crew Emergency Rescue Vehicle for the station until the subcommittee sorts out NASA's funding. NASA would like to contract for design studies. Dale Myers, acting NASA administrator, says NASA is still not sure how capable the vehicle needs to be, and more study is needed to produce a full definition of the types of emergencies that might require the vehicle. [Isn't there anybody in NASA who can make a decision without 50 kg of paper to back him up?!?] West German government approves formation of, essentially, a German Space Agency with central responsibility for planning and execution of government space activities. Oddly, it will be government-funded but nominally a private corporation. US and USSR agree to develop "joint operational performance standards" for Navstar and Glonass so civil users, notably aviation, can easily use both. Soviets have apparently decided not to bring a shuttle orbiter to the Paris airshow, although the An-225 Mriya, its carrier aircraft, will appear. Eosat recommends US government fund Landsat 7, to maintain US leadership and avoid a data gap late in the 1990s. Landsat 4 and 5 are on their last legs, especially financially, and Landsat 6 will not be ready for launch until 1991; a data gap is probable. Another is likely in 1996 or thereabouts if a decision on Landsat 7 is not made soon. However, Eosat says the US probably can't get more than about 10% of the satellite data market in the late 90s even if Landsat 7 goes up. Among other consequences, this makes private funding of L7 quite impossible. There are other reasons for that too. Will data from the Mission To Planet Earth program be made available without charge? Will US weather-satellite data continue to be available at a nominal cost? (Eosat says this has lost them customers already.) What happens if a satellite fails unexpectedly, given that there are no backups and no prospect of finding enough money to insure the operational birds? Will Congress reverse its earlier decision to prohibit a merger of the weather and Earth-resources satellites under private management (which would permit cost savings by merging satellites, and make government weather-satellite money available)? The National Space Council is studying future US involvement in remote sensing, including the possibility of getting out of the business; a report including recommendations to Bush is expected this month. Italian Space Agency awards its first contracts, for work on the SAX X-ray satellite and the SAR-X imaging-radar shuttle payload. There is concern that the agency needs to start moving a bit more quickly or a number of programs will be hurt by slow decision-making; the SAX and SAR-X decisions came at the last possible minute. First Commercial Titan launcher arrives at the Cape. NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for precision landings by parachute of launcher components weighing up to 60 klbs. The parafoil, a gliding parachute, looks okay on paper, but reefing [gradual opening] is utterly necessary because parafoils open very abruptly, and reefing big parafoils is tricky. Pioneer has a new approach. Parafoils have a particular advantage over conventional parachute systems because by flaring a parafoil (making an abrupt pull-up to trade forward speed for a reduction in sink rate), the landing can be made gentle enough to eliminate the need for retrorockets or other impact-cushioning devices. -- Van Allen, adj: pertaining to | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) (06/01/89)
In article <1989May29.032320.2277@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for >precision landings by parachute of launcher components weighing up to >60 klbs. The parafoil, a gliding parachute, looks okay on paper, but >reefing [gradual opening] is utterly necessary because parafoils open >very abruptly, and reefing big parafoils is tricky. Pioneer has a >new approach. Parafoils have a particular advantage over conventional >parachute systems because by flaring a parafoil (making an abrupt pull-up >to trade forward speed for a reduction in sink rate), the landing can be >made gentle enough to eliminate the need for retrorockets or other >impact-cushioning devices. >-- Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? The project had been started in an attempt to come up with a method for dry-landing Apollo (and other) manned space capsules. It was scrapped because NASA found that the wet-landing system developed over many years worked OK and there was no real need to change. In 1968, N. Random Students in some American university 'discovered' Rogallo's patents and made some crude triangular flying machines out of bamboo and polythene sheeting. I've seen some film of these beasts - it's a surprise that so few people got killed! The modern derivatives are safer, have L/D ratios of about 14:1 and are called Hang Gliders. I have one in my garage. I don't get much time to fly it these days however :-( Steve
ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu (Timothy K Reynolds) (06/02/89)
In article <1989May29.032320.2277@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > NASA picks Lockheed/Aerojet team to build the ASRM, despite safety panel > urgings that the project be dropped. > > . . . . . The plant will > supposedly ship its first flight-cleared motors in 1994, after which use > of the current Morton Thiokol SRBs will be phased out over three years. > Apart from getting rid of MT [about time!], ...... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hmmmm. When this contract award was announced, there was a big splash in the Salt Lake City Deseret News about MT being a sub-contractor for Aerojet on this proposal. MT spokesman said how this will insure continued participation in NASA and shuttle programs. Perhaps Henry's farewell is a bit premature? ch-tkr@wasatch.utah.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (06/04/89)
In article <486@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: >>NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for >>precision landings by parachute of launcher components... > >Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? ... If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing. Rogallo's concept was a flexible wing, with shape held by rigid members or shroud lines or both. Typically it had a single surface and was triangular. A parafoil is a gliding parachute, with two surfaces kept apart by ram pressure and a rectangular shape. Parafoils have largely replaced circular parachutes for high-performance sport parachuting. They are parachutes first and wings second. >[Rogallo effort] an attempt to come up with a method for dry-landing >Apollo (and other) manned space capsules. It was scrapped because NASA found >that the wet-landing system developed over many years worked OK and there >was no real need to change. Not quite right, if I'm not mistaken. According to Michael Collins's "Liftoff", Apollo opted for a wet landing very early because it clearly involved less on-board weight. Gemini originally was going to use a Rogallo wing in hopes of developing pinpoint landing techniques. The wing idea ran into problems, and Gemini's most important job was to prove technology for Apollo, which wasn't going to use it anyway, so Gemini switched to wet landing. If Apollo's schedule had not forced the issue, Gemini might well have stayed with the Rogallo wing; being able to make a pinpoint landing on land was clearly superior to splashing down in the ocean and having to be picked up. The motive to change was there all right, but short-term schedule problems took priority. -- You *can* understand sendmail, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology but it's not worth it. -Collyer| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) (06/05/89)
In article <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > In article <486@cybaswan.UUCP> iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: > >>NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for > >>precision landings by parachute of launcher components... > > > >Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? ... > > ......Deleted Henry's expalanation of Rogallowing vs. parafoil > > ..... > Gemini originally was going to use a > Rogallo wing in hopes of developing pinpoint landing techniques. The > ..... > being able to make a pinpoint landing on land was clearly superior to splashing > down in the ocean and having to be picked up. The motive to change was > -- Was there also some synergy here between the concept of "pin-point" landings on terra firma, and the strong connection between Gemini and USAF ("Blue Ge- mini"/MOL/etc.) ? Particularly in light of Gemini capsule containing military crews and/or classified documents, equip. etc. --- and landing in unfriendly waters/territory. I keep remembering space books from the eraly 1960s which showed a Rogallo-wing equipped Gemini skidding to a stop on the land following a visit to the MOL. And the Gemini capsule had a USAF insignia painted on it. Just a thought.....any other followups? M. Baker homxc!mrb1
clyde@ut-emx.UUCP (Clyde W. Hoover) (06/05/89)
The very first model Revell model kit of the Gemini spacecraft I got (circa 1964 or 5) had the parts to build it with landing skids. There was illustrated two landing methods - splashdown and parafoil. Shouter-To-Dead-Parrots @ Univ. of Texas Computation Center; Austin, Texas clyde@emx.utexas.edu; ...!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!clyde Tip #268: Don't feel insecure or inferior! Remember, you're ORGANIC!! You could win an argument with almost any rock!
cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) (06/06/89)
In article <486@cybaswan.UUCP>, iiit-sh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) writes: > Wasn't this originally invented by Dr Francis Rogallo in about 1963? The > project had been started in an attempt to come up with a method for dry-landing > Apollo (and other) manned space capsules. It was scrapped because NASA found > that the wet-landing system developed over many years worked OK and there > was no real need to change. Yes, but it was the Gemini that was outfitted at least on paper for the Rogallo wing and skids (looked like water skis to me). I seem to remember a 1:1 mockup in a drop test in Missles and Rockets back in '63-64 or so... BTW, wasn't the airfoil really invented by him earlier, like in the mid-1950's? -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include <std.disclamers> cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include <cutsey.quote> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *
tneale@aeras.UUCP (Tom Neale) (06/07/89)
In article <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes (and correctly I might add): >If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing. >Rogallo's concept was a flexible wing, with shape held by rigid members >or shroud lines or both. Typically it had a single surface and was >triangular. A parafoil is a gliding parachute, with two surfaces kept >apart by ram pressure and a rectangular shape. Parafoils have largely >replaced circular parachutes for high-performance sport parachuting. >They are parachutes first and wings second. [actually without the lift effect from the wing they are lousy parachutes] You've got the terms just right, Henry. I think the technical term is "ram air inflated, semi rigid airfoil. It was invented and patented by Domina Jalbert in the 1960s. Pioneer has been working on this recovery system for many years. It is a very, very large ram air parachute (several thousand sqaure feet I think; sport parachutes for 1 person are 150-300 sqaure feet). The really tricky part is the deployment (reefing) system that allows the thing to open slowly so as not to damage the payload or the parachute. An abrupt opening at high speed will cause the fabric to fail and the parachute to self destruct, or at least subject the payload to such a high deceleration force (>>15 G) as to damage it. Because of the extreme altitudes they can afford to open it very slowly, like one or two cells (ram air compartments) at a time. I don't know how this is accomplished but I'll try to find out from some parachute designing friends of mine. -- Blue skies, | ...sun!aeras!tneale | | in flight: N2103Q | The hurrieder I go Tom Neale | in freefall: D8049 | the behinder I get. | via the ether: WA1YUB |
jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) (06/13/89)
In article <332@aeras.UUCP> tneale@aeras.UUCP (Tom Neale) writes: >In article <1989Jun4.055452.12921@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp > (Henry Spencer) writes (and correctly I might add): > >>If I haven't got the terms mixed up, no, they are not the same thing. >>...A parafoil is a gliding parachute, with two surfaces kept >>apart by ram pressure and a rectangular shape. Parafoils have largely >>replaced circular parachutes for high-performance sport parachuting. >>They are parachutes first and wings second. > >You've got the terms just right, Henry. I think the technical term >is "ram air inflated, semi rigid airfoil. It was invented and patented >by Domina Jalbert in the 1960s. Pioneer has been working on >this recovery system for many years. It is a very, very large ram >air parachute (several thousand sqaure feet I think; sport parachutes >for 1 person are 150-300 sqaure feet). > >The really tricky part is the deployment (reefing) system that allows the >thing to open slowly so as not to damage the payload or the parachute. >An abrupt opening at high speed will cause the fabric to fail and the >parachute to self destruct, or at least subject the payload to such a >high deceleration force (>>15 G) as to damage it. > >Because of the extreme altitudes they can afford to open it very slowly, >like one or two cells (ram air compartments) at a time. I don't know >how this is accomplished but I'll try to find out from some parachute >designing friends of mine. >-- >Tom Neale I'll just toss in a note here... the parafoil sport parachute was indeed impractical because of the very high opening shock until about twenty years ago, when Steve Snyder (a world-class jumper himself) invented and patented a sufficiently reliable slow-deployment mechanism, and started marketing parafoil chutes, first as Steve Snyder Enterprises, then as Paraflight, Inc. The deployment mechanism uses (as I recall) a steel cable run through eyelets attached to the chute; as the cable slides free the chute opens. Steve Snyder has moved out of parachute manufacturing and now makes and sells the "Paraplane" -- a parafoil wing attached to an ultralight-styles chassis and engine that makes a very nice personal airplane. Not only does the wing fold up so you can stuff the whole thing in the trunk of your car, but if the engine ever fails, your parachute is already deployed! As a side bit of irony, Steve, who has made uncounted parachute jumps (after all, the rule for people who develop new parachute gear is "you built it, you test it!") and done various other high risk things like fly his own jet airplane, suffered his only serious injury a few years back... smashed his hip when he fell off the roof of his house while installing a solar water heater. And they say solar energy is safe... :-) Why do I know this? Steve happens to be a cousin of mine.... Jordin (What kind of a nut would jump out of a perfectly good airplane?) Kare jtk@mordor.UUCP jtk@mordor.s1.gov