henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/08/89)
Satellite controllers fired Gstar-3's thrusters for a total of 48 hours
in Jan and Feb to move it closer to Clarke orbit (it was placed in the
wrong orbit last fall by a motor failure). It's now in an orbit where
it may be of some use: Geostar (the commercial navsat firm) hopes to
begin using its part of the satellite this fall.
Soviet Union delays launch of the first Mir add-on module, due to delays
in completion of the second add-on, which must follow the first fairly
quickly to keep the configuration symmetrical.
Quayle makes favorable noises about Brilliant Pebbles SDI concept.
Discovery lands after highly successful mission. NASA had hoped to
conclude the mission with a crosswind landing, but the winds didn't
cooperate and NASA instead used the concrete runway at Edwards so
that hard-surface braking tests could be run. [Radical, innovative
thought: if they want landing and braking tests, why not dust off
Enterprise and run some more 747 drop tests? Nah, too simple and
effective.] NASA says the orbiter is in good shape, with tile damage
much reduced from what Atlantis took on the previous mission. A small
leak in the #1 engine's cooling system was found, which permitted a bit
of hydrogen to leak into the exhaust; it definitely was not there before
launch. The engine will be replaced before Discovery flies again in
August. There was an earlier pinhole leak in a similar area of an engine
flown on STS-26, although the two do not seem related. The next mission
(Atlantis) is not expected to be affected.
Space Services readies "Consort 1" commercial sounding rocket mission for
launch at White Sands; the customer is NASA, on behalf of a microgravity
research consortium including U of Alabama and several companies. The
two-stage Starfire rocket uses a first stage from Morton Thiokol [boo]
and a second stage from Bristol Aerospace [yay] [Canadian content here].
Pictures from the late lamented Phobos 2, including one quite striking
one of Phobos against the Martian horizon.
Intelsat will buy three Ariane launches and two Atlas launches for the
Intelsat 7 series, starting in 1992.
Italian Space Agency to buy a 1993 Atlas launch for the SAX X-ray satellite.
NASA picks Atlas as the baseline launcher for the NASA/ESA solar
heliospheric observatory ("Soho"), set for launch in 1995.
[Sounds like a good year for General Dynamics.]
Atlantis moves to pad 39B March 22.
Stephanie Lee-Miller, top public affairs official at Dept of Health and
Human Services, named to head Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
Commercial space people were sort of hoping for someone with experience
in (a) business, (b) space, or (c) high technology; no such luck.
Intel 386 flies in space [gag barf puke excuse me a moment...] [...okay,
I'm back and will try to be brave... :-)] as NASA evaluates an updated
version of the Grid Systems laptops that it has been using on shuttle
missions since 1983.
Letter from Richard Anglin of Los Angeles, saying that NASA is overlooking
the fundamental problem leading to its personnel crisis: the lack of
leadership and vision in NASA's upper levels and in the White House.
The people now being lost joined during "the Kennedy era -- a time of
vision and commitment to leadership and excellence". "The Reagan era
was filled with empty words about space. There was no vision and
certainly no commitment to leadership or excellence. Whether President
Bush chooses to overturn the legacy of his predecessor remains to be
seen."
--
Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.educjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) (05/08/89)
Henry made two interesting observations in his capsulation of the 3/27 AvLeak that merit further discussion. First off, the suggestion to use Enterprise for further braking and crosswind tests is invalid - if my understanding of the differences between the designs is correct. The Enterprise was a design that was improved upon in the competing configuration that became the Columbia/Challenger/Discovery/Atlantis series. There are too many structural (and I believe aerodynamic) differences between the two - enough to make the conversion of Enterprise to a functional shuttle. For these reasons, it is my guess that the craft would not fly exactly the same nor have the same hard braking response in drop tests. Otherwise, it is an intriguing thought... If they were hard up enough to do drop tests, why not drop one of the flying shuttles? (Other than that it would delay the turnaround to flight readyness at KSC) Second... Now, I agree that a 68030 in orbit is nicer than an 80386, but really, Henry - isn't a '386 better than the 8088 that was in the old GRIDs they *were* using? ;-) -- * 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 *
ddavey@grits.ctt.bellcore.com (Doug Davey) (05/09/89)
In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > > Discovery lands after highly successful mission. NASA had hoped to > conclude the mission with a crosswind landing, but the winds didn't > cooperate and NASA instead used the concrete runway at Edwards so > that hard-surface braking tests could be run. [Radical, innovative > thought: if they want landing and braking tests, why not dust off > Enterprise and run some more 747 drop tests? Nah, too simple and > effective.] NASA says the orbiter is in good shape, with tile damage The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC. Currently, there is only one such specially modified 747 in existence. It is therefore one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system. Without it, shuttles don't get ferried and the system stops. I hope NASA uses it only for missions that it alone can carry out. Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until a second ferry vehicle is available. | ___ ___ ___ ___ __ ___ Doug Davey | /__/ /__ / / / / / /__> /__ bellcore!rruxi!ddavey | /__/ /__ /__ /__ /__ /__/ / \ /__ |
david@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (David Robinson) (05/09/89)
In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: | Discovery lands after highly successful mission. [...] | [...] A small | leak in the #1 engine's cooling system was found, which permitted a bit | of hydrogen to leak into the exhaust; it definitely was not there before | launch. The engine will be replaced before Discovery flies again in | August. There was an earlier pinhole leak in a similar area of an engine | flown on STS-26, although the two do not seem related. The next mission | (Atlantis) is not expected to be affected. Is this a similar problem to the cooling problem that caused the first launch attempt of Atlantis to be scrubbed? If so 3 failures in this one system seems fairly high. -- David Robinson elroy!david@csvax.caltech.edu ARPA david@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov ARPA {cit-vax,ames}!elroy!david UUCP Disclaimer: No one listens to me anyway!
nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby) (05/09/89)
In article <15988@bellcore.bellcore.com> ddavey@grits.UUCP (Doug Davey) writes: >In article <1989May8.033250.18780@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: [Henry suggests that Enterprise be used for more tests] > >The 747 that was used for the drop tests is the same one that is >used to ferry the orbiters from Edwards to KSC. Currently, there is >only one such specially modified 747 in existence. It is therefore >one of the single points of failure for the entire shuttle system. And there are four (oops, no, three) launch capable Orbiters. And only one place to launch them from. With any activity there is risk and expense. Rather than test a $2.2G orbiter durring rentry, lets risk a museum piece and the 747. For what another orbiter costs, you could almost buy Boeing (well not quite). >Without it, shuttles don't get ferried and the system stops. Boeing, who is under market pressure to be quick and efficient, can probably turn out another modified 747 way before the board of inquery for any accident meets, much less decides anything. I know that they have long lead times, but if they have space in their delivery schedules they could bump one up the pipeline. >I hope NASA uses it only for missions that it alone can carry out. Like dropping the Enterprise in flight tests. >Since there is at least a possibility of doing crosswind landings >and/or hard surface braking tests each time the orbiters land, without >risking the 747, it would be imprudent to revive the drop tests until >a second ferry vehicle is available. So this gives us say 4-6 tests per year? How often did Enterprise fly? Once a week? Once a month? Let's do the thing that the Russians do so well - use what we have. Enterprise is PAID FOR. Let it go back to work. Neil Kirby ...cbsck!nak
rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) (05/10/89)
I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something) and was not flightworthy. Any truth to this?
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (05/12/89)
In article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com> rfc@briar.philips.com.UUCP (Robert Casey) writes: >I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something) >and was not flightworthy. Any truth to this? No damage that I know of. It's overweight and well below normal orbiter specs, but that's another story. If you did a thorough refit on it, you could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due to the overweight structure. -- Mars in 1980s: USSR, 2 tries, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 2 failures; USA, 0 tries. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) (05/12/89)
In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >No damage that I know of. It's overweight and well below normal orbiter >specs, but that's another story. If you did a thorough refit on it, you >could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due >to the overweight structure. The very fact that it *is* overweight would be a problem in new landing tests, since landing weight is very important when it comes to landing gear and braking. My guess is that, yes, we could refit it and use it for landing tests, but the data would not be fully indicative of the performance of the flight shuttle. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matthew DeLuca : Georgia Institute of Technology : [This space for rent] ARPA: ccoprmd@hydra.gatech.edu : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov (05/13/89)
In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com> rfc@briar.philips.com.UUCP > (Robert Casey) writes: >>I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something) >>and was not flightworthy. Any truth to this? > No damage that I know of. It's overweight and well below normal orbiter > specs, but that's another story. If you did a thorough refit on it, you > could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due > to the overweight structure. I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for flight. To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements (i.e. wing spars) were cut. GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods (actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element. The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think any were completely severed. After all, it's still strong enough to be ferried. Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment. -- M F Shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way.
shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov (05/13/89)
I wrote: I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for flight. To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements (i.e. wing spars) were cut. GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods (actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element. The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think any were completely severed. After all, it's still strong enough to be ferried. Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment. But I forgot to state specifically that the intentional damage was fairly minor and that the vehicle is probably flightworthy for low airspeeds (low qbars, actually) such as those encountered in the ALT program. I don't remember seeing any results of the study, either, so I can't comment on how well it worked. -- M F Shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way.
cs7010d@wright.EDU (Student of Dr. Shock) (05/13/89)
in article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com>, rfc@briar.philips.com (Robert Casey;6282;3.57;$0201) says: > Xref: wright sci.space:9941 sci.space.shuttle:3068 > Posted: Wed May 10 11:18:38 1989 > > I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something) > and was not flightworthy. Any truth to this? The Enterprise was never spaceworthy, just a full scale test bed for reentry/flight dynamics. (Unless you mean not even able to do this, anymore)