henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (10/20/87)
The Chinese recoverable spacecraft that carried the Matra experiment also
carried Chinese materials-processing experiments.
NASA decides it's time to be brave: *both* CRAF (Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid
Flyby) and AXAF (Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility) are down as new starts
in the FY89 budget request. Total request is for $13G. The ball is now in
the White House's court. [Historically, NASA just does not get two new starts
in one year. Will Reagan put his money where his mouth is? Stay tuned.]
First full-scale test of new SRB design successful. Three more tests are due
before the June shuttle launch: DM-9 (November; fully representative of the
flight configuration) (this one was close but not quite), QM-6 (Feb), and
QM-7 (April, using the new variable-temperature test stand, set for "summer"
for starters). QM-8 will follow (Sept, thermostat set for "winter"). More
firings may occur in late spring 1988, as "production verification" tests
that will not be extensively instrumented but will be dismantled and
inspected afterward. Tentatively there will be two of these per year from
now on. The schedule for DM-9, QM-6, and QM-7 is tight for a June launch.
NASA turns down Spacehab Inc.'s request for a flight agreement, tells the
company "try again after we're flying again". This is the result of over
a year of negotiations! NASA has also discussed the idea of cancelling
other commercial agreements (e.g. 3M and Space Industries) due to shuttle
overbooking, but has decided that reneging on signed agreements would be
a bad idea. Spacehab was told that new commercial payloads would fly in
1995 at the earliest, and that its request for a systems development agreement
(in which payment for the launch would be deferred on the grounds that the
payload is a useful addition to shuttle capabilities [which it is]) has
been rejected. High-level NASA support for commercial space activity is
weak these days. A "NASA official in the commercial space office" comments:
"[management] would be happy to fly astronauts up and down and nothing else.
Payloads are a nuisance that they don't want to be bothered with." This may
be a mistake in the long term, given that DoD is pulling its payloads off the
shuttle whenever possible and the payload glut may be a shortage by the
mid-90s. The rejection of Spacehab surprised many. Spacehab comments:
"NASA is absolutely overwhelmed with getting the shuttle back... People
can't think beyond that." Spacehab expects to sign up a customer with
clout (possibly DoD), which will force reconsideration of its requests.
NASA commercial space office's request for FY89 funding towards NASA use of
Spacehab and Space Industries facilities has been rejected by management.
Apparently senior NASA managers feel that if the capability is useful, NASA
should develop it in house.
Morale in NASA in general and the commercial space office in particular is
very low. NASA is not implementing official government commercial-space
policies, partly because neither NASA nor the White House is pushing it.
US space station negotiators en route to Italy with a new draft of the
space station agreement with ESA.
Wespace, the Westinghouse subsidiary working on Space Industries' Industrial
Space Facility, will start buying hardware in early 1988 if a major customer
can be found by then. SII and Wespace are a bit disappointed at the low
level of customer interest. They are aiming at DoD and NASA right now, in
hopes of keeping the first launch on schedule (late 1990).
Mir cosmonauts run emergency evacuation drill.
McDonnell Douglas rolls out first new Delta (customer: SDI).
Cosmos 1873 launched into an odd orbit, suggestive of strategic spysat.
Soviets say it is "analogous" to Cosmos 1871, which re-entered after a few
days in a polar orbit. [It is unusual for the Soviets to comment like this.]
There is speculation about a possible connection with the spaceplane program.
USAF awards study contracts for space-based radar system, which might start
launching in 1993.
NASA tentatively signs with Boeing for another shuttle-carrier 747. Rogers
Commission and others have pointed out that a crash of the existing carrier
would essentially ground the shuttle.
House subcommittee orders work on the space-station crew-rescue vehicle
suspended due to runaway cost growth (from $15M next year to $30-45M next
year) before it even starts. [!!!]
Shuttle engines for STS-26 begin acceptance-test firings.
Japanese engineering-test satellite reaches Clarke orbit.
Aussat will indeed specify delivery in orbit for its next satellites.
British Satellite Broadcasting already specified this in a deal with Hughes,
but BSB is a startup that could be expected to contract things out, while
Aussat is an experienced operator which has done things the other way in
the past. There is speculation that Intelsat will do the same next year
for its next generation. Aussat says that the main reason was that the
insurance companies won't quote prices until three months before launch,
which makes long-term planning difficult unless somebody else (i.e., the
satellite supplier) accepts the risk of promising a firm price earlier.
The satellite business is slow due to overcapacity and launcher failures,
so the suppliers are willing to consider such schemes. One of Hughes'
unsuccessful competitors on the BSB deal is now in the position of having
to scrap already-built satellites due to lack of customers. Hughes will
go to the insurance market for coverage on the BSB satellites, so it is
mostly risking having to pay more than it expects. McDonnell-Douglas is
talking about providing Delta launch insurance itself, in hopes of selling
more Deltas that way, but details are not set; one complication is that
the USAF's launch-site-use rules seem to require outside insurance coverage.
A particular problem for US suppliers bidding on Aussat is that Aussat has
no objections to using Proton as the launcher, but US companies probably
cannot get export licenses for this. Given that Proton is pretty cheap,
this might give European satellite builders a considerable edge. Hughes
says that the US ban on Soviet launchers "could be disastrous for the US
satellite industry". Aussat also considers Long March acceptable, a
further complication.
Insurance companies say that having satellite builders and launchers take
on some of the risk is reasonable. Having the customer do it all is a
historical relic of days when the customers had more money than the builders,
they say.
There is still concern about liability coverage for private launches. A
nasty worst case would be a launch from the Cape going wild and hitting the
Vertical Assembly Building while two shuttle orbiters are inside; damages
could be ten BILLION dollars. Hitting a populated area is less likely
because the distances are longer, although one concern is the possibility
of toxic gas clouds from an explosion -- this was a problem with the Titan
failure at Vandenberg.
[Clearly, what the US launcher industry needs is a private launch facility,
somewhere out in the boondocks where there are no expensive neighbors, and
preferably outside the US. This has actually been obvious from the start --
did anyone really think that the USAF would be reasonable about the matter?]
Non-US launchers appear to have an advantage on the insurance front as well
as raw cost, since their insurance is usually covered by their governments
and US insurers have no idea how to price insurance on them.
NASA is trying to encourage private participation in the space station.
Unfortunately, NASA has also announced restrictive policies on secondary
shuttle payloads, aimed at reducing the massive backlog of such payloads.
This will hamper the very companies that might be interested in the station.
Development of the rocket-boosted shuttle escape system is going slowly.
One problem is that the rockets to be used have been out of production for
years and rockets for testing have had to be obtained from the Royal Thai
Air Force! They will be replaced as soon as the production line restarts,
and only new rockets would be used on real missions. Aircraft tests are
to begin early in October, once the cause of a ground malfunction is sorted
out. Decision on using the system on STS-26 scheduled for March.
NASA is looking at a new escape-system idea: a 21-foot metal pole extending
from the orbiter hatch, to guide crew members clear of the wing.
[Essay question, for extra marks: Why wasn't this obviously superior
approach even included in the original list of methods, and what are its
chances of being accepted?]
The Naval Weapons Center is helping develop crew survival gear, including
possibly a partial-pressure suit and oxygen system. NASA hopes that such
equipment might make a Challenger-type accident survivable.
NASA Space Flight Safety Panel recommends that NASA look at restricting
access to witnesses' testimony after accidents, as DoD does already. The
concern is that fear of lawsuits might alter testimony. NASA already has
some non-disclosure rules, which are not being enforced. One difficulty
is the Freedom of Information Act. The Panel made various other recommen-
dations, including a suggestion that NASA managers should have tours of
duty within safety organizations, to bring systems expertise into safety
offices and export safety awareness.
--
"Mir" means "peace", as in | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"the war is over; we've won". | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henrykarn@faline.UUCP (10/20/87)
> There is still concern about liability coverage for private launches. A > nasty worst case would be a launch from the Cape going wild and hitting the > Vertical Assembly Building while two shuttle orbiters are inside; damages > could be ten BILLION dollars. I don't see this as being particularly credible if the ground rules for commercial use of KSC or Cape Canaveral facilities continue to require use of Air Force range safety facilities and personnel. The flight components of the range safety system could be provided privately, but they would have to be inspected and tested by the government prior to launch. As usual, the range safety limit criteria would be spelled out in minute detail in advance of the launch, and the private launch company would have have to agree not to hold the government liable if the button is pushed because a launch violated them. In exchange the government would agree to assume the risk to its own facilities; after all, it would have "the last word". Range safety has had an admirable record in protecting lives and property on the ground. The chances of a launcher taking off and destroying a building like the VAB seem awfully remote. Merritt Island is a *big* place; the VAB is 3 miles from the Shuttle pads, and a lot farther from the smaller pads down in CCAFS that would be used for private launches. The only real issue is pad damage; a launcher blowing up on or near its pad can do a lot of damage. Since this sort of thing is statistically rare, private liability insurance shouldn't be a major problem. Phil