Return-path: X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests) ID ; Sun, 22 Oct 89 18:46:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU Date: Sun, 22 Oct 89 18:46:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: SPACE Digest V10 #155 SPACE Digest Volume 10 : Issue 155 Today's Topics: Re: 5th orbiter? Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded) Galileo Update Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded) Galileo Update 10/13/89 Re: The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Oct 89 21:45:11 GMT From: agate!typhoon.Berkeley.EDU!gwh@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) Subject: Re: 5th orbiter? In article V071PZP4@UBVMSC.CC.BUFFALO.EDU writes: > I'm all for a fifth orbiter, but I hate to see another $2 billion >dollars spent on a design already nearly 20 years old. What about >Enterprise (the drop-test vehicle, of course :-) )? Correct me if I'm >wrong, but didn't NASA, in the 1970's intend to upgrade Enterprise to >a space-worthy vehicle after drop testing? > If the book I read is correct, Challenger (Structural Test Article-99) >was to become the drop test vehicle after Enterprise (Orbiter Vehicle-100) >was upgraded. NASA relaized that Challenger's airframe was lighter, so they >changed their mind - Challenger was built into a fully-functional orbiter, >and Enterprise was left a drop-tester. > I'm sure Enterprise's weight problem could be reduced, with all of the >things NASA has learned building orbiters. The assembly lines are open >already, so it seems rather convenient. What is Enterprise doing now? >I think its sitting in some hangar somewhere out West. What will it be >doing? Sitting in the Smithsonian. Seems like a waste to me... Enterprise underwend significant shake and vibration testing. Flying it would be a monumantally bad idea. The airframe was stressed way too much to be safe to use anymore. **************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!) maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 89 22:31:21 GMT From: dftsrv!drax!buck@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Loren (Buck) Buchanan) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded) In article <1005@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <33229@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: > >| The activist groups say if their legal appeal fails they will >| attempt to disrupt the countdown and stop the launch by >| trespassing on the Kennedy Space Center. > > These people don't have the slightest care about law do they? If you >were the launch officer and there was a Luddite on the pad, would you >abort and set the program back (at least) several years? It would be tempting to abort the launch, have the people arrested, and sue them for damages. What does it cost to abort a launch (include all personnel costs) and add onto that lawyers fees? I am certain that this would bankrupt Christic and would put a serious dent in fund raising for similar groups. I think that launching with a Luddite on the pad would set the Space Program back a whole lot. The courts would tie things up for years and the only winners will be the lawyers (naturally :-). B Cing U Buck Loren "Buck" Buchanan | internet: buck@drax.gsfc.nasa.gov | standard disclaimer CSC, 1100 West St. | uucp: ...!ames!dftsrv!drax!buck | "By the horns of a Laurel, MD 20707 | phonenet: (301) 497-2531 or 9898 | sky demon..." ------------------------------ Date: 12 Oct 89 23:14:56 GMT From: usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@ucsd.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update GALILEO DAILY REPORT 11 OCTOBER 1989 SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: 17 October at 12:57 p.m. EDT is the new launch date for Galileo. General Spacecraft The spacecraft is still in its launch ready state and is being monitored constantly both at KSC and at Pasadena. A PF/R was opened, analyzed, and dispositioned on the attachment of the PRDs (Pressure Release Device) to the RTGs. LCET LCETs #1 and #2 are both being manned around the clock when spacecraft telemetry analysis is in process. Details Spacecraft The spacecraft continues to operate satisfactorily from power supplied by the RTGs. However, temperature control engineering has requested that the orbiter air conditioning to the spacecraft be raised from 52 deg F to 58 deg F. The basis of this request was the RPM temperature which is at its lower acceptable limit as specified in the launch commit criteria. The orbiter temperature was raised as per JPL's request on the evening of 10 October. Appropriate paper is in process that will allow the inlet temperature to be varied from 48 deg F to 60 deg F. This in turn will allow for any future adjustment as a normal operation of the prelaunch activities. As reported on 9 October, during the mating of the PRD (Pressure Release Device) to the RTG two additional washers were installed on each of the four screws used to attach the PRDs to each of the RTGs. Questions were raised on the action taken, that is, the installation of the washers. PF/R 54340 was opened to document the concern expressed by General Electric. Subsequent analysis was made on the overall incident. The primary points were: 1) that during the insertion of the screws the engagement of the screws into the insert locking mechanism was misinterpreted as the screw bottoming out, 2) two washers were added to reduce the gap which in turn reduced the amount of screw engagement in the insert locking mechanism, 3) both JPL and GE engineers agreed that the last one turn into the locking mechanism was required, 4) the JPL technician, that did the hands-on work, and the engineer, that witnessed the work, agreed that two screw turns into the locking element were achieved, 5) that there would be no impact to the mission if one screw backed out. Additional analysis was done at JPL, and after review of the total picture, the Project Manager declared that no further action was necessary; in short, that the attachment of the PRDs to the RTGs was satisfactory. Schedule Discussion and Assessment It was announced this afternoon that the new launch date is 17 October at 12:57 p.m. EDT. The count will be resumed on Monday, 16 October at L-19 hours at 5:57 p.m. EDT. Shortly after the countdown is picked up the IUS is scheduled to be powered for its final prelaunch conditioning and checks. Ron Baalke (818) 541-2341 Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109 ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 89 15:53:12 GMT From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu (kevin w. holroyd) Subject: Re: NASA Headline News for 10/04/89 (Forwarded) In article <505@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> buck@drax.gsfc.nasa.gov (Loren (Buck) Buchanan) writes: |In article <1005@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: |>In article <33229@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee) writes: |> |>| The activist groups say if their legal appeal fails they will |>| attempt to disrupt the countdown and stop the launch by |>| trespassing on the Kennedy Space Center. |> |> These people don't have the slightest care about law do they? If you |>were the launch officer and there was a Luddite on the pad, would you |>abort and set the program back (at least) several years? | |It would be tempting to abort the launch, have the people arrested, and |sue them for damages. What does it cost to abort a launch (include |all personnel costs) and add onto that lawyers fees? I am certain that |this would bankrupt Christic and would put a serious dent in fund |raising for similar groups. | |I think that launching with a Luddite on the pad would set the Space |Program back a whole lot. The courts would tie things up for years and |the only winners will be the lawyers (naturally :-). | |B Cing U | |Buck | |Loren "Buck" Buchanan | internet: buck@drax.gsfc.nasa.gov | standard disclaimer |CSC, 1100 West St. | uucp: ...!ames!dftsrv!drax!buck | "By the horns of a |Laurel, MD 20707 | phonenet: (301) 497-2531 or 9898 | sky demon..." Hi Buck!, Maybe they could be prosecuted like the anti-abortionists under the federal law that requires 3(?) times the damages to be repaid? BTW does anyone else find it humorous that Galileo is once again having problems with the "Church"? History truly repeats itself. -- ******************************************************************************* Kevin W. Holroyd * CFI Aspen Flying Club * Got tired of last .signature file Denver CO. * ******************************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: 13 Oct 89 22:57:18 GMT From: gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!mars.jpl.nasa.gov!baalke@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ron Baalke) Subject: Galileo Update 10/13/89 GALILEO DAILY REPORT 13 OCTOBER 1989 General Spacecraft The spacecraft still remains in its launch ready state. A "no ops" command was sent today to reinitialize the command lost timer. Only one additional CDU (Command Detector Unit) subcarrier lock indication was obtained since the transmittal to the current time of 5:45 p.m. LCET Status remains the same; there are no problems. STS IUS: The IUS continues to make open circuit voltage checks on their flight batteries. It should be noted that they have to power up in order to perform their battery checks and in the process they check their telemetry. No problems have been reported. Atlantis: "A decision on an official launch date for Atlantis or the STS-34 mission is expected on Saturday, Oct. 14." KSC Public Affairs Office, 13 October 1989 Details Spacecraft The CDU (Command Detector Unit) subcarrier lock phenomenon is being monitored and analyzed both at JPL and KSC. At KSC, RFI (radio frequency interference) monitoring has been established for the 2115 Mhz signal emanating from a commercial carrier. Measurements have been made at the launch pad of this signal for purposes of adjusting the comparable measurements being made by the EMC/RFI KSC group in the O&C Building. The hopes are that during the occurrence of CDU lock, there would be a corresponding change in amplitude or shift in frequency of the 2115 signal that is constantly being radiated. However, the probability of such a corrolation is considered small. A preliminary search of the records for CDU subcarrier lock indications has been made for the RPM thermal conditioning test conducted at the pad on 27 September through 1 October. There have been no lock indications found to date. In addition, it must be recognized that the configuration at the pad has changed between then and now; the carry-on umbilicals have been disconnected, the payload bay doors closed, and GSE removed. Again, it must be emphasized that these tests are being performed for completeness and understanding and that there has not been a violation of the launch commit criteria. Schedule Discussion and Assessment The current schedule is still for 17 October at 12:57 p.m. EDT. There will be a mission status meeting on L-2 days on 15 October and on L-1 day on 16 October when the launch date will be firmed. Ron Baalke (818) 541-2341 Jet Propulsion Lab M/S 301-355 4800 Oak Grove Dr. Pasadena, CA 91109 ------------------------------ Date: 14 Oct 89 04:18:29 GMT From: pyramid!oliveb!mipos3!omepd!bobs@decwrl.dec.com (Bob Stettler) Subject: Re: The Sad Tale of Galileo, Centaur, and the Invincible 'Nauts In article <2443@ibmpa.UUCP> szabonj@ibmpa.UUCP (nick szabo) writes: >In article <3486@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG> al@questar.QUESTAR.MN.ORG (Al Viall) writes: >>Another question. Looking through the press release for Galileo, to which >>I thank Peter Yee for sending through the net, I had read that the craft >>would make a double earth flyby(i.e. the VEEGA track). >>Why was this track chosen, considering that it would be more fruitfull to >>just get the craft to Jupiter in one piece. > >This story cannot be repeated enough times. I agree. > Originally Galileo was supposed >to launch on the Shuttle in early 1986 with a Centaur upper stage >powerful enough to go straight to Jupiter.>First the Shuttle shutdown >delayed the launch 3 1/2 years. Then NASA decided that the liquid-fueled >Centaur, which was not involved in the Challenger explosion, was just too >risky for a manned spacecraft. So, to save the hides of our intrepid 'nauts, >Galileo will now launch with the solid-fueled IUS. This stage is far too >weak to go directly to Jupiter, so it will get Gravity Assists from Venus, >Earth, and Earth again (thus VEEGA). What a convoluted way to get around >the solar system. This is only the last few years of this sad saga of buereaucratic entangle- ment. There's more, much more, dating all the way back to 1975. The full story of Galileo (as reported in the Oct 9 AW&ST and elsewhere) is the following: 1975 - NASA decides that the proposed Jupiter orbiter mission will be the first planetary spacecraft launched on the shuttle (an auspicious event). 1977 - Although nearly killed by Congress the Galileo program is approved for launch in 1982 and arrival in 1985. The IUS (Interim Upper Stage) is to propel Galileo directly to Jupiter. 1980 - The shuttle program falls far behind schedule and Galileo's launch is slipped (that's one) to 1984 with arrival delayed until 1986. Since the 1984 trajectory is unfavorable NASA decides on a major engineering change. The spacecraft is split in two, an orbiter section and an atmospheric probe section, for separate launch. The spacecraft and the mission are completely redesigned. 1981 - The IUS (cleverly renamed the Inertial Upper Stage) turns out to be a dog. NASA opts for the more powerful liquid fueled Centaur stage. The probe and orbiter are recombined for a single launch (more rework) and the launch date is slipped to 1985 (that's two) 1982 - David Stockman's axe falls on Galileo but the program is restored by Congress. 1984 - More problems with the shuttle and Centaur delay the launch again (that's three) to 1986 with arrival in 1988. 1986 - The Challenger explodes just four months before Galileo was to have been launched. The Centaur program is cancelled for safety reasons (probably reasonable). Galileo is delayed again (that's four). 1987 - Galileo is scheduled again for launch in 1989. Revisiting a decision made in 1981, the good 'ole IUS is chosen for the launch (by default). As the stage is still inadequate, NASA is forced to choose the VEEGA trajectory to get Galileo to Jupiter in six years. Arrival is set in late 1995, ten years after the original arrival date. And the rest is, as they say, history (or will be). >Sigh. I sure hope we learn our lesson. Maybe NASA is learning (it could hardly avoid it in this case). At least three of the major planetary missions to be launched in the 90's, Mars Observer, CRAF (Comet Rendezvous and Asteroid Flyby) and Cassini (Saturn Orbiter) are slated to be launched by either the Titan 3 or Titan 4 boosters. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Stettler, Intel Corporation, JF1-58 | 2111 N.E. 25th, Hillsboro, OR 97124 | Phone:(503)696-4483 bobs@omews6.intel.com | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest V10 #155 *******************