Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from holmes.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 14 May 89 05:17:28 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 14 May 89 05:17:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V9 #434 SPACE Digest Volume 9 : Issue 434 Today's Topics: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST Re: citizens in space -- risk silli Re: using Enterprise for braking tests NSS Hotline Update Re: Private spending for space science Re: New Orbiter Name Announced Re: more 747 drop tests? Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 May 89 22:54:47 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests In article <1989May11.201919.950@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: In article 67372111@NMSUVM1.BITNET writes: >>A related question - how consistent has NASA been in upgrading the steering >>and braking systems of Enterprise? ... >I expect that using Enterprise for such testing would probably require a >complete refit of brakes at least, and possibly landing gear as well. It >would not be free, but I suspect it would be worthwhile. Don't forget the Convair 990 (now known as the LSRA, or Landing Systems Research Aircraft). This plane is at Ames-Dryden to have a Shuttle main landing gear installed in the fuselage. I think it will be just forward of the 990 main landing gear. When the Shuttle gear is extended, it's below the 990 gear. A fairly simple control system is being designed to drive the system to match the Shuttle landing loads profile. The pilot just flies low (and level) over the runway and voila! you can assess the improvements. This should be _very_ interesting to watch from a safe distance :-) Flight test is rarely boring. -- M F Shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 07:10:33 GMT From: unmvax!polyslo!jmckerna@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (John McKernan) Subject: Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST In article <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: >Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V???? We threw away the Saturn V because it was a very expensive, virtually hand built rocket that was thrown away after every use. The idea of a reusable rocket is really very sound in theory, although it turns out to be a bit difficult to execute (especially by a government bureaucracy). With 20/20 hindsight a big dumb booster made with relatively low performance parts was probably the way to go. John L. McKernan. Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The future is rude and pushy. It won't wait for us to solve today's problems before it butts in with tomorrow's. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 89 16:55:00 GMT From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: citizens in space -- risk silli Is there a single manager that was involved in over-riding the engineers and pushing the launch suffering any penalty for their stupidity and arrogance? My guess is that the engineers were sacked and the managers promoted. Alan M. Carroll "And there you are carroll@s.cs.uiuc.edu Saying 'We have the Moon, so now the Stars...'" CS Grad / U of Ill @ Urbana ...{ucbvax,pur-ee,convex}!s.cs.uiuc.edu!carroll ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 23:00:53 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: using Enterprise for braking tests In article <596@cbnewsl.ATT.COM> sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) writes: There seems to be plenty of speculation about using the good old Enterprise for landing and braking tests. Does any body know exactly what state that orbiter is in? I.e. avionics, power systems, external surfaces etc. Enterprise never had TPS tiles; it's covered with black-painted plastic foam, somewhat denser than styrofoam. This was fragile and easily damaged--I have a small chunk of it that I picked up off the hangar floor. I suspect that anything useable in the other orbiters was cannibalized before the vehicle went to the Smithsonian. -- M F Shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 89 20:08:00 GMT From: arisia!cdp!jordankatz@lll-winken.llnl.gov Subject: NSS Hotline Update This is the National Space Society's Space Hotline Update: Tuesday May 9, 1989. Acting Nasa administrator Dale Myers stated that NASA will request President Bush to terminate the Space Station program if congress cuts anywhere from $600 to 800 million from the agencies FY'90 budget request. Currently the House and Senate are both seeking about a $1 billion cut from NASA's budget request. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Chairperson of the HUD-IA subcommittee which funds NASA, stated that she will do all she can to support NASA's budget request, but the subcommittee should be prepared to trim NASA's budget. The Space Shuttle Atlantis ended its mission with a perfect landing on the Concrete runway, 22 at Edwards Air Force Base at 3:45pm EST Monday May 8, 1989. The mission's primary objective was met with the successful deployment of the Magellan Venus Radar Mapping Spacecraft. The planetary probe, the first launched by the US in 11 years is, as of May 9, 1989, at least 700,000 miles from Earth, streaking toward Venus. JPL reports that the spacecraft is operating normally without a clitch. The overall flight of the Shuttle Atlantis has gone fairly smooth, with the exception of a broken fax machine, and a failed computer. The crew wanted to fix the fax machine themselves but were ordered not to by ground control. The failed computer brought science experiments to a halt in the last day of the mission. But in a space workers first, the crew was able to replace the computer, in a first time ever in- flight replacement of computer hardware. 18 members of the House of representatives lead by Rep. Dave McCurdy called on Vice President Dan Quayle to maintain support for the development of the National Aerospace Plane. The National Space Council is scheduled top meet May 25th to discuss the program. Acting NASA Adm. Dale Myers said that NASA has offered to continue NASP Research for three or four more years before conduction design and definition studies. Under the Administrations approach to the problem, NASA would do the work and receive $100 million from the Pentagon to support the work. Its been estimated that it will require a $4 billion dollar investment to get the NASP to the flight test phase by late '94 to early '95. At KSC.. Three main engines were installed into the Space Shuttle Columbia today, with testing scheduled to take place latter this week. The Orbiter's commode was reinstalled today with functional testing due to be completed next week. The Orbiter will remain in the OPF until late June, when it will be moved to the VAB to be mated with its external tank, and solid rocket boosters. At the AIAA annual meetings last week Martin Marietta unveiled a full size mockup to the Flight Telerobotic Servicer. The servicer is a crucial part of the space station because it will allow assembly and repair of the Space Station with out Astronauts leaving the work modules. With most of the assembly work carried out directly by robots the amount of time spent outside of the station by the astronauts is minimized. The robots are expected to be test flown in 1991 and 1993. A Note to all Mississippi Phone Tree Participants: The Appropriations Markup is scheduled to take place in the House of Representatives before Memorial Day Recess! *** Please Continue your CALLS and or LETTERS to: *** Rep. Jamie Whitten - House Appropriations Chairperson. - Tell'm like it is! Lets keep America in Space! This has been Jordan Katz reporting for the National Space Society's Space Hotline. This message will be updated May 14, 1989. ------------------------------ Date: 11 May 89 20:05:14 GMT From: dd2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Daniel Alexander Davis) Subject: Re: Private spending for space science Tough. I'm a college student going to Carnegie Mellon. I make $5,000 a year. I spend $20,000. This has no indication on how valuable my statements may or not be. If you think it does, we should step outside. I'll even promise to support space industries as soon as I'm able. Thanks for the understanding. Dan Davis. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 18:40:32 GMT From: unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!cveg!hcx!jws3@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (JAMES WILLIAM SMITH) Subject: Re: New Orbiter Name Announced In article <13000@ut-emx.UUCP>, bonin@ut-emx.UUCP (Marc Bonin) writes: > It's interesting to note that every shuttle orbiter except Columbia has > a fictional counterpart But Columbia has a fictional counterpart, tho it's more of a "sluttle" than a shuttle: FRANK: My assistants... CROWD: HEY FRANK, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR COKE? FRANK: Columbia... Doesn't UT show the RHPS anymore? :-) /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | James W. Smith, University of Arkansas | | | ...uunet!harris.cis.ksu.edu!jws3@hcx | We must love one another | | harry!hcx!jws3@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu | or die. | | Telenet: jws3@130.184.7.209 | --A. Clarke | | 515 Skyline Dr., Fayetteville, AR 72701 | | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/ ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 17:44:44 GMT From: ncrlnk!ncrcce!johnson@uunet.uu.net (Wayne D. T. Johnson) Subject: Re: more 747 drop tests? In article <1989May9.014323.13717@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >One will be as soon as NASA gets around to it. The aircraft has already >been bought and is in storage (!) awaiting the modifications. Getting it >going wouldn't be a problem if there was a specific reason. Dusting >off Enterprise and making it flight-ready, with up-to-date landing gear >and brakes, would probably take longer. Why should NASA take the time and expense to drop the Enterprise when it can do the tests with an actule mission thats already paid for? -- Wayne Johnson (Voice) 612-638-7665 NCR Comten, Inc. (E-MAIL) W.Johnson@StPaul.NCR.COM or Roseville MN 55113 johnson@c10sd1.StPaul.NCR.COM These opinions (or spelling) do not necessarily reflect those of NCR Comten. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 22:18:00 GMT From: skipper!shafer@ames.arc.nasa.gov Subject: Re: space news from March 27 AW&ST In article <1989May11.202243.1111@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <52000@philabs.Philips.Com> rfc@briar.philips.com.UUCP > (Robert Casey) writes: >>I believe I once heard that Enterprise was damaged (bent frame? or something) >>and was not flightworthy. Any truth to this? > No damage that I know of. It's overweight and well below normal orbiter > specs, but that's another story. If you did a thorough refit on it, you > could theoretically fly it into space, although payload would be low due > to the overweight structure. I think that Robert Casey is referring to some testing that was done once it was decided that the Enterprise absolutely, definitely would not be used for flight. To test the ability of GVTs (ground vibration tests, a classical structural test technique) to find damage in the Orbiters, structural elements (i.e. wing spars) were cut. GVTs run before and after the damage was inflicted were then examined to see if they could be used in place of other methods (actual inspection, I think) to assess the structural integrity of the Orbiters, particularly for less than total damage to a structural element. The structural elements were cut to various depths, although I don't think any were completely severed. After all, it's still strong enough to be ferried. Thus, the Enterprise is _not_ flightworthy without structural refurbishment. -- M F Shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or shafer@drynix.dfrf.nasa.gov NASA management doesn't know what I'm doing and I don't know what they're doing, and everybody's happy this way. ------------------------------ Date: 12 May 89 09:24:52 GMT From: agate!web%garnet.berkeley.edu@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter) Subject: Why no Saturn V? (Was Re: space news from April 3 AW&ST) >In article <136@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman C. Kluksdahl) writes: >Why the *(&) did we throw away Saturn V???? The Saturn V was thrown away for the same reason that the ISF was shunned. It was the only way to protect a big, new project from a comparison it could not withstand--the Space Shuttle compared with the Saturn V, or the Space Station compared with ISF. The Saturn V was thrown away during James Fletcher's first stint as NASA administrator. The arguments made in favor of the Space Shuttle at the end of the Apollo project are the same as those put forward now in support of NASP, only more extreme. The Shuttle was to use normal runways and air traffic control, be fully reusable, cost $50 per pound to orbit initially, dropping to $10 per pound with repeated use. It was to push the development of new technology in every related area. All this with an estimated development cost of $5 billion. Believe it, or not. ---- William Baxter ARPA: web@{garnet,brahms,math}.Berkeley.EDU UUCP: {sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!garnet!web ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V9 #434 *******************