Conference 7.286::space

    re .0:
    
    > ...then Reagan should also remember how rushing the job for some silly 
    > goal killed three astronauts (and many others connected with Apollo) 
    > 20 years ago today.
    
    This is a bold assertion, of which I'd like to see some proof.
    As I understood the accident, it was due to cold flow of teflon
    insulation, not from slip-shod design. Teflon insulated wiring was
    pretty new at the time and no one expected that problem. 
    
    The Challenger accident is a different matter altogether and WAS
    due to "rushing" a program.
    
    There are many other issues concerning the harm Kennedy's declaration
    did to the space program, but I would not blame it for the Apollo 1
    fire.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                             

    Actually, I believe the current plans for the station's construction
    call for leaving an assembly crew in orbit once there is a habitable
    environment there for them (this doesn't necessarily mean the point
    at which the station is generally habitable).  The shuttle would
    be used primarily to ferry materials.  The reasoning behind this
    planning was that there just wouldn't be enough useful "work time"
    available if the crews went up and down with the shuttle.  I would
    expect someone would plan for a (reasonably short) delay and ensure
    there were adequate consumables to cover such a delay.
    

RE .-1

>   Actually, I believe the current plans for the station's construction
>   call for leaving an assembly crew in orbit once there is a habitable
>   environment there for them (this doesn't necessarily mean the point
>   at which the station is generally habitable).  The shuttle would

What  about a space station failure, etc. Are there plans for escape.
I seem to recall something associated with Gemini  that was basically
a balloon on a heat shield along with a relatively  small  rocket  to
leave orbit. There was also a parachute to avoid a "splat" down.

At the time my thought was "I wouldn't want to test it!"

What about options like that?

	-SES

    RE:.1
    SPACE STATION ESCAPE
    
      I believe that the current plans call for "safe areas" within
    the station that will have their own consumables where if one 
    section of the facility had a problem, the crew could evacuate
    that section and survive for a specified amount of time until
    rescue (days, most likely).  I'm not aware of any "life boats"
    that could be deorbited.
    
      I believe that if you read any of the history of the Apollo 1
    fire, you will find many references to the schedule pressure.  
    There were many design deficiencies with the Block 1 spacecraft
    as well as shoddy workmanship.  There were many within the agency
    that didn't want to fly the Block 1 at all.  I hope that we can
    recover from Challenger as well as we did from Apollo 1.  It sure
    doesn't look like it at this point in time.
    
    JS

    	But what if there is a Space Shuttle accident which cripples
    the flights for years, as they are now?  I don't think the Space
    Station is prepared for human survival that long, particularly if
    the accident occured while the Station is not totally built or
    supplied.
    
    	And will the old space treaties on other countries rescuing
    astronauts of other nations still upheld?  I wouldn't be surprised
    if one country refused to help another in space because of some asinine
    political reason on Earth.  
    
    	Larry
    

I am sure that if there was a construction crew stranded up there
by the Challenger disaster you would see a shuttle up there much
sooner than two years later.  The next possible warm day would be
the most likely time.  However I hope that they will have
consumables for much longer than a few days.  It takes time to
get a shuttle ready if something goes wrong with the initial one.

	Tony 

Of course, there is also the possibility of emergency resupply via expendable
launcher.  The Russians already do this as a routine operation.  In this
fashion, the station personnel could survive indefinitely (provided there
are no sections without at least emergency airlocking and suiting and/or
docking facilities).

    
    	I suspect that the only way that some sort of rescue mission
    to a crippled space station would not be mounted would also find
    the Earth in a similar condition.  There are just too many things
    that have to go wrong to wipe out the entire launch capability of
    the planet.
    
    	Short of a total life-support failure on the station, I would
    think that most problems would not require evacuation at a moments
    notice.  So there several things to consider...
    
    	If (God forbid) another shuttle were to explode, it would have
    to do so on the pad to reduce the ability to launch.  That still
    leaves one shuttle capable pad at KSC, since I don't think that
    an exploding shuttle could take out both pads 39A and B.  Unless
    it was vary apparent that there was a serious problem with ALL the
    remaining shuttles, the cost of the lives in orbit would preclude
    any investigation.
    
    	Another domestic option, this one probably reaching but may
    still come to play, is the use of SLC-6 at Vandenberg.  I realize
    that it has been mothballed, but with the shift in payload priorities
    it could still come back to life in the future.  So even if KSC
    were put out of commission, a west coast launch may not be out of
    the question.
    
    	On the international side, a rescue of an American crew by a
    foreign flight in not that unlikely.  Such a mission would have
    a great deal of propaganda value and would certainly swing world
    opinion to the side of the rescueing nation.
    
    	Also as time passes, both the U.S.S.R. and Japan get closer
    to having a flight capable shuttle.  The Soviets are closer to such
    a ship, but I think that the Japanese should not be counted out
    in the future.  Further down the road also look for shuttles belonging
    to both China and the European Space Agency.  As other nations join
    the ranks of shuttle owners, the availability of rescue vehicles
    becomes greater.
    
    	Certainly any rescue need not worry about actually docking with
    a space station if it has been supplied with the sort of 'rescue
    balls' designed for the shuttle.  All that is needed would be one
    space suit available within the station.
    
    	I know that some of these options are far fetched, but who knows
    how long it will really be before a U.S. space station is a reality
    or how far other space programs will progress.  And who says that
    these options extend only to an american station; there will be
    others even if they are only the type of Salyut or MIR.
    
    	So maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think we're at the point
    where the real space race is just getting started and can have alot
    of good sides to it.
    
    		Klaes
    

    The rescue mission has alread happen on Salyut 7, after it was
    mothballed Salyut 7 experianced a power failure and a crew was
    sent up to repair it.  I forget the exact numbers but they only
    had some many days of water and some many days of emergency 
    water.  What the crew found on S7 was that the batteries had 
    failed and all the water on S7 was forzen, they could not even
    measure the temp. as there instruments did not go that low, the
    only way they could check the temp. was to spit on a surface and
    measure the time it too to freeze, from this it was estimated to
    be about -20 degrees C.  The Crew had to work without lights, and
    without gloves to make repairs, it was a life/death situation as
    the water for drinking would be used up before a new cargo ship
    would arrive and all the S7 water was frozen, only by fast work
    and interesting ideas did the crew get power restored and the
    water was unfrozen but not before the crew were within 2 days
    of using up all there emergency water supply, about a week after
    this date the cargo ship arived, if they had not unfrozen the water
    it could have been to late
    
    As for MIR the docking port is not compatable with the Space Shuttle
    (as reported in Soviet Life Feb) when they were asked a simular
    question about emergency help, there was talk about a international
    docking port.
    
    One last thing I do rember back in the skylab or early Space Shuttle
    days talk of a Hang glider for emmergency return to earth, but your
    right you could make safe area but what about food, maybe do something
    simular to the moon flights , one idea was to make the interial
    walls an eatable material of compressed soybeam
    
    pass the control panel, munch munch
    
    jb
    

    The Androgynous Peripheral Docking System developed for ASTP was
    meant to allow for such things as multinational rescue, but it seems
    to have been abandoned by both the US and USSR.
    
    Given the pipeline method of launch vehicle assembly that the Soviets
    use they are the most likely people to be able to respondd to a
    space emergency. From ASTP data, the SL-4/Soyuz vehicle can be counted
    down to the point of presurising propellant tanks and held there
    almost indefinately. After pressurisation it takes them 48 hours
    to remove the vehicle and recycle it for another launch attempt.
    Given that they seem to have the SL-4 and Soyuz spacecraft in constant
    production (they use both pices for other missions as well) they
    may be able to react to an emergency in 48 hours.
    
    gary

    	Soviet technology may not be as advanced as the United States',
    but their spacecraft is designed to react faster (refuel, rescue)
    than our space vehicles; and the same appears to be true for the
    ESA's and Japan's space programs.
    
    	Larry
    

    
    	I think if it comes down to it. And we had a few people
    	stranded in the US Space Station.
    
    	NASA could react in a couple of weeks max, using a shuttle.

    	(In a short period of time like this, air and heat are more
    	 important then food and water. As you can live a couple of
    	 weeks without food but only a few minutes without air.    )

    	And as for that the US Space Station will probaly be build
    	with multiple life sections. Sections of the station with
    	independent supplies of air, heat, food, water, and radios
    	capable of supporting the station personnel for at least a
    	month.

How different are the orbits of Mir and the US space station?  Could 
people go from one to the other in an emergency using only small rockets?
/jlr

    re .9:  Hold on a minute:  The Salyut 7 rescue that you describe
    was hairy, but not a life-or-death situation.  S7 died while it
    was untended.  The rescue mission that was sent up was to rescue
    the station, not the cosmonauts.  They could have come down in their
    Soyuz anytime.  They just wanted very badly to fix it, and they
    did.
    
    And regarding rescue from the US Space Station, there were definitely
    plans for an escape craft, shaped like a ball.  Each held one person.
    I think they must have been ablative, and I don't recall how they
    deorbited themselves.  I also don't know what their status is, but
    they definitely exist on the drawing boards.
    
    Burns
    

Everyone who has seen the movie "Marooned", or (better) read the book (by
Martin Caidin), raise their hands.


Uh huh.  I thought so.

You other people go read it and let me know if you still have unanswered
questions.


If the US needed more reconnaissance satellites orbited in a hurry because
WW III was starting, or the Russians were shooting the existing ones down,
and only a Shuttle could do the job, you'd see one launched as soon as it
could be gotten on the pad.  Challenger or no Challenger. They'd launch for
national security reasons even if the last shuttle took out Epcot Center
because it made a wrong turn over Tampa on the way home.

Re .0:

>    	The feeling is that NASA is rushing to get the Space Station
>    (Let's find a more original name for it, for starters) up by Reagan's
>    goal of 1994 - and what kind of a space engineering expert is Reagan
>    to dictate when a workable, usable space station can be built? 

More likely they're rushing to get a lot invested in the program before
someone like Mondale is elected president in two years.

Prove to me that Nixon or Ford or Carter didn't say "the shuttle *will* fly
for the first time in <5 years before it did>".  If the engineering isn't
done, what the President says doesn't mean a damned thing.

Re .2:

I wonder if there are plans to allow shuttles which are ferrying supplies
to stay docked with the space station for more than 7 days?  Or are
there reasons besides use of consumables that puts the 7 day limit on
the shuttle, like "toilet macerator bearings last 7 days"?

Re .14:

Sure you're not thinking of the inflatable beach-balls for holding people
who don't own space-suits during rescue or cabin leak repair?
				/AHM/THX

    About those beach-balls.
    
    I am aware of the b-b that Alan commented about.  Inflatable units
    that would hold one person in the event of an emergency.  These
    units would maintain life support for a short period of time to
    allow repair of the ship or transport to a waiting rescue vehicle.
    
    As for such a device for deorbit rescue....
    
    First, in order to deorbit, you need an engine.  You must slow your
    orbital speed, but more, you must slow it *just so*, at the right
    time, angle and ammount.  Just to knock the thing out of orbit in
    such a way that it could make a controlled reentry would require
    stabilizing thrusters, deorbit engines, fuel for both, a tracking
    computer -- seat of the pants space flying is for movies -- and
    a radio (be nice to let someone know that you are coming down, and
    where.)  None of this mentions anything about heatsheilding, nor
    the affects to the astronaut.  Seems to me that a non-ridged structure
    would not fair well to the turbulance of a reentry.
    
    The list goes on.  I have never heard of such a reentry/rescue pod,
    and doubt that one could be made that would be pratical or useful.
    
    jim
    

>    	And will the old space treaties on other countries rescuing
>    astronauts of other nations still upheld?  I wouldn't be surprised
>    if one country refused to help another in space because of some asinine
>    political reason on Earth.  

    Well, this is certainly possible. Currently, international law
    requires a ship that receives a distress call to answer that call,
    regardless of the nationality of either ship. One presumes that
    the spirit of this law, if not the letter, holds for a hypothet-
    ical space emergency.
    
    Of course, if there is a really tense political situation on
    Earth, say between the US and USSR, I could see an emergency
    being ignored. Consider the situation in 2010.
    
    --- jerry

    re .14/.9  
    It is unknow if Salyut 7 rescue mission, which did start as a
    station rescue did not turn out to be a man rescue, I think you
    are right that they could have come back in Soyuz but,they had
    use more fuel form the Soyuz to stabilize the orbit and the
    docking mission, it is unknow if they had enought to do a normal
    return form earth, but you are right they most likly could have.
    The Soyuz craft has (april 5 anomaly) has survied up to 18 g
    also the S7 had a low orbit thus making ideal return window
    far apart, I will go back and review the data an see if they
    did have enought fuel for a normal deorbit and if a widow
    was near by, but if they missed a window it was there own
    choice .
    

    forgot , the point I was trying to make was the fact that it took
    7 days to get the Prog cargo ship up to help the Cosmanauts, not
    2, yes the rocket could have been ready in 2 but the window at
    that low of a orbit is about once in every 7 days, this may point
    to a way for resuce, the escape pod if it could not reentry should
    be put into a higher orbit , this would open up the number of windows
    ie cut down the time to rescue if the rescue craft could reach the
    higher orbit.
    jb
    

    Science, Technology, Medicine, and Nature
    -----------------------------------------

    It has been calculated that if Space Shuttles are launched 1 mph faster,
    the main engine tank could be taken into orbit and used to build assemblies
    in space - possibly as living quarters.                      

    Russia has launched a new space mission - live on TV. It has also announced
    that it will resume underground nuclear testing.

    Japan has launched a satellite containing x-ray detectors made by Leicester
    University. It will examine distant objects.

 <><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1252      Friday  6-Feb-1987   <><><><><><><>

	Re. -1
        
    	How quickly they forget that SKYLAB was a converted fuel tank.
    
    	The is question is, how real payload would have to be left out
    in order to take an ET into orbit?  Also how many modifications
    would have to be made in order to be able to use it once it's up
    there?  Would the modifications leave the ET safe for use as such
    and how much more weight would the modifications add?  With everything
    that needs to be looked at to get the Shuttle flying again, that
    kind of program sounds like it's beyond the point of deminishing
    returns.
    
    	Klaes.

    Skylab was built on the ground, using structural components of an
    S-IVB. That is very different from carrying a tank into orbit, purging
    it and refurbishing it. 
    
    It may still be a good idea, but you cannot compare it to Skylab.
    
    The shuttle usually has to depress its trajectory slightly at ET
    sep to ensure a clean reentry of the empty tank. It may not take
    any extra propellant to carry it into orbit since it may allow for
    a more efficient trajectory.
    
    gary

    Converting old tanks etc may be dangerous for other reason, the
    space station has hired several retired Astronauts and their
    recomendations include keep up up and down down, For long duration
    flight it is important to have a ceiling and a floor and that all
    equipement still is in the same plane, earthlings seem to need the
    securety of know up etc. It becomes a metal health problem and thus
    a safty issue. Other things that were suggested was to keep the
    air flow coming from the ceiling down etc.  So the conversion of
    old tanks could be quite expensive.  Look at the improvements in
    mir, they now have walls, ceiling, seperate living quaters, and
    the old 'Tardus' to sleep in.
    jb
    

>    It has been calculated that if Space Shuttles are launched 1 mph faster,
>    the main engine tank could be taken into orbit and used to build assemblies
>    in space - possibly as living quarters.                      
I have read that (as implied in .22) the tank is specifically intended not
to join the orbiter in orbit.  This is an anti-litter (no unnecessary
space junk) campaign.  Yes, when we need them for components or whatever
it will be easy to get them into orbit.
- tom]

    Seems to me that it would be a *big* job to refurbish an ET.  Aren't
    they full of baffles to keep the fuel from sloshing around?  Wouldn't
    you have to cut holes in it?  And can you (safely) do arc welding
    in space?

    	It seems to me, that if it is so easy to put the shuttle tank
        in orbit. Then we should do it, putting them all in a big
    	storage depo in orbit.
    
    	We may not use them right away, but considering how big they
    	are and how much it costs to put any mass at all in orbit,
    	we could use them as a source of raw materials, as storage 
    	tanks for oxigen, hydrogen, water etc. even without changing
    	any thing at all. And later adapt them to other functions.
    
    	The pack rat................................................

    I read recently (in AWST?  Space World?) that there is a company
    which has been formed to build space stations out of ETs.  It was
    called something silly like Tanks Unlimited, or ET Unlimited or
    some such.  I think they were planning to lease the space?  They
    were negotiating with NASA to have the latter drop of some of the
    tanks in space and turn over title to the company.  I wish I remembered
    this in more detail.  Can anyone fill in?
    
    Burns
    

    Addition to .26
    
    I forgot to mention another very important benefit, that can come
    from the shuttle external tanks.
    
    They never are fully empty when they are ejected, as the shuttle
    main engines cannot operate down to zero gas pressure.
    
    I bet there is enough propelant left, for the space station
    attitude keeping trusters plus for at least a couple of trips
    by the Orbital Manuvering Vehicle to Geosyncronous orbit. In
    each tank.
    
    In addition to this, as not all payloads require the shuttle
    to operate at full capacity.  NASA could institute a policy,
    that all shuttles will allways lift with full tanks, wether
    they need it or not.   This would provide an extra margin of
    safety and the extra leftover fuel would be avaiable for the
    space station needs.

From AW&ST, November 17, 1986, p. 13:

External Tanks Corp., a Boulder, Colo.-based firm, hopes to get
White House and congressional approval of its plan to have NASA
bring space shuttle external tanks into low Earth orbit and turn
them over to the company for use as scientific and commercial
space facilities.  The company is 80% owned by University
Consortium for Atmospheric Research and the remaining 20% is held
by private investors.  Its founders seek to greatly expand use of
space by average citizens, who one day could travel as tourists
to orbiting external tanks that have been converted to habitable
living quarters.

Also see AW&ST, January 12, 1987, p. 102, "Company Seeks Funds for
Orbiting Laboratory"

    How long could a tank stay in low orbit?
    
    						Mike

    re .30:
    
    As long as Skylab?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    As long as needed.  The length of time that an object remains in
    orbit is determined by the orbit that it is in.  (The moon has been
    up for quite a while, ya know)
    
    jim
    

	The moon, however is in an orbit wide enough that it never
	impinges on the upper atmosphere. Any friction will eventually
	decay the orbit to re-entry.

						-Brian

	I suspect the proposals involve sending up some sort of small
	booster to lift the tanks to a slightly higher and more stable
	orbit.

    the time in orbit would be short, even in a period of low Solar
    Activity it would be in the order of Months.  Skylab was able to
    matain its orbit with small orbit correction by an onboard rockets.
    So there is more envolved in just putting tanks into orbit.
    
    For example ISKRA an CCCP amaetur satellite was throw out the window
    of Salyut-7 and lasted over a month while a special design NUSAT
    with a concentrated mass in a small area (ie a bowling ball likeness)
    lasted over a year.
    
    At low orbits the effects of Solar Wind from the Dark Side of the
    Earth is a major factor even in periods of low Solar Activity.
    
    An interesting exersice or a science project would be to plot
    the orbit of satellites at different heights and see what 
    parameters of its orbit are affected by Solar Activity. 
    
    jb
     

    Let me modify .34 slightly:  Skylab had thrusters etc, but not much.
    They were mostly for attitude control.  When the last astronaut
    team came down, they used the Apollo service module engine to boost
    Skylab up quite high (don't know exactly...200 mi?).  Shortly after
    they returned, Skylab was shut down, and had no orbital corrections
    made on it until the BIG REALIZATION struck.  Then they dug out
    the old Skylab manuals and managed to get it turned on and the gyros
    spun up.  They then switched it from gravity gradient mode (the
    natural way that it "floats", with the most massive end toward earth)
    into minimum-drag mode.  This prolonged its life significantly,
    but not enough.
    
    However, it died a valient death.  As Skylab appeared over the Indian
    Ocean tracking station for the last time, it calmly reported by
    telemetry that the solar wings had just detached and the outer skin
    was getting hot.  (Pardon the personification...)
    
    Burns
    

Re .35:

>When the last astronaut team came down, they used the Apollo service
>module engine to boost Skylab up quite high (don't know exactly...200 mi?).

I recall reading in the New York Times that Skylab was in a 270 mile high
orbit while the missions were going on.  So moving it to 200 miles would
seem to be down, not up.

(I was in junior high school at the time, and was toying with the idea of
trying to predict the next time it would pass overhead from that meager
data, and the time of a visible overhead pass I missed seeing).
				/AHM

    Reported in Aviation Week's "Industry Observer" column - 
    
    RECYCLABLE SHUTTLE TANKS
    The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and NASA
    have signed an agreement concerning use of discarded space shuttle
    external propellant tanks in orbit.  Under the agreement, NASA will
    provide five external tanks to UCAR after the feasibility and safty
    ofthe program, known as Space Phoenix, has been established.
    
    (From Aviation Week, Feb. 26, 1990.  Copied without permision.)