henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/24/89)
Asiasat is in trouble -- the Bush administration's embargo on shipment of high technology to China prevents its Hughes-built satellite from being launched on Long March next April. Asiasat is lobbying for an exception. Partial restoration of Aerospace Plane funds is now likely, although it is likely that there will be some reduction and some resulting schedule slip. Interior Dept.'s Bureau of Land Management is evaluating Geostar for tracking its aircraft. BLM aircraft do much flying at low altitudes in wild areas, and crew safety is a major concern. Existing schemes involving frequent manual position reporting are very cumbersome. Six aircraft and two helicopters have been equipped with Geostar hardware for a two-year trial, and so far it is working very well. Locstar [I think this is the European side of Geostar] chooses Matra to build two satellites for European location and messaging services. Insat, the Indian comsat scheduled for launch June 29, is badly damaged when a 75-lb hoist hook falls 30 ft onto it. Although the satellite was loaded with fuel, there was no explosion and nobody was hurt. The USAF, India, and McDonnell Douglas (the launch contractor) are assessing the damage, but several months of repairs will probably be needed and it is possible that the satellite may be a writeoff. The launcher will probably be used for the British BSB broadcast satellite, which is also in line for a Delta launch. Ariane 5 development program will probably slip several months and perhaps longer, because a US-built solid-fuel-mixing machine destined for Kourou is being diverted to US solid-rocket manufacturer Hercules to replace a mixer damaged in an accident early this year. The mixer was to reach Kourou in early fall to be incorporated into the Ariane 5 SRB manufacturing plant, along with another mixer to arrive late in the year. Worse, the second mixer may be delayed because the first one needs to be reworked to fit Hercules's needs, and manpower is short. The Europeans are Not Pleased, and are urging the US to deliver the mixers as originally scheduled, saying that Hercules has others. "This could go down as another black day in European-US space relations, and it comes at a time when Europe already is questioning the reliability of the US as a partner..." Story on NASA Lewis work on slush hydrogen as fuel for the Aerospace Plane. Slush is the prime candidate for NASP fuel, as it is both denser than liquid hydrogen and a better coolant. Work so far indicates that there are no impossible roadblocks, just a lot of technology development needed. Major problems are efficient production of slush, measurement of solid- liquid ratio for tank-capacity gauges and fuel-flow meters, and the choice of tank-pressurization gas (hydrogen will tend to condense out, melting the slush and interfering with pressurization, while helium is costly and needs heavy, bulky pressure tanks; a mixed scheme, using a layer of helium to separate hydrogen gas from the slush, is being investigated). William Lenoir, ex-astronaut now in charge of the space station, urges accelerating start of station assembly to get things moving. The idea has not yet been studied in depth. Lenoir says the station is likely to shrink a bit if funding continues tight, and he's not sure that the 20 shuttle flights allotted to station construction are enough, but identifying such problems and sorting them out is currently his first priority. He says the idea of switching to solar-dynamic power has been rejected: the technology has not been as thoroughly proven as he'd like, there was a distinct risk of schedule slips, and it would cost more in a time of tight funding. It is still an option for a later upgrade. Senate authorizing committee gives NASA full funding for CRAF and Cassini, on condition that NASA establish a firm cost-control plan, to include cancellation of CRAF if cost limits are exceeded. NASA astronaut David Griggs, scheduled to fly a shuttle mission late this year [not sure which one], dies in a flying accident in Arkansas. Photo of a model of a Tupolev proposal for a hypersonic transport, on show at the Paris air show. [Interestingly enough, the aft fuselage has a flat top with no central fin -- meant to carry a spaceplane on top??] Pratt&Whitney propulsion people working on the Aerospace Plane say that most everyone agrees that some rocket propulsion will be needed for the final boost into orbit, and that all three airframe contractors include one in their designs. General Dynamics starts preparing an Atlas-Centaur for launch from the Cape, carrying a Navy comsat. This will be the last expendable launch under NASA authority. The satellite is the one that was scheduled to go up two years ago when the Centaur's hydrogen tank was destroyed in a pad accident. NASA prepares for antinuclear protestors to object to the Galileo launch carrying isotope power units. The "Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice" is claiming "...it only takes one Challenger-type explosion and launch or one Chernobyl accident in space to destroy life on our fragile planet...", and that solar power would be a practical substitute. (Both false -- such isotope generators have reentered and disintegrated before without significant ill effect, and solar power is unworkable for outer-solar-system missions, especially in Jupiter's high-radiation environment.) A more moderate group, the "Committee to Bridge the Gap", although it opposes space nuclear power in general and believes there are some risks in the Galileo launch, has given Galileo its blessing on the grounds that the benefits outweigh the minor risks. NASA says the worst case would be a reentry during one of Galileo's Earth flybys; this would be more likely to disperse the plutonium-238 in the isotope packs than a launch accident. The CtBtG expresses some doubts about the numbers in the safety assessments, although it says NASA has done a good job on the test program for the generators. The White House must approve the launch of the generators before Galileo can go up. Voyager discovers a large dark spot on Neptune, which (on reexamination of older pictures) has been there since at least January. The spot is comparable to Jupiter's Great Red Spot, in proportion to the planet. -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
bruno@inmic.se (Bruno Poterie) (07/25/89)
In article <1989Jul24.033656.20927@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > Ariane 5 development program will probably slip several months and perhaps > longer, because a US-built solid-fuel-mixing machine destined for Kourou > is being diverted to US solid-rocket manufacturer Hercules to replace a > mixer damaged in an accident early this year. The mixer was to reach > Kourou in early fall to be incorporated into the Ariane 5 SRB manufacturing > plant, along with another mixer to arrive late in the year. Worse, the > second mixer may be delayed because the first one needs to be reworked to > fit Hercules's needs, and manpower is short. The Europeans are Not Pleased, > and are urging the US to deliver the mixers as originally scheduled, saying > that Hercules has others. "This could go down as another black day in > European-US space relations, and it comes at a time when Europe already > is questioning the reliability of the US as a partner..." Same kind of attitude already pushed the French, long ago, to launch a rocket study which eventually evolved into current Ariane. Surprise! I suppose that now we will have to build a mixer factory, thereby depriving the Americans of this market share (and of others as well). Keep on doing the good job ;-! ;-) ;-) Which firm was building those mixers? I bet that it is a private company. If confirmed, this is one more reason to doubt about the validity of the "private" approach. If Arianespace had had a contract with the NASA or with another government or official agency, it would have been respected. But what can you expect from a private compagny who does not respect commercial contracts? Go to a conccurent next time? Attack it in a US tribunal? Ah! There was this insert in Newsweek recently (or was it another weekly?) where former NASA head said that the leaders of space commercial activities are already and will increasingly be the Europeans, because "they have the will and the organisation". The will, you Americans certainly do have it as well, but not the organisation - rather, not the will of an organisation as i see it on this forum. Well, i much prefer expensive public NASA to this cheap private company. A question of trust, i suppose. Disclaimer: those are my opinions and mine only. Bruno Poterie, Martian. Vive l'Europe! email: bruno@inmic.se
hughes@gary.dec.com (07/25/89)
re: the solid propellant mixer for Ariane 5 My understanding is that it was to be purchased by Arianespace from a private company. At a guess, I'd say that US Gov't approval would be required to export a propellant mixer, but that would have been the limit of Gov't involvement. However, some Gov't agency has decided that replacing the mixer in the Hercules plant is of strategic importance and has diverted the mixer being built for Arianespace. I don't think you can blame the manufacturer for that; it is Gov't interference. All they have to do is revoke the export license. However, it doesn't alter your basic point... in space activities, the US just is not a reliable partner. I'm sure all countries have policies that could affect, say, launch assignments at times of strategic need (e.g. I think the need to launch a replacement for the malfunctioning French Telecom shuffled the Ariane launch manifest slightly) but when combined with apparently haphazard changes in national space policies, especially those surrounding commercial space activity, it is no wonder that other countries get nervous. NASA refusal to launch satellites that may compete with Intelsat was one of the driving forces behind the French Diamant launchers and the later Ariane series. Ever wonder why the Diamant first stage burned turpentine and nitric acid? The US refused to export the hydrazine that they wanted to use. gary (hughes @star.dec.com)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/04/89)
In article <BRUNO.89Jul25133909@ha7.inmic.se> bruno@inmic.se (Bruno Poterie) writes: >> Ariane 5 development program will probably slip several months... > >Which firm was building those mixers? I bet that it is a private company. >If confirmed, this is one more reason to doubt about the validity of the "private" >approach. If Arianespace had had a contract with the NASA or with another >government or official agency, it would have been respected... Ha ha. Ho ho. Hee hee. Remember Ulysses, nee *International* Solar Polar Mission? The US government can and does renege on both promises and out- and-out contracts. Ask most anybody who had a commercial launch booked on the Shuttle at the beginning of 1986. Those people didn't even get their deposits back, as I recall. Some of them seriously thought about suing the US government. I don't recall the details, but the mixers were undoubtedly being built by private industry. However, the diversion was the government's idea. -- 1961-1969: 8 years of Apollo. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1969-1989: 20 years of nothing.| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu