henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (11/07/88)
Editorial castigating NASA for reducing access to good launch-viewing sites at KSC. A silly compromise it was, too: if there is real danger at the standard viewing sites, *nobody* except persons needed to launch the shuttle should be within the perimeter. That's actually what the USAF safety people originally wanted. Rep. Bill Nelson protests the restriction as damaging to worker morale (many of the now-excluded spectators are contractor staff) and says he and other congressmen would have intervened had they realized NASA would be so spineless. Second editorial calling for abolishing SIG-Space (the Senior Interagency Group for space). "In the area of civilian space policy, leadership by committee has not served the space program well. It's time for a change." It also urges the next administration to act rather than studying the situation yet again. Yet more bad news. The Ariane launch on Sept 8, with two US comsats on board, went perfectly... but the apogee motor on Gstar-3, one of the two, malfunctioned somehow and it is stranded in a useless orbit. (SBS-5, the other satellite, had no problems.) An attempt will be made to move Gstar-3 into Clarke orbit using its maneuvering thrusters, but this will use up most of its station-keeping fuel and reduce its useful life severely. GTE Spacenet says the satellite will be considered a writeoff for insurance purposes -- $60M worth. Actually the total will be more like $77M after the satellite manufacturer and Geostar (which had another piggyback payload aboard) collect on their policies. GTE will try to get some minimal use out of the satellite until they can get Gstar-4 launched; G-4 is booked for Ariane in April 1990 and GTE is asking Arianespace to move it up. It appears that the apogee motor on G-3 fired for its full normal burn, but late in the burn something -- perhaps a crack in the nozzle -- sent the satellite's attitude wildly out of control. The satellite may actually have done a complete flip, and its spin ended up reversed as well (!). The head of NOAA observed the Ariane launch, and says he will recommend that future NOAA metsat launch competitions include Ariane as a full competitor. ESA and NASA are studying the idea of using Hermes as the rescue vehicle for the space station. One Hermes would be parked at the station at all times, exchanged for a fresh one every 3-4 months. ESA says it looks feasible at first glance. France is also about to invite the US and the USSR to a meeting on developing a standardized docking system for manned spacecraft, saying it's ridiculous that this hasn't happened already. In view of the Cosmos 1900 flap, some fuss has been made about a US report estimating public-health consequences for space-nuclear-power missions: for some idiotic reason the report is classified! Rep. George Brown introduces bill to ban nuclear power sources in orbit. The insurance people are looking at another really bad year, with Gstar 3 a writeoff and Insat 1C not doing too well, and echoes from last year's Telecom 1B and TVSat writeoffs still around. (Fortunately, the US snoopsat lost in September was not insured!) The insurers are likely to be very cool to the idea of insuring TDF, a French comsat slated for October launch, which is nearly identical to TVSat. Reagan approves use of Chinese booster for US-built satellites. Launch companies unhappy, satellite builders pleased. Congressional review and international export-control review are still pending. China has agreed to technology-transfer safeguards; it will be interesting to see what happens if the Soviets do the same. The official US position is that the USSR is still off-limits. The agreement with China is conditional on agreement on details of technology safeguards, agreement on Chinese responsibility for third-party liability, and agreement by China to do something about not competing too severely with the US launch industry. [Whatever happened to free enterprise?] SDI considering a Brilliant-Pebbles flight experiment: experience in use of small optics in space against an Earth background is considered important. USAF is promoting space-based radar as a program for international cooperation, to try to get some Nunn-amendment funding for it. The USAF would like it for cruise-missile defense. Canada is interested but only somewhat, since it looks very expensive. AF Sec. Aldridge softens his opposition to small satellites in general, although he is still strongly opposed to the idea of replacing existing satellites with groups of smaller ones. Letter from Stewart Dean: "The Space Sciences paper by Dr. Allen [Van Allen?] and the National Academy of Sciences is yet another plan by the foxes for an improved hen house. "True, these scientists are motivated by a desire for knowledge, [and] what they know how to do is remote sensing; thus, a space effort is best done by remote sensing in their expert opinion... "[They] are 'preparing for the last war' when they should be training the next generation of scientific astronauts." -- The Earth is our mother. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Our nine months are up. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu