yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) (01/25/89)
Paula Cleggett
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 18, 1989
Kari Fluegel
Johnson Space Center, Houston
RELEASE: 89-6
NASA CALLS FOR PROPOSALS REGARDING REUSABLE REENTRY SATELLITE
NASA officials at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston,
last week released a request for proposal (RFP) for continued
studies and design of an unmanned reusable reentry satellite
(RRS) that could significantly expand NASA's capability to
investigate the weightlessness environment.
The RRS, called LifeSat when carrying life science payloads,
will be placed into Earth orbit by an expendable launch vehicle,
reserving the National Space Transportation System for activities
requiring crew presence.
The RFP calls for the design of an almost completely
reusable spacecraft that could be processed and readied for
reflight in 2 months, allowing for several flights each year.
Designs are expected to be derivatives of the often-flown
Department of Defense Discovery satellite or the NASA
Gemini/Apollo vehicles of the 1960s, calling for a vehicle
roughly 6-feet in diameter and weighing more than 2,000 pounds
with a useful payload of 500 pounds.
RRS will be used primarily in the fields of life sciences
and materials processing and would fly experiments in a variety
of orbits including those providing high doses of radiation for
periods up to and perhaps, beyond 60 days. Upon completion of
the flight, the RRS would reenter and soft-land at a designated
ground-site where scientists and engineers would have immediate
access to the experiments.
Contracts for the design studies to begin this summer will
be awarded to two vendors at a cost of $1 million each. The
project will be managed by JSC and could be flown as early as
1993 if future development efforts are approved.
Five international agencies have expressed interest in
participating in the RRS and are expected to conduct parallel
study efforts to the U.S. activities. Agreements for the
international coordination currently are being formulated.
The commercial community also has expressed interest in the
RRS because of its unique orbits, flight duration, autonomous
operations and the dedicated and easily scheduled nature of the
system.alastair@geovision.uucp (Alastair Mayer) (01/27/89)
In article <20996@ames.arc.nasa.gov> yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: >Paula Cleggett >NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. January 18, 1989 > >Kari Fluegel >Johnson Space Center, Houston > > >RELEASE: 89-6 > >NASA CALLS FOR PROPOSALS REGARDING REUSABLE REENTRY SATELLITE [.. a whole bunch of stuff deleted ..] >roughly 6-feet in diameter and weighing more than 2,000 pounds >with a useful payload of 500 pounds. Hmm, does that mean that if I can design a 6-foot diameter reusable vehicle with a payload of 500 pounds, and the vehicle only weighs, say 1000 pounds, that I have to design in a bunch of ballast to bring it up to the "more than 2000 lb" spec'd in the RFP? Sounds like a NASA proposal, all right :-) -- "The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive, | Alastair J.W. Mayer therefore only the government can do it, but that | alastair@geovision.UUCP only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX it is expensive." |
alastair@geovision.uucp (Alastair Mayer) (01/27/89)
Seriously, though, it sounds like an interesting opportunity for those interested in demonstrating reusable ballistic vertical landing vehicles, without having to worry about the vertical takeoff part. (Just as well, given the 2000 pound weight target). A subscale Phoenix, for example... (Although in my more paranoid moments I might wonder about the likelihood of NASA ever awarding a contract to something that demonstrates how silly the shuttle design is) -- "The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive, | Alastair J.W. Mayer therefore only the government can do it, but that | alastair@geovision.UUCP only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX it is expensive." |