henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (09/29/87)
[Let's see. After Spaceflight and Space World, there is no clear third
place in space periodicals to my mind. There are several that address
different needs. So this week's plug goes to JBIS, known more fully as
the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. This is a formal
technical journal more than a magazine, and sometimes it does get rather
mathematical, but much (not all) of the content is intelligible to the
informed laycreature. And it publishes the most marvellous papers. A
special issue on antimatter propulsion. Frequent contributions on SETI
and the Fermi paradox. History of spaceflight. A special issue on the
future of solar-system exploration, with papers on things like a probe
that would get down within a few million km of the Sun. A paper by the
Voyager mission planners on how long the Voyagers will last and where
they will be thousands of years from now. All manner of fascinating
stuff (with some dreck mixed in, of course), often written by the people
who are actually *doing* it, not some babytalking reporter. Address is
the same as that for Spaceflight; JBIS is an extra-cost add-on to BIS
membership, costing another US$30 or so (don't remember exactly). Well
worthwhile.]
[Oh yes, an add-on to the Space World recommendation: despite the damn
stupid name, the National Space Society is open to non-USAnians. This
sort of misunderstanding (I mention it because I've gotten a bit of mail
about this) is one reason why the name needs changing.]
[If you're wondering about "USAnian", "American" properly refers to a pair
of continents rather than the second-largest nation on one of them.]
Rockwell is working on a payload-deployment gadget for payloads that nearly
fill the shuttle cargo bay or push the weight limit. It will rotate big
payloads out of the cargo bay, while weighing only 170 lb against the
shuttle arm's 1300 lb.
There are currently too few technical experts on NASA's space station HQ
staff to handle the thousands of pages of paperwork that need doing between
now and the major program review in March.
NASA assessment finds NASA manpower generally inadequate for rebuilding the
space program, perhaps another 2000 needed soon.
Fletcher to meet with CEOs of 25 top NASA contractors to brief them on plans
and get their views.
[Prediction: their views will be "spend lots more money".]
Intelsat signs with Martin Marietta for commercial Titan 3 launches of
two Intelsat 6s, in 1989 and 1990. Redundancy in launchers is explicit
Intelsat policy; they already have several Ariane contracts. The two
Intelsat 6s were originally meant to go on the shuttle. Proton was
considered but "unresolved technical issues and other uncertainties"
[translation: the US State Dept.'s objections] ruled it out.
Japan stacks H-1 booster for ETS-5 engineering test satellite launch on
Aug 20. [Successful.]
Army approves hurry-up neutral-particle-beam program at Los Alamos. A
shuttle-borne experiment will fly in the early 1990s. Picture of McDonnell-
Douglas mockup of the experiment package: three satellites, two of them
small (target and monitoring unit), the third filling most of the shuttle
cargo bay (accelerator).
SDIO faces major delays and possible termination of ongoing projects due
to budget cuts. Of particular note is that the SP-100 space-qualified
nuclear-reactor project will probably be delayed or cancelled.
NASA prepares to issue $30M RFP for space-station crew-escape studies.
Formal new-start funding request will follow in FY1990. The vehicle will
carry six or more crew; the station will have two, to permit a partial
return for medical emergencies. Reentry testing by mid-1995 would be
needed if space station manned operations are to start late in 1995.
The test would be done from the shuttle, and might be manned. Three types
of vehicle are under consideration:
- Winged. Low G-loads on reentry, possibly important for medical
evacuation, and more choice of landing site, but high cost and
complexity. Langley has studied an 8-man lifting body resembling
the Soviet mini-spaceplane.
- Lifting capsule, resembling Apollo. G-loads would be higher but
still could be modest. Landing by parachute in water; KSC is
looking at recovery issues. Rockwell has studied existing Apollo
hardware to determine whether it could be refurbished. NASA thinks
that is unlikely (for one thing, Apollo hardware is built for a
low-pressure pure-oxygen atmosphere, unlike the station's), but
agrees it is worth looking at.
- Ballistic capsule. Cheapest, but G-loads would be high.
Study contractors will get NASA's conclusions on the G-load issue early in
the 15-month contract term, since it will have a major effect.
Aft exit cone on SRB nozzle being assembled for full-scale test flunks leak
check. This area has never had a leak-check capability before. The problem
is thought to be a side effect of horizontal assembly, and to be unimportant.
[The test was successful.]
Alexander Laveikin, the cosmonaut who was brought down from Mir early due to
a heart irregularity, appears to be in good health (allowing for the usual
side effects of 174 days in space). The Soviets say that treatment with
drugs was rejected due to possible side effects, often seen even on Earth.
USSR announces that an Afghan cosmonaut will fly on a Soyuz within the next
few years. [There is also talk that an Austrian might fly on Soyuz.]
NASA awards five nine-month study contracts for improved SRB designs.
NASA studies say that Mach 2-5 is viable for supersonic commercial transports
and higher speeds are not. High costs, logistics, and environmental issues
make trouble, and above Mach 6 or so the productivity gain falls off as the
technological challenge rises. Boeing says that about Mach 4 is the cutoff;
beyond that, one needs cryogenic fuels and new airport facilities. NASA and
other companies disagree about the exact cutoff but agree there is one.
None of the parties involved -- airports, airlines, fuel companies -- wants
to spend the money for the facilities and training needed for new fuels.
Boeing's studies go up to Mach 25 [orbital speed], and reject it: "The
Earth is not big enough for a Mach 25 airplane in terms of trying to take
advantage of those speeds and have a commercial operation..."
Letter from Bruce Murray (Caltech planetary scientist of note) blames White
House, not Fletcher, for current woes. "The buck stops at the White House.
That is where our response should be targeted."
Letter from John Keil, Tacoma:
"You state that the US must respond aggressively to Soviet space
efforts or `forfeit its international leadership role in space'.
...the US already has lost its position as the world leader in
space development, and comments like that only tend to disguise
the problem.
"The Soviets have launched more spacecraft per year than the US
every year since 1962. They launched more satellites in the
first three weeks of July than we have managed to launch all year.
"...our space vehicles are more sophisticated than their Soviet
counterparts. However, such a large disparity in the number of
launches is difficult to counter with technological advantages.
And, of course, all our technical expertise does little good
sitting in a warehouse."
Letter from Name Withheld By Request, pointing out that DoD is upset about
military uses of Mir while loudly insisting that it has no military use for
the US space station:
"The only explanation for this contradictory behavior is the
Defense Dept's fear that it could lose a billion or so from its
gigantic $300 billion yearly budget if it appears in the least
supportive..."
--
"There's a lot more to do in space | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry