Conference 7.286::space

The price being listed by some sorces is $1.5 billion. But remember
that after the four shuttles were built NASA had enough spare parts
or almost enough for a 5'th shuttle. It was reported by past issues of
various magazines that these parts were to be stored for future use
because of the high cost of re-tooling for manufacturing once the
facilities stopped building the original orders.

PASCO

Unfortunately, there's the spectre of Graham-Ruddman hanging over all this...

Elsewhere, someone said that Gene Cernan commented that the program could
be delayed by up to two years.  The launch of the space telescope
mentioned in .0 was scheduled for October (I think).  This telescope will
allow scientists to see something like seven times farther into the past
than the largest land-based telescopes.  Myself, I can hardly wait to see
what this telescope might reveal about the universe.

	Mike

There's also the launch of a pair of Jupiter probes scheduled for May.
I assume that a Jupiter probe can only go up certain times of the year
in order to have the right relationship between earth and Jupiter.

There's going to be a lot of loss both to scientific missions and commercial
missions due to delay and missed opportunity.

Certainly one disadvantage to dependence upon a manned boost vehicle is
that if a tragedy like this occurs, no flights will be flown until the problem
is understood and corrected.  If a Titan or Delta booster exploded, however,
there would be little hesitancy about sending another one up soon thereafter.
The presence of human life raises the perceived risk enormously.

Ideally, NASA should have both manned and unmanned launchers.  I guess there
really never was money for both (and a request for both would be taken by
detractors as an admission that the manned component was less necessary).

Bob Fleischer

re .0

Yes, I remember the SRB incident.  I think it was a nozzle that had almost
burned through, not the case.

I am not convinced that there was an SRB problem.  I base this mainly on
the vapor that appeared around the base of the ET a few frames before the
explosion, and the fact the the SRBs went sailing away.  My guess would be
a leak or hole in the tank/feedlines.

Burns

re:122.3

Yeah, but I heard last night that NASA is only anticipating a one month
delay in missions.  This is a far cry from the 2 year timeframe some are
speculating.  I only hope to god that this is the case.  It's a volatile
consideration.  If after a month the pertinent data surrounding this
failed mission (sorry for over simplifying) isn't available, I have
no idea on what will happen with future schedules.  On one hand, one
would want to separate the emotional from the practical issues but 
right now I don't know how that's possible.

'Night Everyone
L.

Yup, part of the nozzle lining came seconds away from burnthrough in one
of the earlier launches (in fact, I think both SRBs had the same problem
in different magnitudes). This would have result in the loss of thrust vector
control in the SRBs and could have been serious.

This lining was part of the refurbishment program. The error in processing
was found and fixed.

gary

Someone mentioned Delta failure earlier...

A few years ago, when a Delta failed after about 100 successful launches,
the was a long hiatus in Delta launches while it was investigated. NASA's
success rate has become so high that there is generally no contingency for
failure anywhere in their schedules.

gary

They probably WILL know what went wrong inside of a couple months.
But it might take a much longer time to CORRECT the problem.

An irony about the current design is that it was made so big and so
powerful in order to carry certain DoD cargoes.  But now the DoD is
saying they need an unmanned launcher anyway, as the shuttle is not
reliable enough.  The original design was for a much smaller (and
simpler ) "space plane".  A smaller design would have required less
fuel, and perhaps no solid boosters at all.

	I was reading in the Boston Herald (only because there wasn't a
  Globe around),  that a teacher or principal has requested that his/her
  students give up there pennies to help offset the cost of a replacement
  shuttle because of the G/R budget law.  The request also went on to say
  that the name of the replacement be called "SPIRIT".  Though not trying
  to play on emotions right now,  For I still have a lump in my throat and
  watery eyes from time to time.  I can't think of a better way to help
  save the memory and ideals of those who gave there lives to aid in 
  progress of knowledge.  

	Though they died and we morn there passing and sympathize with 
  the people they left behind.  We can find comfort in the fact that they
  knew the risks and died doing want they wanted to do....Help ALL of
  mankind.  There was no war or threat to the nation but a goal to be reached
  and they were willing to reach for it.  We cannot lower there sacrifice by
  stopping or hindering this ordeal because money.

  Still trying to convince myself it was real.

	GWC

Collecting kid's pennies is the worst idea I've heard come out of this yet,
according to the media Challenger was worth $1.5 BILLION. I imagine it would
actually cost much more by the time the money is raised and the contracts
are signed. That's a lot of pennies! Lee Iaoccoa is having trouble raising a 
fraction of that for the Statue of Liberty.

If we (the taxpaying public) decide we want to replace the Challenger then
the money should come from the federal treasury, but do we really need, or
want, to build another shuttle? With the federal deficit as high as it is
I wonder if we can't make do with just three shuttles? I feel terrible about
the tragedy and I want to continue with the shuttle program as quickly as
possible, however, I think spending $1.5+ billion for another shuttle would
not be in the best interests of the country at this time. 

I WOULD like to see a the government make sure the survivors of our heros are 
taken care of financially, and I wouldn't be stingy about spending whatever is 
neccessary to make sure we don't have a repeat occurance, but $1.5 billion
in the era of GRAMM-RUDMAN is probably not very realistic. In fact I don't
think I'd feel too good about a new shuttle knowing it came at the expense
of so many domestic programs. (these programs will be hit hard enough as
it is!)

Here's my two cents worth..... how do you feel?

Would it really take $1.5 billion to build a new shuttle?  From what I've
heard there are "structural spares", and many parts such as the engines
have to replaced regularly anyway.  And there was a program under way to
modernize the computer technology (early '70s).  Perhaps even the Enterprise
could be upgraded to flight status (I assume at great cost).  Remember that
the Atlantis was a structural test prototype before being finished.

Yes, its dreaming to think that collecting pennies could raise the money.
But fulfilling some of mankind's dreams is what this is all about.

Bob Fleischer

re.; .11 and .12

   I have read that (in Av. Wk. & Sp Tech.) bringing the Enterprise up to 
space-worthy condition is pretty near impossible, due to the fact that it was 
never designed to withstand launch/reentry stresses, etc..  The Enterprise (I 
believe) is purely for use in verifying launch proceedures and the proper 
interaction of vehicle-manipulation fixtures such as mate/demate devices, 
gantry attachments, stacking up proceedures and the like.  Such a redesign 
would basically involve scrapping the airframe or modifying it so extensively 
that the cost would be very prohibitive.
   The use of only three shuttles to complete projected plans for space 
station, satellite launches, probes, et al. is a big question mark as far as 
reaching present goals.  On one hand, I hope that a fourth will be built.  On 
the other hand, such an expenditure may hurt other NASA programs.

re .11, 12, 13

The Enterprise was the first flying shuttle to be built.  It did fly in the
approach and landing tests in 197~9, when it was dropped from the top of
a 747 to test its subsonic airworthiness and landing software.

It was originally planned to be the first real spacefaring shuttle (hence
the big Enterprise campaign from Trekkies), but it was determined that for
some reason, it was more economically feasible to use it only for a pathfinder,
to make Columbia the first spacefaring shuttle, and to use an old test article
as the basis for Atlantis.  From all I have heard, it is considered more
feasible to make the existing inventory of "structural spares" into a new
shuttle than to convert Enterprise.  This is counter-intuitive at best, I
agree.

Somewhere (net.space or columbia, or was it here?) I heard it suggested that
the alleged fact that the SRBs seemed to make it away from the explosion
intact is good reason to believe that an SRB-derived unstaffed vehicle would
be reliable.  It strikes me that this might be a reasonable alternative to
building another shuttle (please don't flame at me!).  Then you get continued
staffed flight from three shuttles, and a shuttle-derived-vehicle to deliver
large payloads that don't really require people.  The latter might decrease
the launch rate required for staffed flights so that a 3-orbiter fleet would
handler it.  Don't get me wrong...I love staffed spaceflight!  There are
just times when payloads can't take waiting for all the rigamorole that
staffed flights require.

Burns

Yes, what ever became of the proposal to use the SRB's in clusters
as the basis for new unmanned launch vehicles?  It doesn't take too many
to get up to Saturn V size.  That certainly can lift parts of a space station
(could the SRB's be used to make upper stages as well?).  And then a crew
could use the Shuttle to assemble and staff the space station.

Bob Fleischer

It would be nice to see that $1.5B spent on next generation hardware.

The shuttle has always seemed a significant compromise - it's likely not
the least expensive way to get people into low Earth orbit, nor to get
lots of dead (initially) weight there.  It probably is, or at least was,
the least expensive way to do both with a single mechanism - but can't
we start to move on now?

Pardon my ignorance:  while the space program has always interested me
fairly intensely, I don't tube on it, so I don't know if there is some
manner in which individuals can donate to NASA (would be kind of nice
if said donations were tax-deductible, but if anyone knows a process
I'd be interested in any event).
						- Bill

Donations to government are tax-deductible as charitable contributions.
(It's non-profit.)

As I mentioned in another note, someone had told me (much to my surprise)
that the Enterprise was built from the start so that it could be made
flight ready. It's just that building another one from scratch at this
point is cheaper.

NASA has done a reasonable thing to prevent re-tooling. They have ordered
the liftime spares for the program to be built, but not in a hurry. Except
for major structures (the airframe) most of the production lines are still
in operation, so a new orbiter wouldn't cost as much as one would think
(i.e. little tooling charge would be involved). It wouldn't surprise me if
 with the emotion of the moment they wound up with 5.

By the way, has anyone noticed how NASAs recent satellites WAY outperform
their goals and how nobody at NASA seems surprised when, say, Voyager lives
years longer than it should have, and always seems to have "a little more
fuel". The Voyager (which overran cost, if I recall) is performing up to
snuff for the original GTOPS (Grand Tour of Outer Planetary System)
proposal which was nixed due to expense. Those boys could have lucrative
careers in software engineering at DEC.

Re: .15(?) about contributions. What has been done directly is that the
    government may lose interest in older satellites, and in at least
    one case (Viking, I think) JPL solicited contributions to keep the
    program going. It's deductible, direct, and in my opinion makes thw
    government look foolish.

Comments in the news recently, particularly those from Garn and Nelson,
would lead one to believe that the congress will easily resolve to fund
a fourth orbiter.
						-Brian

Why is there so much argument over the feasiblity of another shuttle or
not?  We Americans seem to always want the best of both worlds - give us
the technological advances that something like the shuttle represents, but
don't expect us to dig too deeply into our pockets to get it.

I'm a staunch supporter of the concept of another shuttle (actually, two
more).  Let's face it - unmanned vehicles are great - but they do have limit-
ations.  If we are to expand the human experience into space, somehting like
the shuttle is going to be a necessity.  Yes, I agree - there's probably
a tremendous amount of updating that could be done  - software, electronics,
etc..  Let's quit arguing about it an do it!!!  The concept of the shuttle
is a sound one.  However, it's one that we can very easily kill by apathy,
stupidity, or whatever you want to call it.

BTW - the National Space Foundation headquartered here in Colorado Springs
is putting on a tremendous effort to get another shuttle built, using everything
from contributions from schoolchildren to pledges of percentages of corporate
profits.

Dan

Boeing have a contract to research a vehicle being termed SRB-X, using the SRBs
as the basis. The goals are 30,000kg in LEO or 5,500kg in geosynch orbit. Other
concepts using the ET and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs are also under study. 

gary

For what it is worth, an idea on future vehicles:

1)  A heavy-lift unmanned launcher for space-station pieces, telescopes,
    and those big DoD spy birds.

2)  A light-lift unmanned launcher for comm satellites.  The Arianne is
    available today for this.

3)  A manned space-plane to carry up to 8 people, or less with some
    cargo.  Something about the capacity of a Lear jet.  Sits on
    top of its booster, and has an escape tower just like the Mercury,
    Gemini, and Apollo capsules.  Duration in space trades off against
    number of people and cargo space.  (That is, life support equipment
    subtracts from cargo space.)  Primarily a people-ferry.

Having a one-design system makes the single component too big and
too complicated.

RE: .21 (Sub section 3)

Just a reminder, the Gemini program operated without an escape tower.

regards,
jim

Hmm, quite true.  But Gemini did have ejection seats, didn't it?
A little hard to arrange for 8 people.

re .22 and .23:  Gemini had no escape TOWER, but it did have escape rockets.
As I recall, it used rockets at its base to blow free.  Perhaps they were
the retro rockets?  This was publicized quite a bit after the Gemini 6 engine
shutdown.  (In this incident, the Titan engines fired up, and the vibration
pulled loose an umbilical plug, giving an indication of liftoff in the
cockpit.  In the meantime, someone had forgotten to take of one of those
bright covered covers which say "Remove before flight" from one of the engines,
so it choked and shutdown.  An engine shutdown after liftoff was cause to
eject, but the commander (Stafford?) said that despite the liftoff indicator
light, he did not feel any liftoff and he was not about to punch out.  Thus
saving a megadollar mission...they took off sucessfully for the first in-space
rendezvous a few days later)

Why am I babbling like this?  I don't know.  SET MEMORY/NODUMP.

Burns

The nose of the Gemini capsule had a couple of escape rockets in it.  I
guess that the added separation that a tower gives was not judged necessary.

I'll have to check, but I believe that the thrusters found in the nose of the
Gemini capsule were control thrusters used for ship orientation in earth orbit.
If this is the case, you will most likely find that they provide very little
thrust.  Attitude thrusters do not require a large thrust to nudge a small
craft into a different position, and no where near the thrust needed to lift
the craft, quickly, in a 1G environment.

Of similar interest: One of the primary escape methods in effect durring the
Gemini program was the 'Slide for Life', a slide wire that lead from the
Gemini capsule to an underground bunker.  Not very effective but present.

This note has deviated so much, I forget the title!  :^)

regards,
jim

Gemini had ejection seats for the pilots. There was no mechanism to save
the spacecraft in the event of failure. The thrusters on the capsule were
atitude control. In the missions where major orbital changes were made the
engine in the Agena (that they had docked with) was used.

Ejection seat were partly USAF heritage (they had larger stake in Gemini
than other manned programs) and partly a result of the propellants used
in the Titan. Most fuels when allowed to hang around with LOX for some time
form little globules than will then detonate rather than burn. The hypergolic
propellants in the Titan react as soon as they are mixed by burning rather
than detonating. This does not mean that a Titan cannot explode (as we were
reminded a few years ago), but the events leading up to an explosion would
provide a little more time to react.

gary

re:  The last few.  I am certainly willing to accept being wrong about
the escape mechanism in Gemini (it was long ago, after all), but they had
to have some non-trivial orbit-changing mechanism in order to rendezvous
with the Agena in the first place.  And with Gemini 7/6, they rendezvoused
with each other, no Agena present (not planned that way, however!)

Burns

Gemini had a system called Orbit Attitude and Manouevering System OAMS in
the equipment module. OAMS included two rear facing thrusters each with 45.4kg
thrust that were used for orbital changes. There were four radially mounted
thrusters and two forward facing thrusters as well.

gary