henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (11/15/87)
[You may have noticed that my promised recommendations of space books have
not yet materialized. Please be patient.]
Some interesting bits of new from other sources...
Science (2 Oct) reports that the chairman of GM (which owns big satellite-
builder Hughes) has written to George Schultz asking that US export policy
forbidding use of Soviet launchers be revised. The State Department is
still saying (unofficially) that the answer is "when Hell freezes over".
A prominent reason for GM's interest is that the RFP for Aussat's next
generation of satellites explicitly asks that bidders include an option to
launch on Proton, something that bidders subject to US export rules can't
do at present.
The latest issue of Planetary Encounter (which I recommended a month or so
back) reprints the entire Ride Report. And I think the latest issue of
World Spaceflight News, which I haven't looked at properly yet, reprints
the entire NRC report on the space station.
Jupiter is just past an unusually close approach to Earth, and is worth
taking a look at. You can see the Galilean satellites clearly with a
cruddy set of binoculars, even from the middle of a big light-polluted
city. [I know because I've looked at them several times from my apartment
window.]
Something I didn't mention much in my previous commentary on the NRC space
station report was that NRC was most emphatic about one issue: space science
will continue to require both expendable launches and shuttle flights
independent of the space station, and should not be forced to funnel
everything through the station, which is ill-suited for some types of work.
Back to AW&ST....
French technicians run successful tethered test of the balloon system they
propose for a Soviet Mars mission in the 90s.
Congress limits NASA FY88 spending on expendables to two Deltas, but would
have supplied more if only the Administration would set clear priorities.
Space supporters hoped for a Titan 3 for Mars Observer and a Titan 4 as a
backup for one TDRS.
Spectacular photo, lit by the engine flame, of the V19 Ariane launch.
Italy has indeed joined France's Helios spysat project, taking a 14% share
that will be mostly ground systems due to the late decision. Spain is
also interested. Helios will be a Spot derivative. [France is pushing
Helios hard because it will fix a major weakness in Europe's bargaining
position in intelligence matters: the US monopoly on spysat images.]
ESA approves building a third Ariane pad at Kourou, specifically for use
by Ariane 5. Work will start next year. Also, a site has been picked for
the Hermes spaceplane's runway at Kourou.
ESA is finishing plans for its next decade or so, for approval in November.
The three major items are: Ariane 5, to fly in 1995 and start paying its
way in 1996, with nine launches per year by 1999; the Hermes spaceplane,
to fly unmanned in 1998 and manned in 1999; and Columbus, comprising a
free-flyer in 1994, a module for the US space station in 1996, a polar
platform in 1997, and a man-tended free-flyer in 1998. Also on the November
agenda will be the possibility of a European data-relay satellite system,
extension of Hermes's mission duration to 28 days, the continuing problems
with NASA over the space station negotiations, and the impact of Britain's
recent space-funding restrictions.
ESA begins early planning for two station-preparation Spacelab flights in
1994-5.
Picture of a model of a Boeing ALS concept, including a flyback booster.
Boeing says that rocket engines are crucial to this, specifically an
efficient high-pressure hydrocarbon-fuel engine that can be removed and
replaced routinely (to permit engine maintenance independent of the vehicle).
Eutelsat picks Atlas-Centaur to launch Eutelsat 2 in 1990, first firm
commercial A-C contract. Deal includes options for two more.
Scout launches two Navy navsats into polar orbit from Vandenberg Sept. 16.
Progress 31 freighter undocks from Mir Sept 23, as Progress 32 is launched.
Starfind [the latest innovative-navsat company] has asked the FCC to stop
processing applications for innovative navsat systems, on the grounds that
the current spectrum space cannot be shared by multiple systems without
unacceptable interference. Starfind is particularly critical of Geostar.
Soviet Union will offer launch insurance for satellites launched on Proton.
This will include third-party liability, although they say that launches
within the Soviet Union do not need a lot of coverage for this.
The Soviets are now offering commercial terms for: launch into any orbit;
man-tended or untended payloads aboard Mir, including return to Earth;
launch and recovery of unmanned payloads; purchase of Soviet space hardware.
The Soviets continue to claim that the two Proton failures early this year
were due to an experimental fourth stage that is not part of the commercial
Proton offer.
US launch companies tell Congress that they are increasingly worried about
the effect of US policies on international competition. A particular issue
is that foreign launch companies usually have government backing in liability
insurance, while the USAF demands that the company cover it all to use US
facilities. Martin Marietta suggests US government coverage above an upper
limit, to be set within the means of US companies. McDonnell-Douglas warns
that a few firm contracts don't make a viable industry and the US industry is
not necessarily competitive in the long run. General Dynamics shows its
model launch-services contract, 27 pages versus thousands for a government
contract. George Koopman, president of Amroc, is particularly critical of
the government (AmRoc wants to use Vandenberg). Amroc has been trying to
start negotiations with the USAF for nine months... unsuccessfully! USAF
HQ says talk to Space Division, Space Division says it has no authority
to negotiate. "This sort of bureaucratic nonsense results in real damage
to our company and this industry." He says the USAF facilities-use
agreement is disastrous: "AmRoc cannot sign this agreement and survive".
USAF demands for "aggregate maximum casualty and liability insurance
available on the world market" are "patently ridiculous... and a demand
without reason, sense, or precedent", involving premiums that could ruin
AmRoc. The draft agreement is "unworkable, bureaucratic, and anti-
commercial". He says that the working-level USAF people are okay but that
the upper management is a disaster. "Perhaps the most unbelievable of all
is the Air Force's demand that we supply them with liability insurance
against `judicial actions for violation of federal, state, or local laws'.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any insurance available against
breaking the law." AmRoc has already lost two financial partners because
of the USAF agreement, which is "scaring the living daylights out of the
investment community".
The latest changes in the Landsat commercialization plan could terminate
the government's agreement with Eosat. The government says Eosat is acting
like a government contractor rather than a commercial business. Eosat says
that the government's treatment of Eosat sends "a strong message to people
interested in the commercialization of space, `Don't get involved with us
because we're kind of flaky. We stall, we use delaying tactics, and we
don't bother to fund our commitments.' Knowing what we do today, if we
could do it over again, we wouldn't have bid on this contract... there
were six winners in the Landsat contract [out of seven competitors]; none
of them are Eosat." Landsat customers are increasingly angry that there
will obviously be a disruption of data continuity when Landsats 4 and 5
fail. The government, which formerly was going to fund construction of
Landsat 7, now says that maybe it would be obsolete before launch, and wants
to study it again instead. The government also observes that Eosat is not
investing much of its own money in all this, and looks like another bloated
government contractor... especially compared to Spot Image, which is
aggressive and entrepreneurial despite its government subsidy.
US and Canadian space-station negotiators fail to resolve differences, in
what was hoped to be the final meeting. This is a bad omen, since Canada
is closer to agreement than Europe and Japan, and is also much more important
to the station, since its mobile servicing center is needed for station
assembly. Canada is dubious about unrestricted US military use of the
station, wants international management and regular reviews of the program,
objects violently to language that would impose US export and technology-
transfer laws on Canadian organizations, and would like binding arbitration
rather than ill-defined "negotiation" for settling disputes. Canada is
also worried about possible elimination of one or both of the polar
platforms, which are important to Canada. It looks like none of the
international partners will be officially on board when development starts
in November. The partners "continue to ask themselves whether the station
program is truly international or whether it is a US program with foreign
participation".
--
Those who do not understand Unix are | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly. | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry