Conference 7.286::space

    I'm not sure I'd trust too much from The Guardian (aka The Grauniad
    for its typos and spelling mistakes).
    
    Woomera has been used off and on for various things. Blue Streak
    was the last big British project there, but it isn't a British base.
    It's Australian and we'll rent it to anyone who wants it :-)
    
    It has been used for various weapons trials, the British Sea Dart
    being (probably) the latest.
    
    After Blue Streak came the ELDO Europa project. It is also used
    for Austrlian weapons test (Jindivik, Ikara) and as a bombing range.
    There is still an Aerobee-150 launcher there from Goddard SFC and
    the remains of a Sparta (modified Redstone) launch pad from Project
    Dazzle and WRESat.
    
    The security there is unbelievably paranoid. Just to get into the
    town, about 40 miles away from the range, I had to sign documents
    that basically said that if they shot me, it was my fault. After
    much hassle I got permission to visit the range head and their outdoor
    museum (off limits to normal humans) but I could not take photos
    there because (are you ready for this?) just barely visible in the
    distance was a Sea Dart launcher and the Sea Dart was (is) still
    operational.... Never mind that photos of Sea Dart launchers are
    hardly classified.
    
    There is a CIA/NSA ground station nearby, but knowledge of that
    is in violation of National Security Directive 6, so all readers
    of this file should present themselves immediately at the nearest
    police station... (half :-)... the laws do say something like this,
    and that fact that is visible from the road is irrelevant)
    
    If the CIA and NSA held a party, would they let each other in?
    
    The N. Queensland references are possibly about a move to build
    an equatorial launch complex there. ESA are reportedly interested
    as a replacement for Kourou. The Soviets are interested as a possible
    site for commercial Proton launches.
    
    gary
                                                                  

    I forgot to add that a friend and I found a set of spare parts for a
    Skylark (British sounding rocket) while out on the range head and
    arranged to have it, um, er, ah, transported from that place to
    another, less secure place. It cost us a whole case of beer.
    
    gary 

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action
Date: 7 Sep 87 12:13:00 GMT
 
>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Organization: Dept of Comp Sci, Uni of Sydney, Australia
>Cc: 
 
    Just some quick comments from the colonies.
 
    In article <44600001@pyr1> you write:

>       There have been several short (ap/reuters type) articles in
>the guardian lately about resumed launches at Woomera, and plans for more
>tracking stations in N. Queensland.
>
>these have mentioned:
>
>       +  successful launches for comet observation.
 
    Actually, it was to observe the supernova (1987A) in the Large
Magellanic Cloud.  It was a joint project with a German team of
astronomers.  The first couple of launch attempts were scrubbed, due to
adverse winds.  The real launch was highly successful.  It was only a
sounding probe - we didn't put anything into orbit, just high enough
to perform the observations above the atmosphere.  The probe was
recovered, as it parachuted down to a point a few miles from the
launch site.  The Germans were very happy with the results, as were
the Australian team.  The local space community hopes it will be
repeated soon. 
 
>       +  localized opposition from Aborigine Community
>          to flights over their land
 
    This didn't rate much mention in the local media.  However, you
may be aware of an increase in demands for Aboriginal land rights, as
Australia approaches its bicentennial year (1988).  Also, the local
Aborigines are understandably skeptical about scientific "experiments"
in their back yard, given the recent revelations about the UK-Aus
Maralinga nuclear tests of the 1950s. 
 
    I would certainly hope that the opposition of the local Aborigines
are not ignored, as has been the previous practice.  I'm sure, though,
that a compromise can be reached. 
 
>       +  suggestions of a generalized increase in funding
>          of Australian Space Research.
 
    There has been an increase in interest.  Ken McKracken (sp?) of
the government research organization CSIRO has managed to convince the
government that Aus should get more involved in space research,
particularly given our preeminence in the field in the 1950s.  Like
many hi-tech areas, we let it slide, favoring digging up rocks
instead.  The government has established a CSIRO Division of Space
Research, and provided a few million dollars of funding to get it
started.  Only time will tell if it will come to anything. 
 
>A few general comments/questions:
>
>       (3) Common opinion UK-wide is that blue streak was the last major
>           effort made at Woomera. Apparently not true. How much is it being
>           used as a launch site these days? Advantages over Arianes location?
 
    To my knowledge, Woomera is not be used regularly as a launch
site.  Even the recent activity was not an orbital launch.  As Woomera
is a Defense establishment, most of its activities are not well
reported, so I can only guess what they have been up to the last
twenty years. 
 
>           Is the [Q'ld] Monitoring Station yet another arm of the DoD?
>
 
    The Queensland state government wishes to establish a full scale
launch facility at the tip of Cape York, in far north Queensland.  The
supporters of this project point to the increased space activity in
our local region (particularly comsat and remote imaging requirements
of Indonesia, Philippines, India, China, et.al.) which we should cash
in on, its proximity to the equator, its almost complete lack of
population centers in the immediate area, with launches either being
over water or the interior of the continent, the availability of a
large port (Weipa) and international air terminals within reasonable
distance, the fact that the government is friendly, stable, and
Western, etc. 
 
    At the moment, I believe that a full-scale feasibility study is
being undertaken.  Obviously it will be an expensive undertaking, but
a worthwhile one.  Again, only time will tell if we decide to take up
the challenge. 
 
      Hope this gives you some idea what is happening in space down
under. 

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action
Date: 7 Sep 87 12:14:00 GMT
 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Woomera
 
    In the past, I've tried posting sci.space internationally to tell
people about this.  However, it seems my postings don't get out of
Australia.  If you like this response, perhaps you could post it to
sci.space for me. 
 
=============================
 
    In sci.space Message-ID: <44600001@pyr1>, you raised a number of
issues: Recent "comet" observation launches from Woomera, the status of
Woomera, proposals for a new "tracking station" in Queensland,
Aboriginal objections to flights, increased Australian space funding,
why recent Oz launches don't rate talking about, the long arm of DOD. 
 
The launches are to observe the recently discovered supernova, 1987A. 
The rockets used are very small - going 200 miles straight up rather
than into orbit. Each flight gives about 4 minutes of the sort of
thing that brings a smile to the face of James van Allen.  I don't
believe they rate much mention outside of Australia. 
 
    The proposed installation is not a tracking station but a full
blown *spaceport*!  I expect that it will remain nothing but talk -
the proposal is to build it without any government money.  Given the
size of the investment and the long pay back time, I doubt that too
many companies will be interested.  The proposed site is on the
Western side of Cape York - the long pointy bit on the top right hand
side of Australia.  This is very close to the equator, and it enjoys
particularly reliable weather all year round. 
 
    I have not read of any Aboriginal objections.  The cynical
foreigner will probably conclude that rigid racial censorship is
practiced in Australia.  I don't believe so, and I can't see how
anyone can object to a rocket passing "overhead" when it is
practically in space. 
 
    Increased funding of Australian Space Research:  If only it was
true.  The Australian Government remains lukewarm about space research.
Some small projects building instruments to fly on foreign launch
vehicles are doing well.  Australia is nowhere near having its own
launch capability.  These supernova flights are funded and are being
conducted by West Germany - we merely supply the Real Estate.  Blue
Streak remains the last genuine space project that Australia was
involved in. 
 
    The DOD, or some American intelligence organization, run two other
satellite ground stations (in conjunction with Australian forces) in
addition to the one near Woomera.  I won't comment any further, as I
don't want to get flamed by sabre-rattling Americans. 
 
Raymond Lister
Basser Department of Computer Science
University of Sydney
NSW  2006
AUSTRALIA
 
ARPANET: [email protected]

From: [email protected] (Gordan Palameta)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #349
Date: 15 Sep 87 14:59:33 GMT
Organization: DCSS, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
 
    In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:

>The Japanese have been limited to launching only at certain times of
>the year because of the fishing fleets (I'm not certain if this is
>still true today), so does that count as problems with the locals?
 
    As far as I know, this is still true today.  The Japanese are
limited to two short launch windows a year. 
 
    It seems inconceivable that they could create a large-scale space
program (say like the Soviet one) on this basis. 
 
    That's why the recent discussion of the Australians offering real
estate at the northern tip of Queensland is so interesting.  It would
seem to offer extremely attractive possibilities to the Japanese for
the construction of launch facilities. 
 
    Here's a slightly far-out suggestion for the Aussies:  Offer to
turn over the site to the Japanese lock, stock, and barrel - that is,
transfer a hundred square kilometers or so to *Japanese sovereignty*. 
 
    What the Japanese would get out of the deal would be a launch site
near the equator in which they would be free to make massive
investments without the fear of being booted out or having the rent on
them being raised to extortionate levels (something like what happened
to the British with their military bases in Malta in the early 70s -
they were eventually forced to pull out; or like what the Americans
keep worrying about with their bases in the Phillipines). 
 
    What the Australians would get would be a few paltry billion
dollars for the real-estate, a special trade arrangement whereby
Australian goods would be let into the Japanese zone under reduced or
no tariffs, and an opportunity for their young scientists and
engineers to study and participate in a space program in close
geographic proximity to their homes. 
 
    The potential economic impact for Australia might be estimated by
looking at what Hong Kong and Macao have done for China (provide 1/4
of its foreign exchange, I believe).  In fact, I think Macao is the
only colony Portugal has left - after the 1974 revolution they offered
to turn it over to China and the Chinese *refused* to take it back -
it was too valuable to them under foreign sovereignty. 
  
    Any comments?  Has this idea ever been considered before?

    Large portions of northern Australia have already been sold to the
    Japanese, lock, stock and mineral rights. Its a fairly sore point
    with some of us.
    
    There is also a history of doing these deals with the British and
    the US, usually to our long term disadvantage.
    
    I doubt it would happen. I certainly hope it doesn't.
    
    gary

                   AEROSPACE INDUSTRY WEEKLY NEWS HIGHLIGHTS
  
                       For the Week of September 7, 1987
 
    U.S., AUSTRALIA SIGN LAUNCH AGREEMENT

    The U.S. and Australia singed a 10-year agreement permitting NASA to
    launch scientific sounding rockets from Woomera, Australia.  The first
    launches are expected in November and December for the study of
    Supernova 1987a, which, although it is the closest observable supernova
    in over 400 years, cannot be seen from the Norhtern Hemisphere.
  

From: [email protected] (Gordan Palameta)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Japanese space
Date: 24 Sep 87 07:24:49 GMT
Organization: DCSS, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  
    In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <[email protected]>, (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>> The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat,...
>Speaking as an Australian citizen and U.S. resident, I'd hate to see
>that happen. I'd much rather the U.S. annexed Australia. Sometimes
 
    No, not the whole country, just a hundred odd square kilometers at
the northern tip of Queensland. 
 
    I posted an article on this about a week and a half ago
<[email protected]>, but apart from Eugene Miya, who seems quite taken
with the idea, it has not met with much response of any kind.  So I'll
just recapitulate the idea here before allowing it to sink into
oblivion. 
 
    Basically, at their current launch site the Japanese are severely
restricted in their launch windows, mainly because local fishermen
don't like to have spent rocket stages raining on their heads.  I
think they are prohibited from launching at least 9 months out of 12. 
 
    Now, everyone agrees that the key to a large-scale space program
is frequent launches (on a weekly basis, like the Soviets do).  Some
day not too far in the future the Japanese will have a large-scale
space program, but this is clearly impossible with their current
setup. 
 
    They will have two choices -- compensate the fisherman and deprive
them of their livelihood, or look for a launch site away from the
Japanese home islands. 
 
    Enter Australia, which is apparently offering a site at the
northern tip of Queensland as a launch site.  However, all they're
offering is the land itself -- investing the money to build facilities
would be up to the other party. 
 
    The proposal I made was that Australia could make the offer more
attractive by actually offering to transfer *sovereignty* of the
launch site to the Japanese (works for embassies and, apparently, war
cemeteries -- why not launch sites?) 
 
    I wrote:
 
>What the Japanese would get out of the deal would be a launch site near the
>equator in which they would be free to make massive investments without the
>fear of being booted out or having the rent on them being raised to
>extortionate levels (something like what happened to the British with their
>military bases in Malta in the early 70s -- they were eventually forced to
>pull out; or like what the Americans keep worrying about with their bases
>in the Phillipines).
>
>What the Australians would get would be a few paltry billion dollars for the
>real-estate, a special trade arrangement whereby Australian goods would be
>let into the Japanese zone under reduced or no tariffs, and an opportunity
>for their young scientists and engineers to study and participate in a
>space program in close geographic proximity to their homes.
 
    Note the only really unusual thing here is the transfer of
sovereignty. There is ample precedent for building launch facilities
far from your main population centers (the Europeans launch from South
America, but N.B. from French territory), and the Australians are
already offering a site. 
 
    The point is, a launch site off national territory would be a
worrisome prospect for the Japanese.  It's not just another "foreign
investment" -- a major national space program will involve investing
hundreds of billions of dollars over the next few decades.  A space
program is something that a country's future, no less, will be riding
on.  When that much is at stake, it's difficult to leave it at the
mercy of the vicissitudes of international politics, no matter how
friendly or stable a host country might be. 
 
    The economic and technological benefits to Australia would be
great if they could land a launch site and support facilities in their
back yard.  And the thing is, if the Australians offer sovereignty, it
just might be the "kicker" that captures imaginations, puts the whole
notion of a Japanese launch site on the Australian continent on the
"front burner", and makes the prospect too attractive for the Japanese
to refuse. 
 
    Admit it, there's a weird ring of plausibility to it, no?
   
    By the way, Peter, if you DO want to sell your *entire* country to
the Japanese, don't let me stop you.  Some time ago, the Rhinoceros
party proposed selling Canada to the US for $20 trillion dollars --
we'd all become millionaires and move to Florida.  (For those who
don't know, the Rhinoceros party is a joke political party in Canada,
which has lately expanded to the US -- Bill "Spaceman" Lee (ex Red Soc
and Montreal Expo) for President in 88, anyone?) 
 
Gordan Palameta      ...!mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan

			 "The Week in OZ"

	     Happenings in, and about, Australia... 

		  Issue # 150	of: 15-NOV-87

	All correspondence should be addressed to:

     SNOC01::CANTONI or via DECMAIL as:  Paolo Cantoni @SNO
	or via ALL-IN-1 as CANTONI PAOLO AT A1 AT SNOC01

From: SULLIVAN@CANAM
Subject: rockets from Woomera? 

    Any news about US scientific sounding rockets launched from
Woomera in November and December to investigate the
southern-hemisphere-visible supernova [Supernova 1987A]?  I thought I
had read that Woomera was closed and inactive. 

[faithful but anonymous reader]

[Maybe Steven wants his name withheld by request? - ed :^)]

    As a matter of fact, last night another rocket was sent up from
Woomera to investigate the supernova as you suggest.  I believe the
group involved is a joint US-W.German venture.  Woomera has been
reactivated over the last couple of years as a result of increased
interest in the southern skies for astronomers.  In the case of the
supernova, NASA's supernova investigations group (who I believe are
the US part of the above joint venture) are also sending up high
altitude balloons (up to 40 Km plus above the surface of Earth) with
gondolas of automatic instruments to track the supernova.  I heard on
the ABC's "Science Show" yesterday [- yes Aussies, it's STILL going
and Robyn Williams STILL conducts it... - ed] that next year they plan
to launch a balloon from Alice Springs (where the current balloons are
dispatched), and the prevailing weather pattern at the time should
take it over to Brazil where the gondola will be detached and
parachute to Earth.  The current set of flights usually end up around
Kalgoorlie (WA).  [About 5 degrees of Longitude from Alice Springs vs
65 degrees for Brazil! - ed] 

    CHALLENGE FOR AUSSAT:  Aussat may be facing a new challenge to its
viability  - if plans for a private satellite for New Zealand can
overcome regulatory barriers on both sides of the Tasman. 

			 "The Week in OZ"

	     Happenings in, and about, Australia... 

		  Issue # 153	of: 06-DEC-87

	All correspondence should be addressed to:

     SNOC01::CANTONI or via DECMAIL as:  Paolo Cantoni @SNO
	or via ALL-IN-1 as CANTONI PAOLO AT A1 AT SNOC01

        USSR EYES CAPE YORK:  The Soviet Union has confirmed its interest
   in using the proposed space base on Queensland's Cape York to Launch
   its own rockets.  the Soviet confirmation has come while Australia is
   considering launching its next generation Aussat communications
   satellite aboard a Russian rocket in 1992. 

From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space news from December 21 AW&ST 
Date: 2 Feb 88 04:43:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
  
       Aussat studying four proposals for Australia's next comsats.  This
   is one of the two major 1988 satellite buys, the other being the
   Intelsat 7 contract, and Aussat and Intelsat are interested in the
   possibility of getting a quantity discount by choosing the same
   supplier.  Australians have been offered launchers including Long
   March 3, Ariane, and US expendables.  No bidder has openly said the
   word "Proton", but the Aussies say they would be interested, and it is
   rumored that at least one US (!) bidder will offer a Proton option. 
   The US marketing agents for Proton report having responded to several
   US requests for information on Proton launches for Aussat. 
 
Those who do not understand Unix are |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
condemned to reinvent it, poorly.    | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

From: [email protected] (Gregory N. Bond)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Private spaceport proposal in Australia
Date: 15 Sep 89 06:02:48 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge and Young Ltd.
 
    The following is excerpted from the Financial Review, a national
financial and business daily in Australia, a full-page article (pg 17,
Friday 15th September 1989). Comments in [[ brackets ]] are mine. 
 
Cape York set to join space race
--------------------------------

    It was during the middle of the turbulent Whitlam years in 1974 [[
a time of great political upheaval and crisis in the national
government ]] that the director of the European Space Agency,  Mr. Roy
Gibson, paid an unusual visit to Canberra. 
 
    He had a unique proposition to put to the then Minister for
Science, Mr. Bill Morrison.  Would Australia be interested in joining
the European Space Agency, the consortium made up of European
governments together with the US and Canada? 
 
    If so, the agency was keen to build a giant new space base on the
Cape York Peninsula in Australia's far north to launch the growing
number of military and communications satellites needed by these
foreign governments. 
 
    What eventuated is history.  For reasons which remain unclear,
Morrison quietly, and without publicity, turned down the offer.  The
suggestion didn't even find its way to cabinet. 
 
    [[ Deleted - much further history of the project, and how Cape
York is a suitable location.  Comment on how the latest proposal is
one of two private proposals, and is backed by a large property
company (Essington) with strong Japanese connections.  Some positive
sounding comments from analysts - this is after all a business paper!]] 
 
    Plans so far advanced are for a privately run $AUS 350 million
space center to be built at Temple Bay within the next two years, with
rocket launches beginning from 1995. 
 
    Mr. Williams [[ executive director of Essington ]] said this
investment should allow a single launching pad, testing, control and
computer facilities, a basic township [[ this is a *LONG* way from
anywhere interesting - like a days drive...]], an industrial zone,
administration offices and an airport to be built - all with private
funding. 
 
    These minimal developments will enable the Cape York Space Agency
to offer users -- likely to be mainly telecommunication and media
companies and some smaller governments -- a basic launch service. 
 
    For a cost estimated at between $US 60 million and $US 100 
million, satellites will arrive "pre-packaged" at the launching site,
and there be installed in the ready-to-go Soviet Zenit unmanned
rockets which the CYSA has contracted to use as its principle
work-horses. 
 
    [[ More comments about how Essington and the Japanese companies
add respectability to the bid, despite Essington's somewhat shady
past. Comment on the need for capital, and how Kumagai Gumi,
Mitsubishi, Toshiba, NEC and other Japanese companies have expressed
interest. Possible public listing. ]] 
 
    Essington has also signed a deal with the giant United
Technologies Corp, one of the 20 biggest companies in the US with an
annual turnover of $US 20 billion.  [[ Not Martin-Marietta as I have
previously mentioned. ]] 
 
    Subject to US government approval -- necessary owing to the close
Soviet involvement in the project and the $US 4 billion worth of
annual contracts UTC has with the US government -- UTC is likely to
take responsibility for project management and operation of the base
once it is completed.  It is also likely to acquire a $US 25 million
stake in the private operating company. 
 
    Essington's deal with the Soviet Union's space agency, Glavcosmos,
is more straightforward than either the Japanese or US arrangements. 
Put simply, the CYSA has secured exclusive rights to buy the Soviet
Zenit rocket to use as the satellite launcher for Cape York. 
 
    The rockets will be delivered in a finished form at an agreed, and
undisclosed, price [[dammit!]] -- which should make it unlikely that
the base "will be crawling with Ruskies", as one space expert
delicately put it. 
 
[[ more deleted ]]
--
Gregory Bond, Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd, Melbourne, Australia
Internet: [email protected]    non-MX: gnb%[email protected]
Uucp: {uunet,pyramid,ubc-cs,ukc,mcvax,prlb2,nttlab...}!munnari!melba.bby.oz!gnb

    A minor historical note. At about the same time, NASA was
    decommisioning some of its tracking network. One such tracking station
    was Island Lagoon, a very large installation south of Woomera, South
    Australia that had been used for orbital and deep space mission
    support.
    
    NASA offered to GIVE it to Australia, through the same Minister for
    Science. He turned it down. It was sold for scrap.
    
    gary

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 12/26/89 (Forwarded)
Date: 26 Dec 89 18:38:00 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, December 26, 1989                    Audio: 202/755-1788
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
    This is NASA Headline News for Tuesday, December 26:
  
    The Australian government has approved plans for a commercial
spaceport.  Space Daily says the facility on the Cape York peninsula
will exclusively use the Soviet Union's Zenit boosters for commercial
satellite launches.  The initial launches from the proposed $450
million spaceport are scheduled for 1995.  The publication says the
decision to use the Soviet built rockets was based on much lower costs
and proven reliability.  The proposed Cape York site is located 14
degrees below the equator.  An environmental impact study is scheduled
to begin in March.  A search for customers and private funding is also
underway. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the broadcast schedule for public affairs events on NASA 
Select TV.  All times are Eastern. 
  
The next scheduled event is on Thursday, January 4 at 11:30 A.M. 
when NASA Update will be transmitted. 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
These reports are filed daily, Monday through Friday, at 12 noon 
Eastern time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Moved by moderator -
    
                <<< PIEDMT::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPACE.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Space Exploration >-
================================================================================
Note 591.0                    Australian Spaceport                     2 replies
SNOC01::MANSFIELD                                    50 lines   8-JAN-1990 17:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interesting article from Australian Newspaper
    Monday 8th, 1990
    Sydney Morning Herald
    
    "US technology fears may stymie spaceport"
    
    by Mike Seccombe (a staff writer)
    
    CANBERRA: Australia'a $A6000 million proposal to build a spaceport on
    the Cape York could be blocked by the United States Administration's
    efforts to protect American technology and aerospace industry.
       The US House of Reps already has passed legislation to prevent US
    satellites being launched on Russian rockets, such as the Australian
    venture would use.
       And the huge US aerospace company, United Technologies Corp (UTC),
    is awaiting the outcome of a request to the US State Department for a
    technology transfer, to allow it to take a vital role in the development
    of the spaceport.
       The Cape York Space Agency (CYSA) plans to use a Russian built Zenit
    rocket as its launch vehicle when the first satellite goes up in 1995.
       But the launching equipment and satellites would be US-built.
       There is considerable concern within Congress and the Administration 
    about the possible leakage of sensitive technologies to the Russians,
    and about competition with US companies.
       Yesterday, the executive director of the Australian Space Office, Mr
    Bruce Middleton, said the legislation passed by the House of Reps was
    "of some concern".
       The legislation said no US-manufactured satellite could be launched
    on a Chinese or SOviet made rocket, unless approved by the President.
       "And as we saw just before Christmas, in respect of AUSSAT'S
    purchase of US-manufactured satellites for launch on Chinese rockets,
    the US President did so," Mr Middleton said.
       The best indication of the US Administration's attitude, he said,
    would probably come later this month, when the State Dept. decided on
    an application by UTC for permission to take on the role of spaceport
    project manager.
       It is seeking a "technical aaistance agreement", which essentially
    is approval to transfer sensitive knowledge out of the country.
       Mr Middleton made it clear the US objections were at least as much
    due to commercial considerations as security.
       The Australian spaceport would be better sited than US launching
    areas because it is close to the equator, which allows it to launch
    heavier payloads.
    
    (end article)
    
    Regards, 
    Simon
    
    

    Moved by moderator -
    
                <<< PIEDMT::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SPACE.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Space Exploration >-
================================================================================
Note 591.1                    Australian Spaceport                        1 of 2
SNOC01::MANSFIELD                                     9 lines   8-JAN-1990 17:53
                                -< correction >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    correction to article
    
    $A6000 million should be $A600 million.
    
    tried to edit as shown in note 1.3 but it didn't work.
    
    ta
    
    simon 

Newsgroups: sci.space,aus.radio
Subject: Anniversary of Australia's OSCAR-5
Date: 22 Jan 90 04:06:07 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] (Dave Horsfall)
Organization: Alcatel STC Australia, North Sydney, AUSTRALIA
 
    Tuesday 23rd January 1990 is the 20th anniversary of the launching
of Australia's OSCAR-5, an Amateur radio satellite designed and built by
a team at Melbourne University, Australia, from 1965 to 1967.  After
some setbacks, it was launched on January 23, 1970, on a NASA rocket.
This was the first OSCAR to be launched by NASA; previous models were
launched by the US Air Force. 
 
    The satellite itself was unusual in that it carried no
transponder, nor solar cells.  The objectives were: 1) evaluate the
suitability of the 10m band for a downlink on future transponders; 2)
test a passive magnetic attitude stabilisation scheme; and 3)
demonstrate the feasibility of controlling an amateur spacecraft via
uplink commands.  It is worth noting that as with previous models, the
antenna elements were steel carpenter's rule. 
 
    The craft carried telemetry beacons on 144.050 MHz (50mW) and
29.450 MHz (250mW at launch), a command receiver and decoder, a
seven-channel analog telemetry system, and a simple manganese alkaline
battery power system (no solar cells). 
 
    Although the technical aspects went smoothly, administrative
concerns were a nightmare.  A part costing 50 cents air-posted to
Australia from USA would cost $10, and pages of paperwork to get it
through customs.  As a result of delayed launches, AMSAT (Radio Amateur
Satellite Corporation) was formed as an East-coast version of Project
OSCAR, and its first task was to arrange for the launch of OSCAR-5. 
 
    The satellite performed almost flawlessly after the launch, with
one small glitch preventing telemetry data from being sent over the 29
MHz beacon.  However, the same data was present on the 2m beacon.  The
magnetic stabiliser worked perfectly, decreasing the spin rate by a
factor of 40 - from 4 rpm to 0.1 rpm - over the first two weeks.  A
network of ground stations periodically transmitted commands to the
satellite, turning the 29 MHz beacon on and off.  Allowing the beacon
to operate only on weekends helped to conserve limited battery power. 
The first successful command of an amateur satellite took place on
orbit 61, on January 28, 1970, when the 29 MHz beacon was turned off. 
The demonstration of command capabilities was to prove very important
in obtaining FCC licences for future missions. 
 
    Performance measurements of the 29 MHz beacon confirmed hopes that
this band would prove suitable for transponder downlinks on future
low- altitude spacecraft, and led to its use on OSCAR 6, 7 and 8 etc. 
As the battery became depleted, the transmitters shut down, with the
2m beacon turning off 23 days into the mission, and the 10m beacon
(operating at reduced power) was usable until day 46. 
 
    Sources:  The Satellite Experimenter's Handbook (ARRL 1984).
              VK2WI Broadcast, Sunday 21st January, 1990.
-- 
Dave Horsfall (VK2KFU),  Alcatel STC Australia,  [email protected]
dave%[email protected],  ...munnari!stcns3.stc.oz.AU!dave

From: [email protected] (Robert McGwier)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Anniversary of Australis OSCAR-5
Date: 23 Jan 90 18:02:45 GMT
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj

    From article <[email protected]>, by [email protected]
(Dave Horsfall): 

> Tuesday 23rd January 1990 is the 20th anniversary of the launching of
> Australis OSCAR-5, an Amateur radio satellite designed and built by a
> team at Melbourne University, Australia, from 1965 to 1967.  After some
> setbacks, it was launched on January 23rd 1970, on a NASA rocket.  This
> was the first OSCAR to be launched by NASA; previous models were
> launched by the US Air Force.  
 
    Two days before this, a fitting tribute to Australis-OSCAR 5 was
the launch of UOS-OSCAR 14,15 and AMSAT-OSCAR 16,17,18,19 and the
anniversary was prominently mentioned in our coverage of the launch. 
After AO-5 we have gone to other international partnerships.  The
customs problems have not gotten better, they have gotton worse.  Now
AMSAT is a registered munitions dealer because satellite technology is
covered under munitions by the Department of Commerce in the states. 
You can imagine the headaches of this last launch with us working with
Argentia, Brazil, France, and we are getting ready to help the
AMSAT-Italy group build there own Microsat.  I wish this could somehow
be made easier!  

    Bob
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter	|	Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)			|	CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [email protected] (Robert McGwier)
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.ham-radio
Subject: Spot-2, V35, Microsats, etc.
Date: 23 Jan 90 17:56:26 GMT
Organization: idacrd, princeton, nj
 
    As you may know, the Ariane V35 mission was a complete success. 
It lofted the new French Earth Resources satellite (SPOT-2) into a
polar orbit. It was accompanied by six amateur radio satellites, four
Microsats, two UOSATS.  Are are performing nominally in orbit.  The
UOSAT commanders are able to work with the UOSATs with no problem and
Harold Price, NK6K, and myself are able to command the Microsats at
will.  Thanks to the folks at Ariane for another perfect ride. 
 
    Bob 
____________________________________________________________________________
    My opinions are my own no matter	|	Robert W. McGwier, N4HY
    who I work for! ;-)			|	CCR, AMSAT, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re. .15:
    
    If the US Government can pass laws to control the technological
    development of Australia, does that mean the Aussies will get the
    chance to vote in the next US elections?
    
    Dave Hazel

From: [email protected] (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space news from April 9 AW&ST
Date: 16 May 90 05:31:43 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
 
    The Cape York spaceport, complete with Soviet Zenit boosters, is
going full speed ahead whether the US likes it or not.  United
Technologies' USBI division would like to take on the job of managing
construction and operation of the spaceport, and the Australians like
the idea, but Cape York wants to start *operations* in 1995 and the
White House is still dithering about export licenses to permit USBI to
participate. "An Administration source" says no decision is likely
until Washington figures out its policy on launch competition from
"non-market economies". The Australians point out that they're already
stretching their original March 23 deadline, and they have a list of
non-US companies that could do the job. 
 
    The Australians are hoping for a sensible US policy on Soviet
boosters at Cape York, and see some reasons for hope.  Cape York is
entirely a commercial venture with no government financing.  There
would be no Soviet involvement on-site -- Glavcosmos would be strictly
a hardware supplier, and local personnel would be trained to operate
Zenit.  Cape York would get exclusive foreign rights to Zenit.  And
USBI would be making money on the business, if it is involved. 
 
    Cape York has started work on an environmental impact statement,
with construction to begin immediately on final approval in 1992.  A
Soviet satellite might be the first payload launched, in 1995.  Full
operation, in 1997, would start at five launches per year. 
 
    The basic Zenit is Zenit 2, two LOX/kerosene stages lifting 15.7
tons into low orbit from Cape York.  Zenit 3 adds a third stage from
Proton, giving 4.5-5.9 tons into GTO, giving 1.9-2.4 into Clarke
orbit.  The Zenit 3 has not yet flown, although its components all
have considerable flight experience, with Zenit 2 flying since 1985
and the third stage used many times on other boosters.  Glavcosmos
says Zenit reliability is 95%.  Cape York is looking at putting a
Western third stage on Zenit 2. 
-- 
    Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
    uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry [email protected]

    I'm glad to see that some countries like to think for themselves,
    instead of letting Uncle Sam dictate to them.
    
    
    Dave Hazel

    If only it was that simple. When countries do think for themselves and
    it doesn't agree with US policy there are many ways that the US has to
    make the offending country co-operate. Vis a vis 1975 and the dismisal
    of an elected government with US security involvement, plus the blind
    eye US security agencies gave to the known mission by France to bomb
    the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour, NZ. 
    
    Cape York is far from certain and powerful vested interests in the US
    will make sure the idea stays that - an idea only. Competition is a
    great word but an unwelcome reality.
    
    But there is always hope, and the American people can do much to help,
    by writing to senators and congress reps. and asking why Australia
    is being punished for wanting a slice of the action. It is also worth
    noting that if Australia is to remain a dependable defence and security
    partner with the US, it would help if the Australia economy could be
    allowed to develop further and not be held back by vested US interests.
    
    I've said this most of this before and some people don't like it. But
    it ain't always fun to be on the receiving end of US government policy.
    
    

  The U.S. has no qualms about Western nations having a part of the action. I
think the White House's reservations have more to do with restricting
technology transfers to the Soviets than with preventing Western nations from
developing their space efforts. 

  As for the France blowing up Greenpeace ships, I think you'd do better to
take that up with the French. Greenpeace and the White House have their
differences but they co-exist with a minimum of violence. 

  George

    Do you really think US launch operators are concerned about technology
    transfer. More like protecting their patch against unwanted competition.
    
    And in regards to the Rainbow Warrior affair. It is hard to beleive
    that the US did not know that the French were planning such a mission
    against an OECD country. It is not that the US gave active material
    support, just that turning a blind eye so as not to inform a government is
    passive support for obvious vested reasons.
    
     

RE                     <<< Note 331.24 by 60608::MANSFIELD >>>

>    Do you really think US launch operators are concerned about technology
>    transfer. More like protecting their patch against unwanted competition.

  You are making the same mistake that a lot of people outside a large
organization make in assuming that everyone in the U.S thinks with one mind. 
NASA launch operators have nothing to do with foreign policy. Decisions
of that sort are made by the State Department and NASA is required to go
along.

  If an issue comes to the U.S. State Department concerning a western country
dealing high tech to the Soviets, Jim Baker et.al. could care less what the
technology is, they just want to control how fast the Soviets get it.
    
>    And in regards to the Rainbow Warrior affair.

  What does the Rainbow Warrior have to do with Space Research?

  Sounds to me like we have some U.S. bashing going on here. May I suggest
PEAR::SOAPBOX for this type of discussion.

  George

    It is hard to believe the 'technology transfer' argument when the US
    Gov't are willing to allow the same class of satellites to be launched
    on Chinese boosters from Chinese soil by Chinese technicians.
    
    The various components of the Gov't that are concerned with commercial
    space development have been highly obstructionist to any commercial
    space activity, even when it involves US companies launching US
    satellites from US territory. They were even arguing about whether next
    month's launch of CRRES (which I think is the last NASA managed Atlas
    Centaur) required a permit or not. I think they announced yesterday
    that a permit was granted.
    
    The contract to manage the Cape York facility was awarded to a US
    company, and THEY were getting flack from the US Gov't. So much so that
    CYSA said they were prepared to pull the contract and award it to
    someone else. Remeber that US citizens and organisations need approval
    to launch satellites (I, on the other hand, can launch one any time I
    like :-)
    
    However, I think this is more a case of bureaucratic inertia rather
    than any organised plan to block CYSA. "Never attribute to
    maliciousness that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".
    
    gary
    
    p.s. re Rainbow Warrior affair... US-Australia security relations have
    always been very different than US-NZ security relations. I don't think
    you can draw any parallels. Further discussion probably belongs
    elsewhere.

    A butterfly flaps its wings, creating eddies of wind, caught in an
    updraft the eddies disturb a growing cyclone, the cyclone collapses
    and the loss of energy is distributed elsewhere in the atmosphere, many
    months later the energy results in an inbalance in the build-up of
    seasonal rains over Africa, a drought follows.
    
    Pure speculation, but the basis of a lay explanation of Chaos theory.
    That suggests all events are related to some degree.
    
    It is not healthy to label a differing opinion soap and not relevant
    to a discussion that in the end point is about all our futures. Without a
    space industry no nation can hope to be apart of the leading nations in
    the next century. 
    
    I am not suggesting that what the State department thinks is what all the
    people think. But Australia faces serious economic problems and it
    ain't pleasent to be knocked out of the game by the same side.
    
    Space is not just technology it is politics of the highest order and
    hence some of this conference should spill over into discussions that
    aren't just rockets, sats, and spacemen.
    
    I wish it was not this way and maybe a richer future resulting from the
    wealth that space will bring will change that.
    
    Regards,
    
    Simon
    

  Ok, you've convinced me, the discussion belongs here.

  I still don't see why the Australians can't go ahead with their own space
program and how that would be hindered by the United States. Build a rocket and
launch it. I doubt that the U.S. will shoot it down. 

  Japan is doing that and the U.S. is not stopping them. If the U.S. is not
cooperating at Cape York the way the Australians want them too why don't they
just go ahead without U.S. involvement? 

  George

    re .28
    
    FWIW, Japan is not allowed to offer commercial launch services on
    vehicles using licensed technology. The H-2 will be the first totally
    indigenous Japanese LV in the medium to heavy lift category. If the
    lightsat market picks up, they could presumably offer launch services
    on the Mu series.
    
    'Build a rocket and launch it' is not a trivial undertaking, especially
    without borrowing technology from weapon systems. What is wrong with
    'buy a rocket and launch it', which is what CYSA want to do?
    
    gary

  Nothing's wrong with buying a rocket and launching it unless the seller for
what ever reason decides not to sell. 

  Yes it's a big undertaking but there is an obvious reward, you don't have
to follow someone else's rules of what you can or can not launch.

  In any case, if a country does decide to launch U.S. or anyone elses vehicles
it makes some sense that they will have to play by the rules. After all, they
get to dictate rules or "punish" the U.S. by not buying U.S. technology.

  George

    re .30
    
    I think you are missing the point. Or I am.
    
    - CYSA want to buy Soviet Zenit launch vehicle hardware and offer
    launch services
    - they have contracted with US company X to operate the launch facility
    - they have customers who have purchased US built satellites who would like
    to use CYSA launch services
    
    What rules are broken by this? The Soviets certainly don't appear to
    care what gets launched or when (note that these will NOT be launched
    by Soviet technicians).
    
    The US Gov't is/was trying to prevent company X (whose name I forget)
    from accepting the contract.
    
    The US Gov't is denying export licenses to the satellite owners to
    prevent them from shipping the satellites to Cape York.
    
    If you can make sense of this, you are doing better than I am. I think
    it is either inertia or protectionism on the part of the US Gov't.
    Similar attitudes by the US encouraged the development of Arianespace
    as a commercial entity.
    
    Given the current trend in the satellite industry towards on orbit
    delivery, it would make sense (to me at least) for CYSA to make deals
    with companies like Spar (Canadian) and Matra (French) to subcontract
    launch services to their customers.
    
    gary

  If all this is true then it sounds really weird. Why would the U.S.
Government want to deny a U.S. Company profits from a sale of high tech
equipment if there was no danger of it going to the East (an old fear but
still an active one). 

  Sounds like a misunderatanding that can be fixed with careful negotiations.

  George

    Yup, it is indeed weird.
    
    BTW, the May 90 issue of Spaceflight (a pub'n of the British
    Interplanetary Society) has an interesting spread on CYSA and Zenit,
    including the first clear pix that I've seen of Zenit.
    
    gary

    RE .32/33
    
    No it's not weird at all. It's just good old protectionism under the
    guise of national security.
    
    But like all protected industries, eventually you set up such deep
    structual imbalances that your own national industry becomes
    backward an unable compete in meeting consumer needs. There is whole swag of
    nations and industries that have followed this fate. 
    
    It's just that in the case of the space industry the danger is not just
    to a single nation but the world itself. We all need the benefits of a
    space economy and the sheer volume of monies spent on the US space     
    industry by government dicate a responsibility beyond the petty patch
    protecting of the defense contractors (who are not to pleased with the
    end of the cold war and its billion dollar contracts).
    
    I'm not saying that the UN Space Treaty is the way to go, but the
    space technology developed in the US was paid for by government and the
    taxpayer - not the contractors. Therefore the government has a choice
    to share that expertise with the rest of the world and vica a versa.
    The government owes nothing to the contractors, whilst in my opionion it
    has a moral international responsibility to the rest of the world. In
    return the UN Space Treaty should allow corporations the right to
    exploit space resources for profit without having to pay excessive taxes.
    
    As the latest Japan note said. The competition is coming fast, and the
    US has only a short time to maintain a leading role, it has to deal
    openly with the rest of world and share its vast knowledge and
    resources for no more than the simple virture of 'the common good'.  In
    this enviroment capitalism will flourish and wealth will increase in
    the world.
    
    Japan will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do likewise
    if they can get a lead on the industry. The US meanwhile is probably
    the only country in a position to insure that the sharing of knowledge is an
    activity all rich countries pursuse. By active co-operation Japan will
    be forced to share the commonly developed technology developed. Like
    the Athena project that developed X/Windows. 
    
    There are obvious nationalist arguements to rebut the above, but the
    overriding point is that economy is no longer national, it is global
    and that can't be reversed successfully.
    
    Enough till later,
    Simon. 

  Interesting point of view.

  But we are only guessings as to the U.S. Governments motives. I'd like
to hear their side of this issue before I decided to label them as
protectionist.

  George

    It's LTV Corp. The US company concerned.
    Mike.

    	The US government position on the use of Soviet supplied launch
    services stem from two perceived problems:
    
    1) Technology transfer issues
    
    	Having the Soviets launch US built satellites opens the possibility
    that the Soviets would have access to sensitive or proprietary
    information. The Soviets could then turn around and use this
    information to their benefit (the Cold warriors always read this as to
    their military benefit). In the worse case, the satellites could be
    stolen outright and then dissected (which is HIGHLY unlikely but still
    a possibility that cannot be ignored by the paranoid US Defense
    Department) or the satellites could be examined by some less
    destructive, remote means (which is much more likely).
    	Some have asked why the Chinese are allowed to launch US built
    satellites while the Soviet Union has not. The US governments official
    position is that the Chinese lack the technology to remotely examine a
    satellite and learn anything useful. In addition, there are many
    security precautions taken to insure that the Chinese are not left
    alone with the satellite at anytime thwarting any oppotuinity to
    examine the satellite closeup or worst yet, taking it apart for its
    secrets. IMHO, this is all just a smoke screen. The current
    administration has through its actions made no secret of the fact that
    they are willing to go to any length to insure favorable relations with
    China. Their policy on Chinese launches of US built satellites is an
    example of this policy.
    	In any case, the Soviet's plans to have Western technicians launch
    Soviet built launch vehicles from a Western country (i.e. Australia)
    is the Soviet's way of trying to minimize or even eliminate the
    possibility of technology transfer. IMO, the West in this situation
    stands to learn MUCH more about Soviet rocket technology then the
    Soviets will learn about Western satellite technology. Still, official 
    US policy has NOT changed.
    
    2) Unfair pricing policies
    
    	The Soviet Union is not a market economy. The US government feels
    that this gives the Soviet Union (as well as China) an unfair advantage
    over other Western launch companies. The Soviets are accused of heavily
    subsidizing  their launch services in order to undercut the
    competition. This arguement holds little water since ALL Western launch
    companies are subsidized to some degree by their respective governments
    (usually in the areas of developing new/improved launchers, government 
    supplied launch facilities, and guaranteed government use of these
    launch services). 
    	The US government "solved" this problem with China by limiting the
    number of US built satellites the Chinese can launch every four or five
    years. Why haven't they done the same thing for the Soviet Union? As I
    said before, the present adminstration will do anything to keep
    favorable relation with China. In the cold warrior's eyes, the Soviet
    Union is still the Evil Empire and does not desrve special treatment.
    	Even with Zenit launches from Australia, the launchers themselves
    are still supplied by a non-market economy and are therefore likely to
    be heavily and unfairly subsidized.
    
    
    				Drew

    re .37, point 2
    
    There is much fuss about the Chinese exceeding their 'limits' of cheap
    satellite launches with the announcement of the Arabsat consortium
    choosing to use Chinese launchers. Arianespace is suing ESA and the
    French Government to try and prevent Matra (the prime contractor) from
    shipping. Interesting that Arianespace is now using the kind of
    behaviour that was used to justify its creation.
    
    re Zenit launch costs
    
    Has anyone published the projected cost of a Zenit launch by CYSA? I'd
    be surprised if it is that much cheaper than a Western ELV. The Soviets
    do not need to bolster their space program and they do need $$$s. Of
    course the black art of economics has never made sense to me, so I
    could have this completely wrong.
    
    gary

    It's not LTV BTW. It's actually UTC...United Technologies Corp.
    Overloaded mind, I'm afraid. Just wanted to set the record straight.
    
    Mike. 

    
    Saw a 2 liner in McNews (USA today) that said the US had "approved"
    the Austrlian / Soviet / US private enterprise company to do the
    launches.. Confirmation?
     

    It also appeared on Usenet. UTC have been given 'permission' to accept
    the contract to run the place and US built satellites would be allowed
    to fly on the Zenit booster.
    
    gary

    Yes that is correct, Bush has approved in principal the UTC
    primecontracting and range management role.
    
    Next problem is the Australian luddites who oppose any future
    orientated development. And to compound matters, there are genuine
    concerns amongst the local aboriginal population of the social and
    environmental impact on the launch faciltity. These concerns are being
    used by the techno luddites to delay if not kill the whole idea. 
    
    Obviously the range will have an impact on the local environment of
    Cape York, but the impact will be far less than logging, mining and
    cattle grazing, and will in the end result in far greater financial
    returns for the locals and Australia as a whole.
                             
    Regards,
    
    Simon
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Simon

9/4 Aviation Week indicates that UTC has been given final approval.

From: [email protected] (Charles Radley)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Spacing Organizations
Date: 31 Jan 91 03:29:56 GMT
Organization: Seattle Online Public Unix (206) 328-4944
  
+number of interesting things.  One was info on an Australian
+experimental satelite that was launched in the early 60s from
+Woomera, using British launcher.  But the whole project was
+Australian.  Orbited for couple of weeks.
-
    A couple of corrections needed here.     In 1967 the Australian
Ministry of Defence used an AMERICAN Redstone vehicle to launch
Wresat-1A (Weapons Research Establishment Satellite) from the Woomera
launch site in South Australia.  That launch was planned and excuted
entirely by Australian personnel.  The spacecraft was designed and
constructed by the Australian WRE.   The expended first stage of the
Redstone was recently found in the desert and will be put in a museum.

    In 1966 France launched a satellite from Algeria, but Australia
can still claim credit as the third nation to launch a satellite from
its own national territory. 

    Britain launched several suborbital vehicles from Woomera, but
only achieved one successful orbital launch, Black Arrow X-3 (called
Prospero upon injection) in 1971.   Black Arrow / Prospero was 100 %
British, with no Australian involvement in the flight hardware.  A
couple of years ago I heard Prospero was still transmitting, but I
have heard nothing recently. 

    Britain was also involved in European orbital attempts from
Woomera, all of which failed - Europa-2A achieved orbit in 1972 but
the fairing failed to separate so the spacecraft was lost. 


From: [email protected] (A.C.Beresford)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Spacing Organizations
Date: 31 Jan 91 10:06:38 GMT
Organization: Phys. Sci.,Flinders University of S Australia
 
    To add to your info, Charles, and give credit to old friends
colleagues. The satellite experiments for WRESAT were designed and
constructed by the Space Laborarory of the Physics Dept., University
of Adelaide. They were based on instruments flown in sounding rockets,
measuring the composition of the atmosphere by changes in absorbtion
as the Sun "set" from satellite. Later versions also flew in the
Mesospheric explorer satellite I understand. 

    Minor nit, but the launch vehicle was a Sparta, which was a standard
    weapon-type Redstone (including the guidance section) with two solid
    propellant stages replacing the warhead. Sparta was developed as a
    reentry test vehicle for Project Dazzle. The vehicle used for Wresat
    was a spare that was not required. It was cheaper to leave it for the U
    of S.A. scientists to use than to ship it back to the US.
    
    The Redstone launch pad and vehicle preparation shed were still present
    when I visited Woomera about 10 years ago.
    
    Wresat was almost the second Oz built satellite to fly. Australis/
    OSCAR-5 was ready to fly earlier but got caught up in AMSAT/OSCAR
    problems.
    
    gary

From: [email protected] (Hugh Garsden)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: New Aussie Space Magazine
Date: 11 Mar 91 11:41:45 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Comp Sci, Uni of Adelaide, Australia
 
There's a new space mag out in Australia - "Space Digest Australia",
published six times a year, first edition is February 1991. Cost per
edition is A$5. Subscription is A$27/year in Australia, A$35/year
internationally. Publisher's address is - 
 
	South Pacific Science Press
	8 Maddox St
	Alexandria, NSW 2015
	AUSTRALIA
 
I found it in a newsagents; I don't have anything to do with it, but
thought you'd like to know. 
 
As far as Cape York goes, there are now "believed to be up to twelve
expressions of interest with the Australian Space Office". Companies
and consortiums can compete for the running of the project. "... all
this is subject to the satisfactory completion of an environmental
impact report. It would be surprising if this process did not itself
result in changes to the proposal. A finding that Temple Bay is not
the best launch site in Australia should surprise no one. In fact, it
seems the whole project is up for redefinition. Who will build and run
it, where and when, is now uncertain." 
 
The quotations are from the editorial.
-----
Hugh Garsden
University of Adelaide
[email protected]

Article: 36856
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: AUSROC
Date: 18 Oct 91 06:41:31 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
 
There is an amateur rocket group in Australia called Ausroc.  In 1989
they launched their first rocket, a liquid fueled rocket based upon a
modified Pacific Rocket Society design.  This rocket, called Ausroc I
was launched on 9 Feb. 1989 from the army proving ground at Puckapunyal. 
The flight lasted one minute, reaching 3 km in altitude and 161 m/s. 
 
The group is now preparing to launch an all Australian rocket from 
Woomera (which has previously put 2 satellites into orbit).  Ausroc
is also working on a third liquid fueled rocket called Ausroc III.
 
The specifications of Ausroc I are:
 
Length		   2600 mm	Propellant mass	    6 kg
Diameter	    100 mm	Fueled mass        25 kg
Thrust		   1274 N	Mass ratio       0.24
Burn time	      8 s	Sensors	         pressure transducer
Specfifc impulse   1765 m/s	Transmitter      400.5 MHz FM
Fuel   Furfuryl Alcohol 	Propellant feed method 
Fuel mass	   1.65 kg		         Pressure blow down
Fuel volume	    1.5 l	Fuel vol ratio	 2:1
Oxidiser    Nitric Acid 	Ignition method	 Hyperbolic combustion
Oxidiser mass	   4.35 kg 	Chamber pressure 1.38 MPa
Oxidiser volume       3 l	Recovery system  Parachute
Pressurisation gas  Nitrogen    Stabilisation	 4 fins
Tank pressure         2 MPa
Dry mass	     19 kg
 
The specifications for Ausroc II are:
 
Length		   5600 mm	Propellant mass	         89 kg
Diameter	    258 mm	Fueled mass             219 kg
Fin tip distance    858 mm	Mass ratio             0.41
Fin length	    500 mm      Sensors	  2 accelerometers
Fin width	    300 mm		  3 pressure transducer
Nose length	    500 mm		  1 temperature transducer
Thrust		   9810 N	          1 CCD monochrome video camera   
Burn time	     20 s	Transmitter frequency   444 MHz
Specific impulse   2305 m/s     Transmitter power	 10 W
Fuel	       kerosene 	Electronics	8051 microprocessor
Fuel mass	     30 kg			8 channel input/output
Fuel volume	     38 l			10 bit A/D converter
Oxidiser	    LOX		Memory		1 Mbyte EPROM
Oxidiser mass	     59 kg	Power supply	2 dry lithium battery packs
Oxidiser volume	     16 l       Launch guide rail        10 m
Pressurisation gas   Helium	Launch angle		 70 degrees
Tank pressure	     20 MPa     Expected apogee	       11.3 km
Gas bottle volume    16 l	Expected range	       25.5 km
Dry mass	    130 kg
 
-- 
Steven Pietrobon, Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
School of Electronic Engineering, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.  [email protected]

I noticed they were using a pressurized fuel engine.  Has any mention been made 
of POGOing when the engine was tested?  Did they make use of the OTRAG (german
company in the 1970s) designs or did the Pacific group come up with their own?

-also, the first specific impulse is listed as 1,7xx m/s instead of 1,7xx sec.

    Re:.48
    
    	I think what they meant was that the exhaust velocity was 1,7xx
    m/sec. Sometimes specific impulse and exhaust velocity are used
    interchangably since (in metric units) the exhaust velocity is equal to
    the specific impulse time the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s/s).
    
    				Drew
    

Article: 38764
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: AUSROC Update (Oct. 1991)
Date: 23 Dec 91 01:55:07 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
 
From:	Mark Blair
	AUSROC Projects
	42 Broadmeadows Road
	Elizabeth North, SA 5113
	Australia
	phone: +61 8 259 5316 (BH)
	       +61 8 287 0078 (AH)
	email: [email protected]
 
			AUSROC UPDATE
 
			OCTOBER 1991
 
AUSROC II Update
 
     On the 15th September this year, the Ausroc 2 Lox/Kero regeneratively 
cooled rocket motor was test fired at the Ravenhall static test facility run 
by the Explosives Factory Maribyrnong in Melbourne. Despite some problems and
rearrangements causing a 1 day hold to the firing and a procedural error in 
the pressurization system on the day, the firing occurred around midday.
 
     Data from the firing revealed that a thrust of 7500 N was achieved with
a chamber pressure of 1.5 MPa and a burn duration of 20 seconds. The target
for the trial was 10,000 N with a chamber pressure of 2 MPa for 20 seconds.
After the tanks were reassembled from the failed hydro tests, their volumes
were lower than required. In the prefiring calibration tests, the flow was
set to last the full duration of 20 seconds. This obviously resulted in a
lower than expected propellant flow rate and hence the low value of thrust
and pressure obtained.
 
     From a post firing inspection of the motor, it was found that there was
essentially no erosion of the chamber or throat and the aluminium injector
face showed no signs of heat damage. The external temperature of the motor,
at the inlet to the injector reached a temperature of around 90 C which was
well below the calculated value of 140 C. This, however, could be attributable
to the lower combustion pressure and, hence, lower heat transfer rate.
 
     The excellent motor condition after the firing led us to undertake a
second static test without dissassembling the motor. To solve the low 
propellant flow problem it was necessary to increase the tank pressures. The
regulators were adjusted, tanks refilled and a new igniter inserted. However,
during the firing sequence at kero tank pressurisation, the seam weld in the
tank ruptured spewing 30 lt of kerosene onto the ground. The lox continued
to expell itself through the injector and chamber causing ice to form on the
outer wall. As a result of this incident, there was no fire as the kerosene
tank was safely located behind a steel wall away from the motor. The original
idea was to have both tanks on a single rack but the safety officers of EFM
decided to have the the kerosene tank moved to a safer location. A well
justified move. In future firings we will have to put more effort into general
safety issues.
 
     It is still not known whether the tank failure was a result of an
imperfection in the weld or a fault in the regulator. The theoretical
calculations indicated that the tank should have been able to hold the set
pressure. Things will have to be checked more thoroughly in future trials.
 
     We are now in the process of manufacturing 2 new propellant tanks. This
time we will be using 6061 seamless tubing instead of rolling and seam
welding 5083. The 6000 series of Aluminium can be heat treated to increase
its strength whereas the 5000 series cannot. When we originally designed the
tanks we could not find the seamless tube in the right size (it isn't made
in Australia). We have had to purchase imported tube and end cap material.
Once the new tanks have been manufactured and tested we are hoping to conduct
a second series of static firings to obtain the full rated thrust of 10,000 N.
This requirement is essential for the flight trial.
 
     The firing sequencer and data aquisition system designed and manufactured
by the AUSROC electronics group performed flawlessly and recorded much useful 
data. Fuelling procedures for the lox and kero may be changed as a result of
experience gained during this first trial and activities should run a lot more
smoothly in future trials.
 
     We would like to pass on our thanks to all those who made this firing
possible with their support in material and/or kind.
 
AUSROC III Update
 
     The student groups are now in the process of finalising their project
work for 1991 and by the looks of some of the reports much research and design
effort has gone into producing some manufacturable design concepts for 
AUSROC III. It looks like many, if not all, of the projects will be able to be
carried over into 1992 and that some motor and structural hardware may be
produced and tested in the same year.
 
     The projects contained in the AUSROC III program are too numerous to
discuss individually in this update. In the last update we sent a copy of a
tentative program for an AUSROC conference we are hoping to hold. This
conference has now been confirmed for the 12-13th December 1991 in lecture
theatre E5 in the Monash University Engineering Department. We are planning
to have AUSROC team members/students present papers on the various projects
making up the AUSROC III program as well as information on the AUSROC I & II
programs. The projects for 1992 will also be discussed along with the goals
for that same year.  
-- 
Steven Pietrobon, Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
School of Electronic Engineering, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.  [email protected]

Article: 40571
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: AUSROC Update (February 1992)
Date: 18 Feb 92 22:53:30 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
 
From:	Mark Blair
	AUSROC Projects
	42 Broadmeadows Road
	Elizabeth North, SA 5113
	Australia
	phone: +61 8 259 5316 (BH)
	       +61 8 287 0078 (AH)
	email: [email protected]
 
			AUSROC UPDATE
 
			FEBRUARY 1992
 
On 12-13 December 1991, an AUSROC Conference was held in Melbourne.
Attendance ranged from 20-40 during the two days. A great deal was
learnt during the presentations. Project coordination was an area that
received a lot of attention, and will need to be looked at more
seriously in the future. 
 
The AUSROC II motor will have its second static firing in Melbourne on
14-15 March this year. It may be launched in June. 
 
We will be attempting to set up a filament winding facility at
Adelaide University some time this year. This will be a major boost
(!) to the AUSROC program, as it will give us more freedom to
manufacture and develop composite tanks. 
 
Systems analysis is going to be the major focus for AUSROC III
activities in '92, with the development of a six degree of freedom
simulator. The simulator will encompass aerodynamics, dynamics,
autopilot alogorithms, and equations of motion. This work will be done
at RMIT and Monash University. Toowoomba University in Queensland will
undertake a ground support design study to look at pad support,
fuelling, and assembly issues. Adelaide University will continue with
analysis of the composite tank structures, and it is hoped that Sydney
University will undertake the design of the composite fairings. 
 
Once again, it looks like being a busy year. A second AUSROC Conference 
will be held in December '92. A location has not yet been decided. 
 
     1992 Subproject Allocation Listing for AUSROC III
 
PROPULSION SYSTEM
Rocket Motor			M. Blair (DSTO)		(08) 259 5316
							(08) 287 0078
Injector & Igniter		W. Williams (DSTO)	(08) 259 6161
Mounts, Valves, & Plumbing
Roll Control Thrusters		J. Dimaggio (HDHV)	(03) 647 6111
				J. Balatsas (HDHV)	(03) 647 6454
Static Test Facilities		M. Blair (DSTO)
 
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Propellant & Helium Tanks	Adelaide University (?)
Fairings			Sydney University (?)
Nose Cone			Stephen Mitchell (?)	(076) 33 1856
							(076) 33 1031
CONTROL SYSTEM
Autopilot Electronics & S/W	M. Telfer (Monash Uni.)	(03) 573 2119
Inertial Navigation System	A. Cheers (Ardebil)	(03) 561 8654
				J. Chard (Telecom)
				M. Pszczel (DSTO)	(08) 259 5629
				J. Bajo (USA)		(619) 429 7577
Motor Gimball System
 
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Aerodynamic Analysis		N. O'shea (RMIT)	(03) 758 0805
Dynamics			R. Koning (RMIT)	(03) 703 2063
Trajectory Simulation		A. Cheers (Ardebil)	(03) 561 8654
				P. Wilson (QUT)		(07) 223 2427
3D Computer Modelling		Adelaide University
Systems Engineering Analysis	M. Blair (DSTO)		(08) 259 5316
System Reliability Analysis
 
FLIGHT ELECTRONICS
Master Control System		J. Coleman		(03) 729 5538
Sensor Data Acquisition
Telemetry
Power Supply Circuits
 
EXPERIMENT PAYLOAD (ASERA)
Microgravity
Imaging Remote Sensor		I. French (ASERA)	(062) 68 8882
Upper Atmospheric Sounding
Payload Recovery System		P. Siaw (RMIT)
 
GROUND SUPPORT
Telemetry
Data Reduction Analysis		D. Kamp			(09) 377 5811
Launch Control Sequencer	T. Chen (Ardebil)	(03) 561 8654
Launch Pad
Transporter, Erector & Fuelling P. Pemberton (USQ)	(076) 31 2541
 
RANGE SAFETY
Impact Prediction & Tracking	P. Wilson (QUT)		(07) 223 2427
Flight Termination System	Uni. of S.A. (?)
Range Safety Issues		H. Bromfield (ARE)	(03) 890 6237
 
NON-TECHNICAL ISSUES
Legal & Insurance		K. Ikin (GIO)		(02) 228 1327
				W. Jones (ASIG)		(03) 614 3337
Finance, Aquisitions, & Accounting
 
PUBLIC RELATIONS
Information Compilation &	M. Blair		(08) 259 5316
 Distribution			C. Lindley (ASERA)	(02) 807 1192
 
-- 
Steven Pietrobon, Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
School of Electronic Engineering, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.  [email protected]

Article: 43859
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: AUSROC Update (April 1992)
Date: 4 May 92 02:19:54 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
 
From the Australian Space Engineering and Research Association Ltd.
Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 2, April 1992.
 
AUSROC II Second Static Firing      Mark Blair
------------------------------
   The second round of static firings were held on the 14/15th March at the 
Ravenhall Static Test Facility in Deer Park, Melbourne.

   The improved aluminium propellant tanks performed flawlessly during the
water flow tests and the firing trials, thus making amends for the kerosene
tank failure during the first round of tests.

   These trials did not go without problems however. During the first test,
the liquid oxygen ball valve did not open fully due to moisture freezing
around the ball. This resulted in an insufficient quantity of lox reaching
the chamber and, hence, erratic burning.

   The motor was disassembled on the Saturday night, cleaned out, dried and
refurbished for a Sunday firing.

   During the first attempt at the second firing the countdown went smoothly,
the ignition flare ignited in sequence but the main propellant valves did 
not open.

   The power supply that operated the valve solenoids had failed at the most
inopportune time. A spare power supply was used to solve that problem and a
new ignition flare was inserted into the motor.

   The lox valve had a small leak which was solved in-situ by retensioning
the vlave bolts. The repeat firing successfully generated 9.7 kN thrust. The
burn time was only 8 seconds on this occasion, due to a tank filling error.
Lox (at 90 K) is not a simple liquid to handle. New filling procedures will
be used during future trials.

   Since numerous problems still surfaced during this second round of static
trials, it was decided to undertake a third round of trials on the 25/26th
April. By then we should have ironed out most problems.

   Again, thanks should be given to all sponsors who generously provided the
equipment and propellants for these motor firings. The Ausroc II motor is
probably the largest liquid rocket motor designed, manufactured and tested
in this country and much is owed to the institutions and companies supporting
the program.
 
AUSROC III     Mark Blair
----------
   The University year in now well under way. The project allocation list
gives a good indication of the university involvement and magnitude of the
Ausroc III program.

   Projects are currently being undertaken in all states except Tasmania and
Northern Territory. (Hopefully we'll be Australia wide by 1993.)

   The second Ausroc conference has been tentatively programmed for the 9-11th
December, 1992 at the University of South Australia, Levels Campus.

   It is hoped to have research papers presented by most of those in the
project allocations listed here.
 
     1992 Project Allocation Listing
 
PROPULSION SYSTEM
Rocket Motor                    M. Blair (DSTO)         (08) 287 0078
Injector & Igniter              W. Williams (DSTO)      (08) 259 6161
Mounts, Valves, & Plumbing      unallocated
Roll Control Thrusters          J. Dimaggio (HDHV)
                                J. Balatsas (HDHV)      (03) 647 6611
Static Test Facilities          R. Blomfield (ARE)      (03) 890 6237
                                M. Blair (DSTO)         (08) 287 0078
 
COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
Propellant & Helium Tanks       Adelaide University (?)
Fairings                        unallocated
Nose Cone                       Stephen Mitchell        (076) 33 1856
 
CONTROL SYSTEM
Autopilot Electronics & S/W     M. Telfer (Monash)      (03) 573 2119
                                A. Burridge (Monash)
                                A. Coia (Monash)
Inertial Navigation System      A. Cheers (Ardebil)     (03) 561 8654
                                M. Pszczel (DSTO)       (08) 259 5629
                                J. Bajo (USA)           (619) 429 7577
Motor Gimball System            G. Koennecker (ARL)     (08) 259 5635
                                E. Semple (Adelaide U.)
 
SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
Aerodynamic Analysis            N. O'shea (RMIT)        (03) 758 0805
Dynamics                        R. Koning (RMIT)        (03) 703 2063
Trajectory Simulation           A. Cheers (Ardebil)     (03) 561 8654
                                P. Wilson (QUT)         (07) 223 2427
                                T. Winks (QUT)
3D Computer Modelling           unallocated
Systems Engineering Analysis    M. Blair (DSTO)         (08) 259 5316
System Reliability Analysis     unallocated
 
FLIGHT ELECTRONICS
Master Control System           J. Coleman              (03) 729 5538
Sensor Data Acquisition         S. Pietrobon (U.SA)     (08) 302 3863
                                S. Kerrisk (U.SA)
                                G. Hermann (U.SA)
Telemetry                       unallocated
Power Supply Circuits           unallocated
 
EXPERIMENT PAYLOAD (ASERA)
Microgravity                    unallocated
Imaging Remote Sensor           I. French (ASERA)       (062) 68 8882
Upper Atmospheric Sounding      unallocated
Payload Recovery System         P. Siaw (RMIT)          (03) 890 8183
 
GROUND SUPPORT
Telemetry                       unallocated
Data Reduction Analysis         D. Kamp                 (09) 377 5811
Launch Control Sequencer        T. Chen (Ardebil)       (03) 561 8654
Launch Infrastructure           P. Pemberton (USQ)      (076) 31 2541
                                J. Durack (USQ)
                                A. Reid (USQ)
                                D. Miller (USQ)
                                F. Naseasi (USQ)
                                F. Jacobsen (USQ)
 
RANGE SAFETY
Impact Prediction & Tracking    P. Wilson (QUT)         (07) 223 2427
Az.El. Optical Tracker          J. Tang (QUT)
Flight Termination System       M. Blair (DSTO)         (08) 287 0078
Range Safety Issues             H. Bromfield (ARE)      (03) 890 6237
 
NON-TECHNICAL ISSUES
Legal & Insurance               K. Ikin (GIO)           (02) 259 5316
                                W. Jones (ASIG)         (03) 614 3337
Finance, Aquisitions & Accountg unallocated
 
PUBLIC RELATIONS
Information Compilation &       M. Blair                (08) 287 0078
 Distribution                   ASERA                   (02) 887 9441
Video & Doc. Archive            K. Dougherty            (02) 642 7956
 
For previous Ausroc updates ftp to audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in the 
pub/space/AUSROC directory. 
-- 
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.      [email protected]

Article: 43871
From: [email protected] (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: AUSROC Update
Date: 7 May 92 15:38:22 GMT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA
 
    [email protected] writes:

>   These trials did not go without problems however. During the first test,
>the liquid oxygen ball valve did not open fully due to moisture freezing
>around the ball. This resulted in an insufficient quantity of lox reaching
>the chamber and, hence, erratic burning.
 
First Gary Hudson/SSI, then AMROC and now AUSROC -- when are these
LOX-based rocket developers going to learn to take an engineering
sledge-hammer to the LOX-valve freezing problem? 
 
Now wait... a more important question is:  Why is it that modern rocket 
designers refuse to learn from the (disasterous) experiences of others? 
--                    
INTERNET:  [email protected] (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181

From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" 21-AUG-1992 
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	AUSROC Update (August 1992)

    From the Australian Space Engineering and Research Association Ltd.
     Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 6, August 1992.

Ausroc3
-------

     During Mark Blair's Sydney visit last week it was agreed that the
Sydney group would be responsible for the payload and all systems
above the fuel tanks. So while we all anxiously await the launch of
Ausroc2 (just waiting for Woomera range clearance) and Caratel, plans
for Ausroc 3 steam ahead. 

     Ausroc 3 will be a most significant project in many ways:

 o it will be the first time in history that an amature sounding rocket has 
   been fired

 o it will be the most significant Australian launch for decades

 o it is by far the most significant project that ASERA has undertaken

 o it will provide an opportunity for ASERA members to prove their mettle

     This is no backyard project. Ausroc3 is 8 1/2 metres of high
explosive with the potential to lift Australia's space program off the
launch pad. It also has potential to be a catastrophe and ASERA directors 
will be going to great lengths to ensure there are no mishaps. 

     "The Ausroc3 program is as significant to ASERA as a shuttle
launch to NASA." says president, Craig Lindley. "Every component needs
to be tested, checked and rechecked. Every aspect of the project will
be defined, refined, monitored and controlled at every stage." 

     "We have such a lot to gain from a successful mission, and such a
lot to lose if there are any misphaps. We cannot afford mishaps; we
cannot afford to fail." 

     Many of the systems will be developed as student projects in a
number of universities around the country. Those that aren't already
underway need to be clearly defined so that they can be allocated by
November. 

     The next few general meetings will be devoted to defining student
projects.  All members are encouraged to attend. 

AUSROC III Specifications:

Length:		8.5 m
Diameter:	0.7 m
Mass Ratio:	0.85

Tangential 0give Nose Cone

Payload:	100 kg

Helium Tank:	30 MPa

Propellant:
Oxidiser:	Liquid Oxygen
Fuel:		Kerosene

Propellant Mass:	1200 kg
Mix Ratio:		2.4 (Lox/Kero)

Lox Tank:	800 lt

Kerosene Tank:	500 lt

Thrust:		40 kN
Burn Time:	80 s

Gimball Mount Nozzle

Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to 
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in the pub/space/AUSROC directory.
--
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.      [email protected]

Article: 49220
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Engineering Symposium 1992 tidbits
Date: 24 Sep 92 08:15:05 GMT
Organization: University of South Australia
 
I have just attended the Space Engineering Symposium that was held in
Canberra, Australia. Here are some highlights that I think might be of
interest. 
 
There was a talk given by Mike Ahern (a former Queensland premier) of
Space Transpotation Systems on the Cape York Spaceport Project. This
project is still ongoing. They are looking for "white knuckle" money
of $A20M to start the project. Once they have this money, they have
been promised additional money from other sources to complete the
project. Total cost is $A815M with $A560M for the launch compex and
$A255M for the new township of Bradfield. The Enviromental Inpact
Statement is estimated to cost $A6.5M. If the money doesn't come soon,
STS will have to abandon the project. There are also other proposals,
e.g., from Cubic Corp. (which I know nothing about). They still plan
to launch Zenit's, starting in 1997 with four launches per year on
average. 
 
New details on the Southern Launch Vehicle were given. This is a four
stage rocket to be launched from refurbished facilities in Woomera
into polar orbit. The launch site is to be the unused platform that
was built for Blue Streak in the late fifties (the used platform was
used by ELDO for the ill-fated Europa launch vehicle). The SLV is 21.0
m high and 2.36 m in diameter and can carry up to 750 kg to a polar
orbit (upgradable to 1500 kg). The first stage is a 54 tonne Castor
120, second stage is a 3.5 tonne Star 63D, the third stage is also a
Star 63D, and the fourth stage uses 150 kg of monopropellant
hydrazine. Payload volume is 1.4 x 4.0 m or 1.7 m x 2.9 m. The
companies involved in the design are British Aerospace Australia,
Hawker De Havilland, and Auspace. 
 
The formation of the Australian Space Council reporting directly to
the minister of the Department of Industry, Trade, and Technology was
announced. The aims of the ASC are: 

Earth Observation Program - To earn a "seat at the table" by having a
substantial (30%) involvement in the Advanced Along Track Scanning
Radiometer to be flown by ESA and an Australian instrument to follow. 

Communications - Support of the three Space Industry Development
Centres, systems for geosynchronous satellites, mobile (both
geosynchronous and low-Earth orbit), and navigation and position fixing. 

Launch Services - Cape York (?), SLV, and 3rd generation launcher
technology (meaning scramjet and hypersonics) 

Science - to be not less than 10% of overall budget.
 
An update of the Endeavour Ultraviolet Telescope that was flown on
STS-42 was given. If you may remember, the door on the GAS can
containing the telescope failed to open during the mission. The reason
for this was that the temperature of the GAS cans compromising
Endeavour (and of the other GAS cans as well) greatly exceeded the
expected temperature. Shuttle temperatures of 71 degress C and greater
were experienced in the shuttle payload bay. To prevent Endeavour from
destroying itself from the high temperatures it automatically shut
itself down once an internal temperature of 60 degress C was reached
within the telescope. It was found that during the outgassing period
at T+32 hours and before the temperatures became too high, that the
door had indeed opened and closed after 1 hour during the out-gassing
period. The temperatures were so high that rubber seals in Endeavour
had vulcanised! 

Goddard Space Flight Center manages the GAS program and had thought
that STS-42 would be a "benign" mission which turned out to be the
hotest shuttle mission to date, with yellowing of thermal blankets and
bubbling of thermal tape! Apparantly, the Johnson Space Center and the
Kennedy Space Center had changed the mission profile during a change
in launch date without telling the GSFC. Other GAS cans that failed
from the heat were the "Brine Shrimp/Air Bubbles in Microgravity"
experiment where the shrimp were fried, the "Visual Photometric
Experiment" from the US Air Force where the door failed to open due to
a relay failure, and another experiment that also had a relay failure.
Endeavour survived the heat and it is hoped that NASA will refly
Endeavour next year. 
 
-- 
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.      [email protected]

    So that's why Thiokol have been featuring the 'Castor 120' in their ads
    lately.
    
    gary

From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Steven Pietrobon" 23-OCT-1992 
        06:21:21.51
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	AUSROC II Launch Update

Reprinted from The Advertiser, Friday, October 23, 1992, page 1

Rocket blast-off ends in big bang
---------------------------------

by Zac Donovan

     Australia's re-entry into the space race ended in a huge cloud of
smoke and flames at Woomera yesterday - and a $400 valve has been blamed. 

     Ausroc II, an unmanned 6 m rocket designed and built by amateur
enthusiasts from Melbourne's Monash University, was engulfed in flames
when a launch was attempted about 10:25 am. 

     The largest liquid-fuelled rocket built in Australia was expected
to climb 12 km, hit a top speed of 1600 km/h and travel about 25 km
from the Woomera launch site in South Australia's Far North. 

     Instead Ausroc II, which took four years and $200,000 to get to
the launch pad, exploded in a ball of flames and smoke. 

     Project scientists said the small valve apparently did not open
to let liquid oxygen accelerant mix with kerosene fuel. The fuel
ignited into a brilliant orange flame that without the oxygen mixture
was unable to propel the rocket. 

     When the kerosene flame burnt back to the liquid oxygen, it
exploded the top half of the rocket off the launch pad. 

     Despite the setback, range officials believe the attempt will
heighten public interest and boost plans to launch commercial
satellites from Woomera. 

     Woomera range manager Mr. Bob Dyer said the failure was to be
expected in the rocket industry. 

     "The fact that they got as far as they did was a real boost to
this place," he said. 

     The bid follows a proposal by the Southern Launch Vehicle
consortium to launch $21m communication satellites from Woomera by 1994. 

     The SLV group, headed by British Aerospace Australia, has said it
was likely to seek government funding for initial launches. 

     Mr. Dyer said yesterday the use of Woomera for the Ausroc II
rocket bid could help convince the Federal Government to invest in the
SLV program. 

     "People will start to talk about Woomera again and I hope that
filters back to the right people," he said. 

     "The equipment is still here and the range is in perfect
condition; there is no reason not to start using it again." 

     The State Government believes the SLV project could create 2000
jobs and inject $100 million into SA. 

     Ausroc program co-ordinator Mr. Mark Blair said yesterday the
team of 12 amateur rocket builders would be "spurred on" by the failure. 

     "You learn far more from your mistakes than you do from your
successes," he said. 

     At the end of the countdown yesterday, the rocket failed to take off. 
About five minutes later it exploded. 

Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in directory space/AUSROC. 
--
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.      [email protected]


From:	DECWRL::"[email protected]" "Morris Jones"  1-NOV-1992 
        20:23:55.41
To:	[email protected]
CC:	
Subj:	Duncan Steel at 1992 Australian Space Development Conference

        Prominent Australian astronomer Duncan Steel spoke briefly on
the subject of comet Swift-Tuttle at the 1992 ASDC held in Sydney, on
the 25th of October. At present, the nature of the comet's orbit is
not precisely known, and it seems imperative to obtain as much data as
possible. It is also important not to "lose" the comet, so that we can
always know rougly where to point our instruments. Duncan Steel
believes that the potential risks from such a collision make continued
observation essential, yet this may be easier said than done.
Australia is one of only four nations on Earth with a regular
programme of monitoring near-Earth asteroids and other potentially
catastrophic space threats, yet funding for this programme is about to
dry up. Dr Steel claims that there are less than twenty people
worldwide who regularly study these phenomena, and the world as a
whole should step up efforts to monitor these comets and asteroids.
More observatories are needed in the southern hemisphere for this
work, and it is possible that dedicated radio antennas could be set up
solely for the purpose of tracking these objects. 

           While Swift-Tuttle is a long way off, we cannot be certain
that there are other bodies headed our way in the near future.
Considering the potential of a large object to destroy virtually the
entire human race, it seems crazy that our work in this area has been
so little. 

  Morris Jones. University of New South Wales. Happy International Space Year!

Article: 51164
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: AUSROC II Launch Campaign Review
From: [email protected]
Date: 2 Nov 92 14:33:37 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia
 
26th October 1992
 
AUSROC II LAUNCH CAMPAIGN REVIEW
 
        On Friday 16th October the AUSROC II rocket system and
launch crew left Adelaide for the Woomera Rocket Range. The
AUSROC launch crew consisted of the following personnel:
 
                Mark Blair                      Tzu-pei Chen
                Andrew Cheers                   John Colemen
                Norbert Leidinger               Robert Graham
                Warren Williams                 Richard Bromfield
                Ian Bryce                       Grant Waldram
                Peter Grounds                   David Emery
                Denis Robb                      Colin Biggs
                Brendan Coleman                 John Balatsas
                Peter Kantzos
 
        After arrival at the Rangehead, the rocket hardware and
support equipment was unloaded in Test Shop 1. For the duration
of the campaign the launch crew resided at the Travellers Village in
the Woomera Township.
 
        On Saturday the injector, engine and fin unit were attached
along with the pneumatic and electrical umbilical lines in Test Shop
1. At this stage the 3 ball valves on-board the rocket were tested
and found to be operating successfully. The ground cabling and
wiring loom layout was commenced to connect the launcher with
the launch sequencer in Equipment Centre 2 where the firing was to
be initiated from. The on-board electronics was in its final stages of
preparation but the flight software still required some further work
and was being worked on intensively for the majority of the
campaign period.
 
        The system pressure tests, with nitrogen gas, were
undertaken on the Sunday and about 4 leaks were discovered.
Three of these leaks were associated with connectors, which may
have been loosened during transit, and were re-sealed quite easily.
A small leak between the sections of the kerosene ball valve proved
to be more resistant to our attempts to seal it. Eventually, with
much effort, the leak was reduced to an apparently negligible rate .
 
        The telemetry antennas were installed onto the rocket on the
Monday and tested. These tests revealed that the antennas were
operating extremely well with quite a high level of efficiency. The
parachute recovery system was prepared for installation and the
launcher services were installed. These services included the
nitrogen purge system, the nitrogen actuation supply lines, the
electrical umbilicals and the fuelling equipment and scaffold. Since
the software still required more time, a 1 day hold was enforced to
allow further time for correction. Thus the nominal launch time
was delayed until 10.00 am Thursday morning.
 
        The rocket was rolled out of Test Shop 1 on the Tuesday
morning and installed horizontally on the 10m launcher rail. The
electrical and pneumatic circuits were attached and 3 dummy firing
sequences were performed to validate the ignition and valve
operations. These trials were also successful. A pre-flight brief was
held in the Instrumentation Building conference room for visitors,
sponsors and media in mid afternoon and this covered details of the
Ausroc program to date as well as future plans.
 
        Throughout Wednesday, further testing was performed on
the ground based telemetry receiving and recording equipment as
well as the flight electronics and software. Several changes were
made to the flight electronics and software and the package was
finally loaded into the rocket on the launcher around mid
afternoon. Several telemetry checks revealed that the video signal
was being transmitted well but the telemetry channel data would
require post flight processing to be useable. With the electronics
secured, the recovery system, complete with deployment
pyrotechnics, was installed.
 
        The launch day commenced with arrival at the range at
5.00am. Two more dummy launch sequence checks were performed
without fault. The helium pressure tank was loaded to 20 MPa and
checked for leaks. No leaks were detected so the upper valve fairing
hatch was replaced and the launcher was elevated to its nominal 70
degree launch angle. A series of telemetry checks were then performed 
to check the transmitter and ground based receiving equipment.
 
        The kerosene was then loaded and it was observed that there
were no leaks present from the kerosene ball valve while the tank
was at ambient filling pressure. The lower valve fairing hatch was
then replaced in preparation for the lox fuelling. A spray pack of
freon was used to remove any kerosene spillage around and within
the intertank fairing. A dry nitrogen gas purge operation was
conducted to ensure that no water vapour was present in the lox
system that could cause freezing problems. The lox fill line was
attached to the rocket from the cryogenic storage canister located
on the back of a transport truck. The lox fuelling went much
smoother than we had anticipated and the uninsulated external
walls of the tank only had a light frost buildup when the tank was
full. The lox tank bleed plug was replaced, the scaffold was
removed and the ignition flare leads were connected.
 
        With the lox tank bleed plug replaced, the lox tank pressure
increased under its own boil-off vapour pressure to the nominal
tank vent pressure of 4.5 MPa. It was discovered that with the
helium valve closed, there was some back-flow of oxygen vapour
through the lox tank regulator and down into the kerosene tank,
thus increasing the kerosene tank pressure. The early increase in
kerosene tank pressure brought about a slow leak of kerosene
which probably found its way onto the pneumatic supply line. This
was the same leak that had been detected during the pressurisation
tests in Test Shop 1. Further checks should have been made in Test
Shop 1 to ensure that the leak was completely sealed.
 
        The ignition flare was fired, by the sequencer, at T-5sec. The
flare may have then ignited the leaked kerosene causing a fire
around the pneumatic supply lines. The Helium valve opened
successfully at T-3sec. as did the kerosene valve at T-0.25sec. The
lox valve was to have fully opened at T-0sec. The lox ball valve
opened approximately 10 degrees before it lost its actuation
pressure. This implies that the pneumatic supply lines must have
been severed some instant immediately after the lox valve solenoid
had opened. In this regard the system was about 200 milliseconds
short of successful operation.
 
        With the lox valve only partially open, the kerosene continued
to rush out and was ignited by the flare producing a very fuel rich
black billowing cloud and no useful thrust. The recovery system was
set to deploy on a timer and since the electrical umbilicals and
remaining pneumatic hose were also severed by the kerosene
flame, it was impossible to abort the sequence. As a result of this,
the nose deployment sequence was initiated very successfully at its
correct time in the launch sequence.
 
        With the helium and kerosene tanks essentially empty, the
back flow of oxygen through the lox tank regulator continued to
bleed oxygen vapour into the kerosene tank and out through the
kerosene passages to the motor. At around T+4mins, the remaining
small kero flame in the motor initiated the oxygen/kerosene vapour
mixture in the kerosene tank causing it to detonate and rupture at
the intertank end of the lox conduit passage. This event broke the
vehicle in half at the intertank fairing and severed the lox hose. The
resulting expansion of the lox from the base of the lox tank pushed
the forward section of the rocket off the rail and sent it sliding
along the ground where it eventually came to rest next to the 2
ground power supplies.
 
        The violent nature of the kerosene tank rupture sent a black
kerosene soot through every cavity and conduit in the rocket
making the post-mortem all the more difficult. At this stage it
appears as though the motor, injector and recovery system could be
reused but new tanks and structure will be required.
 
        Much has been learned from this experience and the majority
of the AUSROC Program objectives have still been achieved. We
are presently reviewing the AUSROC II systems and anticipate
some changes to the vehicle design and launch operations. We have
listed some of these here for your information:
 
        1. Installation of check valves in both propellant systems.
 
        2. Re-routing and/or flameproofing pneumatic and electrical
                umbilical lines.
 
        3. Replacement of all internal plastic pneumatic lines with
                flameproof lines
 
        4. Review of quality control procedures and standards
 
        5. Review of launch operations including Abort/Hold criteria,
                program management and media liaison
 
        6. Review of lox and kero ball valve and actuator operation
                including the effects of ice buildup
 
        7. Review of vehicle manufacturing techniques to enable a
                more simplified construction of a second vehicle.
 
        8. Modification and simplification of flight electronics and
                software and simulation of possible flight regimes.
 
        The launch crew is now more determined than ever to solve
these initial problems and construct a second AUSROC II
derivative for a possible second launch campaign in 1993. For as
little as $30-40,000 a revised and improved system can be
constructed. Design review teams are already being formed and
construction could begin as early as January '93. The media and
sponsor response to the program has been exceptionally positive
and we look forward to working with them again in the future.
 
                        Regards,
                                                        Mark Blair
                                        AUSROC Program Coordinator
 
 
Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in directory space/AUSROC
 
-- 
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.      [email protected]


Article: 51262
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: 2nd Annual AUSROC Conference
From: [email protected]
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:31:49 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia
 
2nd ANNUAL AUSROC CONFERENCE
 
Signal Processing Research Institute
University of South Australia - Levels Campus
9-11 December 1992
 
PROGRAM TIMETABLE
 
WEDNESDAY 9th December
9.00am  Opening					M. Blair (DSTO)	
 
AUSROC II Launch Campaign Review
9.10   Ausroc II Post Mortem			T. Chen (Ardebil)
9.30   Launch Operations - A Range User's	W. Williams (DSTO)
       Perspective
9.50   Flight Electronics - a Critical Review	J.Colemen
10.10  Ausroc II - The Next Generation	        M. Blair (DSTO)
10.30  Morning Tea
 
AUSROC III Systems Descriptions
Propulsion
11.00  	A3 Propulsion System & Components	M.Blair (DSTO)
11.20  	A3 Injector & Ignition System		W.Williams DSTO
 
Structures
11.40  	Composite Propellant Tanks	        G.Reddon (Adl. Uni.)
12.00  	Nose Cone / Fairings			S.Mitchell 
 
Systems Analysis
12.20  	Aerodynamic Analysis	 	        N.O'shea (RMIT)
12.40  	Dynamic Analysis			R.Coning (RMIT)
1.00  	Lunch
2.00  	Trajectory Simulation			T.Winks (QUT)
 
Control Systems
2.20  	Inertial Navigation System		A.Cheers (Ardebil)
2.40  	INS Alignment Procedures		M.Pszczel (DSTO)
3.00  	Motor Gimbal System			Adl. Uni.
3.20  	Afternoon Tea
3.50	Auto-Pilot Algorithm			A.Burridge (Monash)
						A.Coia (Monash)
						R.Graham (DSTO)
Flight Electronics
4.10	Data Aquisition System		        G.Hermann (U.SA)
						S.Pietrobon (U.SA)
 
Ground Support
4.30	Launcher Infrastructure		        P.Pemberton (USQ)
						F.Jacobson (USQ)
						D.Miller (USQ)
						F.Naseasi (USQ)
						A.Ried (USQ)
 
THURSDAY 10th December
9.00am	Launch Control Sequencer		T.Chen (Ardebil)
9.20	Static Motor Test Facility	        R.Bromfield (ARE)
 
Payload
9.40	Experimental Payloads		        I.French (ANU)
10.00	Payload Recovery System		        P.Siaw (RMIT)
10.20	Morning Tea
 
Range Safety
10.50	Operations at the Woomera		W.Williams (DSTO) 
	Rocket Range
11.10	Impact Prediction & Tracking	        P.Wilson (QUT)
11.30	Flight Termination System		C.Biggs (DSTO)
11.50	Insurance Issues			K.Ikin (GIO)
						W.Jones (ASIG)
12.10	Lunch
 
AUSROC IV
1.30	Ausroc IV - Orbital Capability	        M.Blair (DSTO)
 
ASERA Projects
2.00	The Caratel Rocket Project		I. Bryce (HDH)
2.20	'Australis' - Amateur Satellite	        C. Lindley (CSIRO)
	Project
2.40	Appropriate Quality Systems for	        G.Coote (Hard Copy)
	Amateur Projects
3.10	Afternoon Tea
 
QLD Scramjet Project
3.40	Qld Uni. Student Scramjet Project	Qld.Uni.
 
FRIDAY 11th December
 
Commercial & Government Programs
9.00	"The Australian Space Program"	        Ed Cory (ASO)
9.30	"Space Industry Development
	- An Integrated Business"	        J.Douglas (SA Gov't.)
10.00	Morning Tea
10.30	"The Southern Launch Vehicle"	        I.Touhy (B.Ae.Aust)
						I.Bryce (HDH)
						P.Arthur (Auspace)
12.00	"The RASS Small Satellite Project"      S.Pietrobon (U.SA)
12.30pm	Closing					M. Blair (DSTO)
12.40	Lunch
 
Post-Conference Tour - WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE
		Friday 2.00pm Depart Adelaide (6hr drive)
		Saturday 9.00am Tour Woomera Range Facilities
		Sunday 10.00am Return to Adelaide
 
     The AUSROC Conference is free of charge and we extend an open invitation 
to anyone with an interest in Aerospace activities in Australia to attend. The 
Conference presents an opportunity for all those involved in the Ausroc 
Program, around Australia, to get together in one location to present papers 
and exchange information and ideas. Those interested in attending the Post 
Conference Woomera Tour should reply in writing to Ausroc Projects as numbers 
are required for organisational purposes. 
 
Ausroc Projects, 42 Broadmeadows Rd. Elizabeth Nth SA  5113
Ph/Fax : (08) 287-0078
 
Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in directory space/AUSROC
 
-- 
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.      [email protected]

Article: 53888
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: AUSROC II: A Post Mortem
From: [email protected]
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:14:50 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia
 
This paper was presented by Tzu-Pei Chen at the 1992 AUSROC conference,
Adelaide, Australia, December 1992.
 
 
                  AUSROC II : A Post Mortem
                  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                        Tzu-Pei Chen
 
Abstract  -  The  AUSROC II Amateur Rocket malfunctioned  at
launch.  The LOX valve failed to open fully, preventing  the
rocket from lifting off. Pneumatic and electrical umbilicals
burnt through preventing an abort sequence. An internal fire
started in the lower valve fairing and spread throughout the
rocket, eventually destroyed the payload. A design fault  in
the  pressurisation mechanism allowed oxygen  to  enter  the
kerosene tank resulting in an explosion which destroyed  the
vehicle.  No  definite reason for the LOX valve failure  has
been  found,  but  a  seal failure in  the  LOX  valve  vane
actuator seems the most likely cause. Simple changes to both
the rocket and launcher systems could have prevented further
damage  to the vehicle after the LOX valve failure. A second
vehicle  designated AUSROC II-2 will be built  incorporating
these changes.  This paper describes what is known about the
launch  event. It proposes possible reasons for the failures
which   were  encountered,  and  suggests  solutions   where
possible.
 
I.  INTRODUCTION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     "If  one part fails the whole thing can fail. It's
     not  like a car, if you get a flat tire, you  stop
     and  put  another one on ... if you blow a  valve,
     you'll  probably blow up your tanks and everything
     along with it."
                                  Mark Blair, March '92
 
On October 22nd 1992 at about 10:15am an attempt was made to
launch   the  AUSROC  II  Amateur  Rocket  at  the   Woomera
Instrumented Range. A series of malfunctions occurred  which
resulted in a failure to launch, and subsequently led to  an
explosion and total destruction of the vehicle.
 
At  7:00am the 3 hour Flight Firing Sequence commenced.  The
helium  pressure  bottle was pressurised to  20MPa  and  the
launcher elevated. The kerosene tank was then filled.  A dry
nitrogen  supply was connected to the LOX tank and  the  LOX
valve  opened. The LOX system was then purged for 5  minutes
to  remove  any moisture from the LOX feed system especially
the  LOX  ball valve. The lower valve fairing was  inspected
visually for any signs of kerosene leakage, and then sealed.
At  T-30'00",  LOX fuelling commenced, and was  completed  8
minutes  later.  It  was observed that only  a  light  frost
formed  on the tank walls when full. At this point  kerosene
was  discovered to be dripping from the base of the  rocket.
The  amount of leakage was assessed to be insignificant, and
a decision to continue with the launch was made.
 
At  T-15'00"  the  Final Arm & Launch  Sequence  began.  The
ignition  circuit  was  connected  and  all  personnel  were
cleared  from the launcher. At T-2'00" the automatic  launch
sequence  was initiated. Forty seconds later at  T-1'20"  an
ABORT  was  called. The picture from the onboard camera  had
suddenly  deteriorated. The countdown  was  held  while  the
problem was discussed, 10 minutes later the automatic launch
sequence was restarted at the T-2'00" mark.
 
At  T-5s,  the electric match fired, and the ignition  flare
ignited  successfully.  At  T-3s  the  helium  valve  opened
pressurising both propellant tanks. At T-0.25s the  kerosene
valve  opened (as the kerosene takes about 250ms  to  travel
through  the regenerative cooling passage of the motor).  At
T=0s  the LOX valve was actuated, but failed to open  fully,
resulting  in  insufficient thrust to lift the  vehicle.  An
attempt  to  abort  the launch was made  at  T+2s,  but  the
massive  kerosene  plume  had burnt  through  nearby  ground
pneumatic lines preventing the abort system from closing the
propellant  valves. At the same time a crackling or  popping
sound could be heard. Eventually, at around T+10s, the  more
characteristic  "thrusting" sound developed  and  the  plume
became much brighter indicating that some oxygen was present
in  the  chamber.  Kerosene continued to be  expelled  under
pressure  until  T+15s.  At  around  T+20s  the  electronics
umbilical  was also destroyed preventing switch off  of  the
payload.  With the payload control lines cut, the  payload's
timer, thinking the rocket had left the launcher, started  a
55s countdown to deploy the recovery mechanism.
 
A  small fire could be seen at the bottom of the motor,  the
remaining   kerosene  dribbling  from  the  rocket   burning
brightly  in oxygen. Kerosene on the ground and  around  the
launcher  also  continued to burn with a much redder  flame.
>From  the  onboard camera, smoke could now be seen streaming
from  the upper valve fairing. At T+1'16" the payload  fired
the  nose  separation pins, and then the nose  push  rod,  2
seconds  later. The nose cone popped off to  one  side,  and
fell  to the ground. At T+1'25" the payload failed, and  all
telemetry  except  for the video was lost.  At  T+1'40"  the
video transmitter stopped.
 
The  flame  at  the  bottom of the motor continued  to  burn
brightly. The fire around the launcher eventually  went  out
about  1 minute later. At T+3'45" a mixture of kerosene  and
oxygen  exploded in the kerosene tank, rupturing  the  tanks
cable  duct.  The expanding gases tore out  both  the  lower
valve,  and intertank fairing hatches, and then sheared  the
bolts fixing the intertank fairing to the LOX tank. The  LOX
feed  line was severed at the LOX tank boss, and the  rocket
was blown in half. The remaining LOX pressure was sufficient
to  lift  the top half of the rocket off the launcher  rail,
and  propel it through the air and then along the ground for
some tens of metres.
 
After  a 30 minute cool-off time and careful examination  of
the  wreckage  from  the periscope in  EC2,  the  operations
manager  and range safety officer proceeded to the  launcher
area to make the area safe. Mains power was removed from the
area,  and the pyrotechnic cutters associated with the  main
parachute were disarmed. The various pieces of wreckage were
gathered  together  and brought back  to  Test  Shop  1  for
examination.
 
The  upper  portion of the rocket was severely  dented,  and
disassembly  was  not  possible on  the  day.  Most  of  the
fittings  in  the  lower valve and intertank  fairings  were
either  missing or very badly burnt. The engine however  was
removable  and  it  was discovered that the  LOX  valve  had
indeed opened by about 10 degrees.
 
The  immediate conclusion, reported by most of the media  on
the  day,  was that the LOX valve had frozen shut,  possibly
due  to  the  extended countdown. Eventually it was  decided
that  this was unlikely considering the low humidity on  the
day  and  the  fact that the dry nitrogen purge should  have
left  nothing to freeze within the LOX valve. The  preferred
explanation  was  that one of the pneumatic lines,  probably
already burning due to the kerosene leak, had burnt through,
just as the LOX valve was opening [1].
 
The remains of the rocket were shipped back to Salisbury  to
be  fully dismantled. The motor, and the remains of plumbing
from  the lower valve fairing were brought back to Melbourne
for inspection.
 
II.  FAILURE ANALYSIS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     "The  price  one pays for pursuing any profession,
     or  calling, is an intimate knowledge of its  ugly
     side."
                                          James Baldwin
 
As described above, there were in fact several malfunctions,
some  of  these  prevented the launch of  the  rocket,  some
contributed to the subsequent destruction of the rocket, and
some were simply embarrassing. The major failures which will
be discussed are;
 
 - sudden deterioration of the onboard camera picture,
 - the LOX valve failing to open,
 - kerosene seen dripping from the base of the rocket,
 - the internal fire
 - the explosion in the kerosene tank,
 - failure  of  the abort sequence to close the  propellant
   valves, or disable the payload,
 - lack  of  concrete  data  with  which  to  analysis  the failure.
 
A.  Onboard Camera Picture Failure
 
The  sudden deterioration of the video picture took the form
of   saturated  white horizontal bars forming  about  bright
portions of the picture. During the launch, these bars  were
present to an extent, but not enough to really detract  from
the  overall picture. However at the exact time the  payload
was  switched to internal power, these bars suddenly swamped
around  30% of the picture. Causing the telemetry  personnel
to call a hold.
 
The horizontal bars were caused by solid state regulators in
the  actual  camera shutting down (thermal  limiting)  after
overheating. The camera had been connected directly  to  the
rocket's unregulated power supply which is nominally 14V,  a
little higher than the camera's nominal operating voltage of
12V.   The  condition  became  drastically  worse  when  the
payload  was switched to internal power because the  lithium
battery  pack  used  to power the payload,  was  capable  of
supplying,  initially,  around 17V.   The  same  effect  was
repeated in Melbourne, after fire damage to camera had  been
repaired.  The camera was connect to a 14V power supply  and
allowed  to operate for some time (around 20 minutes)  until
the  horizontal white bars developed, then the power  supply
was raised to 16V, and a very similar effect was observed.
 
The  fault  could  have been avoided  had  the  camera  been
connected  to  a  regulated power  source.  In  fact  a  12V
regulator was provided for the camera on the rocket's  power
supply, but this output had simply not been used.
 
B.  LOX Valve Failure
 
The  most  obvious  and vexing question of  course,  is  the
reason  for the LOX valve failure. The original explanation,
that a pneumatic line had burnt through at exactly the right
moment  seemed a little unlikely. At the last static firing,
valve  position sensors showed that the time taken  for  the
LOX  valve to opens is in the order of around 60ms  [2],  so
for  the  LOX  valve  actuator to have  moved  11%  requires
failure within a window milliseconds wide, an unlikely event
indeed.  Thus a reason which inherently moves  the  valve  a
small  amount  would be infinitely preferable to  one  which
relies   on   split-second   bad  luck.   Possible   reasons
investigated included;
 
a) an electrical failure due to ;
    - an umbilical being disconnected,
    - an   electronic   failure  in  the  Launch   Sequence
      Controller (LSC) or it's power supply.
b) a pneumatic failure due to;
    - a  loss  of pressure to the actuators due to a breach
      in  the ON side pneumatics, a 1MPa regulator failure,
      or   a   pneumatic  (Legris  push  fitting)   fitting
      failure,
    - an  electrical  or  physical  failure  in  the  pilot
      solenoid,
    - a failure in the vane actuator.
c) mechanical failure due to;
    - the  valve seizing due to mechanical distortion  from
      cryogenic temperatures,
    - the  ball  freezing to the valve seat due to moisture
      being present,
    - the  valve  stem or perhaps valve sensors jammed  due
      to ice build up,
 
The  majority  of  these possibilities were rejected  simply
because  they  did  not  satisfy  the  split-second   timing
problem.
 
An  electrical failure was discounted as the LSC's indicator
lights  showed that appropriate signals were being  sent  to
the  pilot  solenoid valves. The LSC was  tested  later  and
proved to be fully functional.
 
An  ON  side pneumatic line failure was seriously considered
as  a  possibility.  The kerosene leak in  the  lower  valve
fairing  would  have  dribbled kerosene onto  the  pneumatic
lines  leading to the rocket. These lines would have ignited
with  the  flare, severely weakening them. Conceivably  then
the  kerosene plume exiting from the motor could have  burnt
through  the lines then, as the timing was chosen such  that
the  kerosene  and LOX exit almost simultaneously.   However
high   speed  film  shows  no  sign  of  the  lines  burning
beforehand, and the kerosene plume does not exit the  rocket
motor  for  about  0.5s.  It was  also  suggested  that  the
kerosene  leak may have lubricated one of numerous pneumatic
couplings  allowing a line to blow off. This was  discounted
by  collecting  all the push-fittings and  checking  that  a
piece of tubing was still firmly inside the fitting.
 
A failure with the pilot solenoid was rejected mainly due to
the  timing  reasons mentioned. Unfortunately, the  solenoid
was  very badly damaged making it difficult to prove  beyond
doubt that it was operational.
 
Originally  the vane actuator was not even considered  as  a
possible  point of failure. However it was mounted  directly
onto  the  LOX  ball valve, and its mechanism  contains  two
seals which may not operate properly beyond around -20C. Had
these  seals failed, the expected response would match those
observed very well. Thus a seal failure in the vane actuator
is  a  preferable  explanation, and is discussed  in  detail
below.
 
The actual LOX ball valve seizing from mechanical distortion
was rejected out of hand as the valve is explicitly designed
to  handle cryogenic fluids. Freezing of the valve stem,  or
the position sensor was rejected due to the lack of humidity
on  the day. Even had a layer of ice formed, it is unlikely,
given the small surface area, that it would have jammed  the
vane  actuator.  In  light  of the  kerosene  leak,  it  was
suggested that the whole mechanism may have been frozen in a
lump of kerosene ice. However if this was the case, than the
valve would not have opened at all.
 
At an earlier static firing (14/3/92) the LOX valve had also
failed  to  open  fully. Inspection of the valve  afterwards
showed  that there was trichloroethane present  in  the  LOX
valve itself, a remanent from an earlier procedure to remove
grease  from  the  LOX feed system. This  event  caused  the
addition  of  a  dry nitrogen purge to the launch  sequence.
Nitrogen  is flushed through the LOX feed system,  hopefully
removing  any residual solvents as well as any water  vapour
present  in  the  tank. This procedure would  appear  to  be
successful as the following 3 static firings progressed with
out  a  hitch. For this reason, as a dry nitrogen purge  was
performed, this theory was discarded.
 
The  vane  actuator was used to actually turn the  LOX  ball
valve.  It  was mounted directly to the body by an aluminium
mount, and coupled to the valve stem via a slip on coupling.
The  aluminium block was machined to contact well with  both
the  valve  body, and the bottom of the vane actuator.  This
mount  would have formed a reasonable thermal path from  the
body  of  the  valve to the body of the vane  actuator.  The
seals  within  the vane actuator are made from  polyurethane
and  have a nominal working temperature range which  extends
as  low as -20C. Beyond this temperature, the seals begin to
lose their elasticity. LOX was present at the LOX ball valve
for  40 minutes (30 minutes from the start of fuelling, plus
another  10  minutes  for  the  hold).  With  LOX  having  a
temperature  of  around 90K, in the enclosed environment  of
the  lower valve fairing, it is entirely possible  that  the
vane  actuators  body  temperature  could  have  fallen   to
unacceptably low temperatures.
 
If  this was the case, then the vane would have "frozen"  in
the   closed  position.  When  the  pneumatic  pressure  was
applied,  the  vane  would  have hesitated  and  then  moved
possibly in "stutters". With the seal no longer plastic, the
gas  may  also  have  burst under  the  seals  delaying  the
movement  even  further. With the LOX valve partially  open,
the  plume cuts through the pneumatic lines, while the  vane
actuator is still stuttering open, some seconds later.  This
would seem to be the most plausible reason for the LOX valve
failure.  Hopefully  a test can be conducted  utilising  the
Helium  valve vane actuator (if it has survived) to  confirm
this. If this is the case, the abort may have contributed to
the  failure,  as  it  added 10 minutes  to  the  countdown,
extending the time LOX was present at the valve by 33%.
 
C.  Kerosene Leak
 
A  leak in one of the kerosene valve's body connector  seals
was  detected  during final pressure tests  the  day  before
launch. As it was a gas leakage at a negligible rate, it was
decided  to  ignore  it. On the launch day,  after  kerosene
fuelling, it was observed that no kerosene was leaking  from
the body connector seal. However after the LOX fuelling, and
the  sealing  of the LOX bleed plug, it was discovered  that
kerosene was leaking from the bottom of the rocket [1].
 
The  leak  in the seal itself was caused simply because  the
type of body connector seals used in the kerosene valve were
in fact once-only seals, that is they deform to form a seal,
but  once the valve is disassembled they stay deformed,  and
should  be  discarded. This was not the case, the seals  had
been  used  four or five times already. The leak  manifested
itself only after the LOX tank had been sealed because of  a
design fault in the tank pressurising system.
 
The  LOX tank is self pressurising in the sense that the LOX
is constantly boiling off, so that the pressure rises in the
tank  once  it is sealed. The tank pressurising  system  was
designed  assuming that the tank regulators acted  as  check
valves and thus would prevent backflow from a pressurised to
tank  back  into the system [3]. This proved not to  be  the
case. Once the LOX tank was filled, a small amount of oxygen
under  its own pressure flowed back through the pressurising
system  and  into  the kerosene tank. The amount  of  oxygen
would  have been very small, however this pressurisation  of
the kerosene tank was enough to cause the kerosene to leak.
 
The  kerosene  leak in itself was probably not  as  major  a
problem  as  it  sounds.  However  by  dribbling  down   the
umbilical,  it  supplied a path by which the  exhaust  plume
could ignite the wiring loom inside the lower valve fairing.
 
D. Fire Inside the Rocket
 
A  fire inside the lower valve fairing should not have  been
as  major a problem as it was. A tiny volume, mostly  sealed
at the top, a fire should have quickly suffocated itself. In
addition  the  insulation  on  the  wiring  loom  was  self-
extinguishing,  that  is  if  lit  by  a  open  flame,   the
insulation does not continue to burn in air once  the  flame
is removed.
 
As was mentioned earlier, the LOX tank self pressurises. For
this  reason a relief valve is placed at the top of the  LOX
tank,  and set to crack at 4.5MPa. The vent from this relief
valve  was not piped to the atmosphere, but left within  the
rocket.  During the countdown, the LOX tank would have  been
slowly  venting into the rocket body, and venting  furiously
during  the 15 seconds after T=0s (as can be seen  from  the
onboard camera). This would have provided a very oxygen rich
atmosphere within the rocket, allowing the looms to burn  up
the  rocket as far as the payload, eventually destroying it.
The  amounts of oxygen present can be seen from  the  severe
"weathering" of all the aluminium parts after the fire.
 
E.  Kerosene Tank Explosion
 
As mentioned earlier, oxygen was able to bleed back, through
the  LOX regulator, from the LOX tank to the kerosene  tank.
After  all  the kerosene had been expelled, and  the  helium
pressurising  gas  vented,  oxygen  bled  back  through  the
pressurising  system to forming  a fuel air  mixture  within
the  kerosene  tank. When the mixture ratio  was  right,  it
ignited from the small kerosene fire seen at the at the base
of  the  motor. The flame travelled back through the motor's
cooling passages, and through the injector into the kerosene
tank.  The  residual  kerosene may even  have  been  burning
inside the kerosene tank for a while before exploding.
 
The explosion ruptured the LOX pipe conduit, at its weld  to
the  top  of  the  kerosene tank boss. The hot  gasses  then
expanding  down through the LOX pipe conduit into the  lower
valve fairing. The lower valve fairing hatch's backing plate
was  buckled and then blown from the rocket, coming to  rest
on the launch apron ring road. The upper valve fairing hatch
was  likewise torn out. Some gas rushed upwards through  the
pressure line & wiring conduit into the electronics fairing,
breaching  the camera's case and pushing the main  parachute
out  of  it's tube. The bolts holding the intertank  to  the
bottom  of  the  LOX  tank boss then sheared,  breaking  the
rocket  it  two. The upper launch lug broke, and the  rocket
was  thrown to one side. The LOX feed line ripped from  it's
fitting at the base of the LOX tank, and the thrust produced
by  the  LOX being expelled was sufficient to lift  the  top
half  of  the  rocket, through the air and  then  along  the
ground for some distance. The bottom half of the rocket  was
also  torn from the launcher, and fell to the ground nearby,
the   remaining  kerosene  visibly  burning  for  a  several
seconds.
 
The  bleed  back through the regulator was more  complicated
than just simple two-way flow through the regulator. It  can
be  shown that had the LOX valve completely failed to  open,
then  the  events leading to the explosion could  have  been
avoided (see Appendix A).
 
F.  Abort Sequence
 
Originally the rocket was designed with no abort  system  at
all,  however  at the static firings it was discovered  that
the  existing pneumatics could, with the addition of  a  few
lines,  allow the propellant valves to be closed as well  as
opened. This system used at each of the static firings,  and
then  incorporated  into the rocket itself,  if  only  as  a
convenient method of shutting the valves during tests.
 
The  abort system was actuated at about T+2s, but was unable
to  close  the propellant valves because the pneumatic  line
used  to close the valves had already burnt through  in  the
exhaust plume of the rocket. Likewise the payload could  not
be  disabled  because the electrical umbilicals  also  burnt
through.  The  failure  of  the abort  system  is  the  most
unacceptable  of  all  the failures  as  it  was  thoroughly
predictable, and easily avoidable.
 
G. Lack of Data
 
Most  of the analysis involved a large degree of speculation
because little data of the failure was available. All of the
cameras were placed to take rather optimistic "long"  shots.
So  no clear picture of the base of the rocket is available.
This  was  compounded with problems with the  payload  which
resulted  in  critical data such as the tank pressures,  and
the valve position sensors being lost.
 
III.  SOLUTIONS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     "For every problem there is one solution which  is
     simple, neat, and wrong."
                                          H. L. Mencken
 
With  "20/20:  hindsight,  it  is  easy  to  propose  simple
solutions  to  many  of  the  problems  which  have  already
occurred. The real solution is to actively try and find  all
the  possible  failures  have not  occurred  and  to  either
prevent  them or at least have procedures as to what  action
to take, when they occurred. As a case in point, the payload
could  have been disabled in the first 20 seconds after  the
failure,  as  the  electrical  lines  where  still   intact.
Although  this would not have saved the rocket, at least  it
would have prevented some media embarrassment.
 
The  abort  system and payload umbilicals should  have  been
heavily   protected  from  the  exhaust  plume.  An   E-flux
deflector  could be welded to the base of the launcher.  The
pneumatic  lines  running to the rocket, as  well  as  those
inside  should be replaced by stainless or aluminium tubing.
The  1MPa pneumatic supply should be moved much further away
from  launcher, and protected. The electric umbilicals could
be  connected high up on the rocket so as to be out of harms
way.  The  close valve could be placed inside the rocket  so
that there is only one pneumatic line leading to the ground.
 
Check  valves should be installed after the each  propellant
tank  regulator in order to prevent the bleed back of gases.
Both   the   LOX  and  kerosene  relief  valves  should   be
repositioned  so that they vent to the atmosphere,  not  the
inside of the rocket.
 
All  components  used should be carefully  studied  so  that
items  such  as non-reusable seals are replaced, and  normal
operating conditions are not exceeded. The current LOX valve
arrangement  could be used with the addition  of  a  thermal
insulator  such  as a plastic or ceramic plate  between  the
body  of  the  vane  actuator, and  the  valve  body  mount.
Extensive  testing  of each of the possible  valve  failures
should  be  investigated under realistic  conditions  (using
liquid nitrogen) and worst case data should be obtained.
 
An  automatic abort sequence could be added to  the  LSC  in
order   to  cut  down  response  time  assuming  appropriate
telemetry  data  is available. Better displays  of  realtime
engineering  data  would also allow better decision  making.
Finally,  more  formal  procedures, especially  launch/abort
criterion  need to be established beforehand so  that  these
decisions are not made "in the heat of the moment".
 
IV.  CONCLUSION
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     "You may be disappointed if you fail, but you  are
     doomed if you don't try."
                                         Beverley Sills
 
AUSROC II failed to lift off because the LOX valve failed to
open  fully. The most likely explanation is that  the  valve
only  partially  opened  because the  seal  inside  the  LOX
valve's  vane actuator failed due to prolonged  exposure  to
low temperatures. The sudden deterioration in the live video
signal  was  due  to incorrect wiring of the video  camera's
power  supply.  The  10  minute hold caused  be  the  camera
problem may have contributed to the LOX valve failure. After
the  LOX  valve  had  failed to open, it  should  have  been
possible to save AUSROC II by closing the propellant valves,
and  disabling the payload. This was not done, as the  wires
and  pneumatic lines associated with the abort system,  were
not  protected in any way, and therefore burnt through in  a
matter  of  seconds. Simply shielding the  wires  and  using
stainless  steel  pneumatic lines would  have  avoided  this
problem. An automatic abort sequence based on telemetry data
would  allow  the launch to be aborted the instant  a  valve
failure is detected.
 
The  explosion  which destroyed the vehicle  was  caused  by
oxygen flowing backwards under its own pressure, through the
LOX  regulator  into  the kerosene tank.  Residual  kerosene
vapour in the kerosene tank mixed with the oxygen to form an
explosive  mixture. The backflow occurred due  to  a  design
fault  in  the  pressurising system, a  check  valve  placed
before or after the LOX regulator would prevent the problem.
 
The  kerosene leak was caused by a non-reusable  seal  being
reused  in  the kerosene ball valve. This leak  provided  an
ignition source for the fire inside the rocket, and while it
contributed  to the destruction of the payload, it  probably
did not contribute otherwise to the launch failure. Although
the  wiring looms were self-extinguishing, the placement  of
the  LOX  relief valve vent inside the upper  valve  fairing
provided  an oxygen rich atmosphere within which they  could
burn.  The  relief valve should be placed so that  it  vents
directly to the atmosphere.
 
If   AUSROC  Projects  is  to  continue  another  AUSROC  II
(designated  AUSROC  II-2) vehicle needs  to  be  built.  An
opportunity  now exists to incorporate all  of  the  changes
which  had been suggested during the construction of  AUSROC
II-1, as well as the changes suggested here.
 
The  design  of  AUSROC II was in many ways too  "positive".
Much  thought  had  been put into each of the  systems,  but
little  thought had been allocated to possible failures  and
their  consequences.  Obviously,  greater  testing  of  each
component may have shown up some of these problems  earlier.
This simply highlights the very limited resources with which
the  group currently works. The six static firings  were  in
themselves,  major  system tests, but they  were  already  a
major strain on our resources. Hopefully AUSROC II-2 will be
able  to proceed in an environment where financial and  man-
hour   constraints  become  secondary  to  the  process   of
engineering.
 
References
 
[1]AUSROC  Projects,  AUSROC II Launch Campaign  Review,  26
   October 1992
[2]A. Cheers, Static Firing Data - 25/4/92 1st Firing, April
   1992
[3]M. Blair and P. Kantzos, Design of a Bi-Propellant Liquid
   Fuelled   Rocket,  Final  Year  Project   Thesis,   Dept.
   Mechanical Engineering, Monash University, 1989
 
Author
 
Tzu-Pei Chen             Phone:    (03) 561 8654, 560 8629ah
Ardebil Pty Ltd          FAX:      (03) 560 5562
6 Kooringa Crescent      Pager:    (03) 483 4206
Mulgrave  VIC  3170      Email:    [email protected]
 
Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in directory space/AUSROC
 
-- 
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.      [email protected]

Article: 2899
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: [email protected] (Steven Pietrobon)
Subject: AUSROC II launch fails, but commitment to project remains (Dec 92)
Sender: [email protected]
Organization: Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing, Signal Processing 
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 04:36:52 GMT
 
Reprinted from CSIRO Space Industry News, No. 49, p. 5, December 1992.
 
AUSROC II launch fails, but commitment to project remains
---------------------------------------------------------
 
     AUSROC II, a key component of the Australian Space Engineering
and Research Association's (ASERA) amateur rocket program, failed to
leave the ground when fired at the Woomera Rocket Range on Thursday 22
October. 
 
     Owing to a faulty liquid oxygen valve, the vehicle caught fire
and was extensively damaged. Project organisers say that the motor,
injector, and recovery system may be salvageable, but that new oxygen
and kerosene tanks, and a new structure will be required. 
 
     Also salvageable is the participants enthusiasm for the project.
They are currently reviewing the vehicle's systems with a view to
modifying the design and the launch operations, and the launch of an
improved AUSROC II has been tentatively scheduled for September 1993. 
 
     An AUSROC II post mortem was the first item on the agenda at the
Second Annual AUSROC Conference, held at the University of South
Australia - Levels Campus, on 9-11 December. Also at the conference,
there was detailed discussion of systems development for AUSROC III, a
planned suborbital vehicle, and AUSROC IV, on which the group hopes to
eventually place a microsat in orbit. There are currently over 40
volunteers from a range of institutions involved in the development of
AUSROC III systems. 
 
     The AUSROC rocket program started in 1988 when a group of Monash
University students and amateur rocketeers united to design and
construct a small, fuelled rocket, based upon a design from the
Pacific Rocket Society in the USA. This rocket - AUSROC I - was
launched from the Graytwon Proof and Experimental Establishment,
Victoria. 
 
Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in directory space/AUSROC 
--
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.     [email protected]

Article: 67442
Xref: ryn.mro4.dec.com sci.space:67442 rec.models.rockets:10043
Path: ryn.mro4.dec.com!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!basser.cs.su.oz.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!levels.unisa.edu.au!etssp
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.models.rockets
Subject: AUSROC III: The Development of Australian Launch Vehicle Capability
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 25 Aug 93 11:44:38 +0930
Reply-To: [email protected]
Distribution: world
Organization: University of South Australia
Lines: 625
 
AUSROC III
 
The Development of Australian Launch Vehicle Capability
 
M. A. Blair
B.E.(Mech.), Grad. I.E.Aust.
ASRI Director
Ausroc Program Coordinator
 
1. INTRODUCTION
 
Ausroc III is the third of the Ausroc series of liquid fuelled rockets
aimed at the promotion of research, development and education of the field
of launch vehicle technologies within Australia. Ausroc III is being
designed as a sounding rocket capable of lifting 100kg of useful scientific
payload to an altitude of 500km and then recovering it intact. The vehicle
is also being developed as a test bed for a number of technologies that
have direct application in satellite launchers. These technologies include:
regenerative liquid propulsion, composite structures, inertial navigation,
vehicle guidance and control, telemetry and flight termination systems,
ground support, tracking and range safety. The Australian Space Research
Institute (ASRI)  supports and promotes the Ausroc program through
cooperation with Australian Universities and a team of dedicated ASRI
members. This paper describes the past present and future development of
the Ausroc III program as well as its educational benefits.
 
2. AUSTRALIAN SPACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE 
 
The Australian Space Research Institute Ltd. (ASRI) was formed on the 17th
May 1993 as a result of the merger between the Australian Space Engineering
Research Association Ltd. (ASERA), and the Ausroc Projects Group.  ASRI
will be undertaking space related research, development and education
programs in the launch vehicle and satellite technology areas.  The
Institute has been formed to fill a void in these research and development
disciplines within Australia. The objects with which the company (ASRI) has
been established are to, on a non-profit basis :
 
a.  Develop and advance space science and technology.
 
b. Conduct, encourage and promote research in the field of space science
and technology.
 
c.  Educate and extend knowledge in the field of space science and
technology  and to make available education opportunities in the field of
space science and technology to supplement and further those opportunities
made available by established educational institutions.
 
d.  Conduct, co-ordinate and support projects for the advancement of  the
above objects.
 
The Ausroc program is now one of 3 major program areas within ASRI. The
other 2 being the AUSTRALIS Micro-satellite program and the SCRAMJET
Development program.
 
3. AUSROC  PROGRAM  BACKGROUND
 
The Ausroc Projects Group was established in 1988 to fill an educational
void in launch vehicle engineering disciplines within Australia. Ausroc I
was a 2.6m bi-propellant liquid fuelled rocket using nitric acid and
furfuryl alcohol as propellants. It was launched from the Graytown Proof
Range in Victoria on the 9th of February, 1989. The vehicle velocity and
altitude were approximately 600km/hr and 3.5km respectively. 
 
Although the recovery system failed to operate as planned during this
flight, the propulsion system worked very well, as did the electronics and
telemetry system. The Ausroc I project was undertaken as a private project,
although assistance was given by several members of the Monash Uni.
Mechanical Engineering staff. 
 
The success of Ausroc I paved the way for a much more ambitious project,
Ausroc II. In 1989, Monash Uni. Engineering students commenced an official
project to design, build and test launch a bi-propellant Lox/Kero rocket
system. The Ausroc II regeneratively cooled, rocket motor was constructed
and static test fired at the Ravenhall Test Facility in Deer Park,
Melbourne, on three separate occasions during 1991-92. These trials were
performed to validate the system performance and familiarise the launch
crew with operating and safety procedures associated with liquid fuel
rocketry. 
 
The launch trial, conducted during October 1992 at the Woomera Rocket Range
in S.A., resulted in the destruction of the vehicle on its' launcher.  The
failure was caused by the liquid oxygen supply valve failing to operate
successfully. Ausroc II was the largest liquid fuelled rocket designed and
manufactured in Australia and was one of the worlds' largest amateur rocket
systems. A second improved vehicle, Ausroc II-2, is currently under
construction for launch in 1994. 
 
4. AUSROC III  CONCEPT DEFINITION
 
The interest and support shown for Ausroc II and the enthusiasm of those
involved, led the Ausroc team to prepare a plan for the future of the
Ausroc launch vehicle series. In late 1990 it was decided that the ultimate
goal of the Ausroc projects group would be to develop a satellite launch
vehicle capable of placing a microsatellite into a low earth orbit. This
goal encompasses many technical aspects which have not yet been addressed
in the previous 2 rocket programs. Therefore, it was decided to develop an
intermediate launch vehicle system that could be used as a technology
demonstrator for the satellite launcher. This intermediate launch vehicle
concept forms the basis of the Ausroc III program. The primary objective of
this third generation Ausroc system is:
 
S To carry a useful scientific payload of 100 kg mass to an altitude of 500
km on a predetermined and controlled, suborbital trajectory and recover it
intact.
 
Ausroc III, would, if completed, be the largest amateur rocket ever built
and would be a useful instrument for performing research in fields such as;
atmospheric physics, microgravity materials processing, high altitude
observations, hypersonics research and evaluation of satellite launch
vehicle hardware. 
 
This new project represents a challenge that encompasses a diverse range of
science and engineering disciplines. The Ausroc III system has been
sub-divided into a number of sub-systems that are described in more detail
below. Each of these sub-systems represent a project that can be undertaken
by groups of science and engineering students at Universities and
Institutes around Australia or by groups of amateurs, outside the tertiary
education system, who would like to see the fruition of the Ausroc launch
vehicle program and its associated benefits. The Ausroc III program is
broken down into the following work areas:
 
                                Propulsion
                                Structures
                                Navigation, Guidance & Control
                                Flight Electronics
                                Ground Infrastructure
                                Payload
 
5. AUSROC III PROPULSION SYSTEM
 
In meeting our primary objective of lofting a 100 kg payload to 500 km, we
started by determining the type of rocket propulsion that would be used as
this would, undoubtedly, determine the size of the vehicle and the required
subsystems. Our preliminary calculations, using a trajectory simulation
program (ref.1) indicated that approximately 1200 kg of propellant,
assuming an average specific impulse of 250 sec, will be required to meet
the objective. Solid, liquid and hybrid rocket propulsion systems were
considered for use on Ausroc III.
 
Australia does not yet have the capacity to cast the required 1200kg of
solid propellant from one mix and the mixing, storing and transportation of
solid propellant is a hazardous operation that requires strict process
control and safety supervision. 
 
A hybrid rocket has a solid fuel grain and a liquid oxidiser. The fuel is,
generally, no more dangerous than a block of rubber and the oxidiser can be
loaded at the launch site. With this system there are no storage or
transportation problems and in the case of a malfunction there is no
opportunity for the 2 propellants to intimately mix and explode. Hybrids,
however, have not had the same extensive development history as solid and
liquid rockets and for this reason there is only a limited amount of
published data available on hybrid rocket propulsion. 
 
Liquid fuelled rockets offer a safety advantage over solid propellant
rockets in that the propellants are only loaded into the vehicle at the
launch site. This way, the rocket is safe and easy to store and transport.
The Ausroc team has chosen to develop a bi-propellant liquid propulsion
system, utilising liquid oxygen and kerosene for use in Ausroc III for the
following reasons:
                
                        a. High Specific Impulse
                        b. Lowest Propellant Cost
                        c. Large technical data base exists
                        d. Motors are controllable and reusable
                        e. Vehicle is inert and safe until fuelled on launcher
 
5.1 Motor Design
 
Due to the complexities involved with turbo-pump propellant delivery
systems, Ausroc III will utilise a pressure feed system to deliver the
propellants to the combustion chamber. Thus the propellant tanks must
operate at pressures in excess of the chamber pressure. A combustion
pressure of 2 MPa was chosen as a good compromise between overall tank
weight and specific impulse. 
 
The propulsion system will be operational for the first 80 seconds of
flight in a pressure environment that extends from 1 atm at launch to a
near vacuum at shut-down. The Ausroc III motor nozzle will be designed to
expand the 2 MPa combustion gases to 0.55 x ambient pressure at sea-level
to avoid nozzle flow separation. This corresponds to a nozzle expansion
ratio of 6. Given these values, the optimal propellant mixture ratio
(Mox/Mf) of 2.4 was determined using the Nasa/Lewis thermodynamics code
(ref.2). The continual decrease in ambient pressure, as the rocket gains
altitude, causes a proportional increase in motor thrust. This increase in
thrust corresponds to an increase in specific impulse (Isp) and the thrust
coefficient (Cf). 
 
In order to avoid any possible interaction between the rocket and the
launcher stand at lift-off, a net launch acceleration of approximately 1g
was specified. This implies a lift-off thrust of 35 kN. With this
information the motor geometry can be determined using a set of standard
motor equations as can be found in refs.3-4. Table I summarises the key
motor parameters and dimensions.
 
Four cooling techniques were considered for the Ausroc III motor. These
were regenerative, ablative, radiation and film. Regenerative cooling
involves the circulation of one of the propellants through passages along
the motor wall to absorb the heat transfered from the chamber. Ablative
motors are one shot devices used, primarily, in short burn liquid motors or
solid propellant motors. They use endothermic materials which decompose and
absorb large quantities of heat in the process. Radiation cooling relies on
the motor wall reaching thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.This
requires the use of rare and expensive high temperature refractory metals
and ceramics. Film cooling can be incorporated into any of the previous 3
types of motors and involves injecting a coolant fluid along the motor wall
to generate a 'cool' gas boundary layer to slow the rate of heat transfer.
 
TABLE I: AUSROC III Motor Specifications
 
        Fuel:                           Kerosene
        Oxidiser:                       Liquid Oxygen
        Burn Duration:                  80 sec.
        Combustion Pressure:            2 MPa
        Mixture Ratio (Ox/F):           2.4
        Thrust Correction Factor:       0.94
        Thrust Coefficient:             1.394 s.l. - 1.698 vac.
        Specific Impulse (corrected):   241 sec (s.l.) - 293 sec. (vac.)
        Thrust (N):                     35 kN (s.l.) - 42.6 kN (vac.)
        Nozzle Throat Diameter:         130 mm
        Nozzle Expansion Ratio:         6
        Nozzle Exit Diameter:           320 mm
        Expansion Cone Half Angle:      15 degrees
        Chamber Contraction Ratio:      3
        Chamber Diameter:               230 mm
        Characteristic Length (L*):     1.0 m 
        Chamber Length:                 340 mm
        Contraction Cone Half Angle:    30 degrees
        Throat Radius:                  65 mm
        Contraction. Rad:               65 mm
 
The Ausroc III program will require numerous static firings to fine tune
the motor performance and control system before a launch can be approved.
Ablative motor construction was eliminated on the grounds that multiple
firings would require multiple motors to be manufactured and this would
increase the costs of development. To meet the multiple firing criterion
for the motor, a regenerative cooling system has been selected. Of the 2
propellants onboard Ausroc III, the kerosene fuel was selected as being the
more suitable regenerative coolant. 
 
A program of work is currently being undertaken to develop a 'Tube Wall'
rocket motor for Ausroc III. This motor is fabricated by brazing together
and reinforcing a bundle of pre-contoured nickel alloy coolant tubes and
attaching inlet and outlet manifolds. The tubes form the geometric wall of
the motor. Once the tooling has been established to fabricate the first
motor, it would be a relatively straightforward process to produce
subsequent motors for further development or future vehicles. 
 
The propellant requirements and tank volumes can be calculated with a
knowledge of the specific impulse, thrust level, mixture ratio, ullage
requirements and burn time. The propellant requirements are as follows:
 
        Propellant Mass Flow = F / Isp g = 14.8 kg/s 
        Mass of Propellant = 80 x 14.8 = 1184 kg
 
Mass Lox = 836 kg               Mass Kerosene = 348 kg
Density of Lox = 1142 kg/m3     Density of Kerosene = 800 kg/m3
Volume of Lox = 732 lt          Volume of Kerosene = 435 lt
Lox Tank Volume = 800 lt        Kerosene Tank Volume = 500 lt
 
The rocket, as mentioned previously, is to be pressure fed. There are 2
gases that have been identified as being applicable to this application;
nitrogen and helium. Nitrogen was eliminated as the flight pressurant gas
on the grounds of its 7 fold increase in weight over helium and also
because of the close proximity of its boiling point to that of the lox
which causes density and solubility problems. Nitrogen, however, is very
cheap and readily available in large quantities. For the static firings and
ground tests, nitrogen can be used as the pressurant since weight and
storage volume is not of concern in these instances. 
 
The flight pressurant tank will store the helium gas at high pressure
(30MPa). This high pressure gas will then be regulated down to the liquid
oxygen and kerosene tank pressures of 3 and 4MPa respectively. Thus, a
pressure tank volume of 200 lt, which includes an extra 20 lt for the cold
gas roll control thrusters, is required.
 
5.2 Injector Design
 
The injector attaches to the forward end of the motor and its purpose is to
introduce and meter the propellants into the combustion chamber. It also
atomises and mixes the propellants to enhance combustion efficiency. The
Ausroc III injector design is being modelled on the Ausroc II injector
configuration. A set of 200 triplet injectors are to be used whereby 2 15
degree half angle fuel injection streams impinge with each axial oxidiser
stream. The injector elements are to be 2.1mm diameter for the liquid
oxygen and 1.05mm diameter for the kerosene (ref. 6). 
 
To assist in chamber wall cooling, it is planned to bias the mixture ratio
of the injectors which are closest to the wall in favour of the fuel. This
generates a cooler fuel rich zone along the inside wall of the motor. The
injector configuration also has a substantial effect on combustion
stability and this issue will receive further attention in the near future.
The injector will be manufactured from aluminium alloy due to its
machinability and high heat transfer coefficient.
 
5.3 Propellant Utilisation System
 
The propellant utilisation system consists of the following items; ball
valves, valve actuators, flow meters, tank level sensors and fill/drain
facilities.This system controls the flow of propellant during startup, burn
and shutdown and also has provision for interfacing to the launcher
fuelling equipment. For the majority of the burn time the propellant
utilisation system will ensure that the mixture ratio of the propellants is
maintained at 2.4. Towards the end of burn, the system will continually
sense the tank levels and adjust the mixture ratio to ensure that both
propellants are exhausted simultaneously. Failure to do this can lead to
considerable performance losses. 
 
6. AUSROC III STRUCTURE
 
The performance of a rocket structure is usually determined by its mass
ratio. The mass ratio is the ratio of propellant weight to total weight
excluding payload. The Ausroc team has set a target mass ratio of 0.85 for
the Ausroc III system. This means that for a propellant mass of 1200 kg,
the total dry weight of all non-payload items will be approximately 220 kg.
This target mass ratio is quite high for a pressure-fed liquid fuelled
rocket and extensive use of strong, lightweight materials will be essential
to achieve it. For this reason it was decided to develop the system around
the use of high strength and lightweight filament wound tanks and composite
layup fairings. Where possible, 7075 aluminium alloy will be used for
machined components.
 
6.1 Structure Components
 
It was determined (ref.5) that the optimal length to diameter (L/D) ratio
of the launch vehicle, to minimise drag, was approximately 12. Given this
value and the tank and payload volume requirements, the body dimensions
were set at:
 
                Nominal Body Diameter:          0.7 m
                Total Body Length:              8.4 m (includes payload)
 
Ausroc III consists of 12 major structural items which are listed in Table
II and shown in figure 1. The 3 pressure vessel tanks are to be
manufactured by filament winding epoxy resin impregnated carbon fibre
rovings over thin walled stainless steel or aluminium mandrels. The
mandrels also serve as impervious tank liners. The performance rating of
pressure vessels is usually given in units of meters and determined by the
following relationship:
 
                Performance Rating = Pressure x Volume / Mass x g
 
Modern high performance aerospace pressure vessels have been fabricated,
via filament winding techniques, with performance values exceeding 25000m.
The minimum performance for the Ausroc III filament wound tanks has been
specified as 12000m since no tanks of this type have been manufactured in
Australia to date and much has to be learnt regarding the processes
involved. 
 
In March 1993 a filament winding machine, of sufficient size to manufacture
the Ausroc III tanks and being surplus to DSTO requirements, was transfered
on permanent loan to the Mechanical Engineering Dept. of the University of
Adelaide. This machine is currently being commissioned by the department
for student projects.
 
TABLE II: Ausroc III Major Structural Items
 
Item    Structure                       Fabrication Method
 
1       Nose Cone                       Composite Lay-up
2       Payload Fairing                 Composite Lay-up
3       Payload Support Structure       Machined 7075 Al.
4       Helium Tank (30 MPa)            Filament Winding
5       Upper Intertank Fairing         Composite Lay-up
6       He/Lox Tank Interface           Machined 7075 Al.
7       Lox Tank (3 MPa)                Filament Winding
8       Lower Intertank Fairing         Composite Lay-up
9       Lox/Kero Tank Interface         Machined 7075 Al.
10      Kerosene Tank (3.5 MPa)         Filament Winding
11      Boattail Fairing                Composite Lay-up
12      Thrust Mount / Gimbal Unit      Machined 7075 Al.
 
The fairings are to be manufactured as single piece units using composite
lay-up construction techniques which use pre-preg carbon fibre mat
materials and autoclave curing processes. Honeycomb sandwich cores will be
used where enhanced strength and stiffness properties are required. The all
composite fairings will bolt directly to aluminium mounting rings which are
filament wound into each end of the 3 flight tanks. 
 
Each fairing will contain 2 flush mounting hatches, 250 x 250mm square, for
access and assembly purposes. All the cylindrical fairings are to be
manufactured with common tooling and both intertank fairings are to be
identical  items. The junction between the base of the payload fairing and
the helium tank will contain a separation device that will be initiated
immediately after engine cut-off. This device will disconnect the payload
module and provide a positive separation force.  
 
The nose cone is a tangent-ogive with an L/D of 2.14 and will incorporate
ablative materials to protect it from the high aerodynamic temperatures
experienced during the flight. A number of air pressure ports will be
incorporated into the nose cone to provide air speed and angle of attack
data to the flight computer.
 
The boattail fairing has a 6 degree taper to reduce the base area of the
rocket by approximately 50%. This significantly reduces the base drag of
the vehicle. 
 
The thrust mount / gimbal assembly, to be manufactured from 7075-T6
aluminium stock, is a multi-purpose item which transfers the vectored
thrust load of the motor into the vehicle structure. It also provides
interfacing and mounting provisions for the following:
 
                        -Propellant utilisation system components
                        -Hydraulic system components
                        -Launcher release system
 
6.2 Structure Analysis
 
The Ausroc III vehicle will be exposed to a multitude of loads including
ground winds, wind shear, motor thrust, aerodynamic drag and lift,
propellant slosh and TVC. The structure is being designed to withstand a
flight angle of attack of 5 degrees at maximum dynamic pressure (69kPa).
The calculated normal force distribution imposed on the vehicle during
these conditions is shown in figure 2. 
 
Wind tunnel testing of a scale model will be undertaken to verify the
calculated aerodynamic coefficients A theoretical analysis of the static
and dynamic characteristics of individual structural components and the
integrated assembly will be undertaken using finite element analysis
techniques to ensure that the structure will maintain its integrity for the
entire flight profile. 
 
It is essential to ensure that the natural frequency of the vehicle does
not coincide with the control system frequency of 10 Hz. Therefore a target
first natural frequency for the structure has been set at 30 Hz. This
analysis is to be followed up by a test and evaluation program utilising
flight hardware.
 
 
Figure 2: Ausroc III Normal Force Distribution
 
 
7. AUSROC III  GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION  &  CONTROL (GN&C)
 
Information in this section was obtained from ref 8.
 
7.1 Navigation
 
Navigation involves the determination of the position, velocity and
attitude of the vehicle with respect to a convenient reference frame. The
inertial measurement unit (IMU) consists of sensors that are attached to
the vehicle body. Gyroscopes sense the angular velocity of the vehicle and
accelerometers sense the specific force. Navigation will be done by a
dedicated computer which will communicate with the IMU, GPS and the
computer responsible for guidance and control.
 
7.2 Guidance
 
Guidance involves using navigation data and guidance algorithms to generate
commands for the control system in order to achieve the desired trajectory.
The commands consist of attitude or attitude rate commands. The current
trajectory profile consists of:
 
        1. Vertical Ascent to 200m.
        2. Pitch over, decreasing the flight angle from 90 to 88 degrees.
        3. Gravity turn, to minimise aerodynamic loads.
        4. Coast, until initial recovery system deployment.
        5. Final recovery system deployment using steerable parachute.
 
Wind loads during the period of high dynamic pressure will be reduced by
'steering into the wind'. This is done by using the lateral acceleration
measurements to null side forces. When the dynamic pressure becomes low
enough, a closed loop guidance algorithm can be used to reduce the effects
of disturbances such as wind and non-ideal vehicle behaviour. The guidance
algorithms will be implemented as part of the software of the flight
management computer.
 
7.3 Control
 
Control refers to the control of the vehicle, implemented as a closed loop
control system. This accepts attitude or attitude rate commands and
generates commands for the thrust vector control system (TVC). It uses IMU
data to provide feedback for its control loops. The control algorithms will
also be implemented as part of the software of the flight management
computer. Given the nature of the Ausroc III system, it was decided to
implement an electro-hydraulic, gimballed motor TVC system to provide
control in the pitch and yaw planes and a cold gas thruster system for roll
control.
 
 
8. AUSROC III  ELECTRONICS
 
For Ausroc III to achieve its stated program objectives, a comprehensive
flight management system is required. This system will consist of the
following major items:
 
                1. Flight management controller (FMC)
                2. Inertial Navigation Unit (INU)
                3. Attitude Control System (ACS)
                4. Power Supply and Control (PSC)
                5. Data Acquisition and Telemetry
                6. Electro / Hydraulic / Pyrotechnic Drivers
                7. Flight Termination System (FTS)
                8. Radar Transponder
 
Figure 3 and reference 7 provide the general arrangement of the electronics
systems. It is proposed to use commercial 32 bit 80386 motherboards for the
FMC, ACS and INU due to low cost and easy access to peripherals,
documentation and software development tools. The 'C' programming language
has been selected as the basis for all flight software development. The
communications interface bus between all the system units has not yet been
determined but the current options include RS-422, Ethernet and Mil-1553B.
 
The complete data acquisition and telemetry system will consists of up to
128 sensors, 16 data formatters, a multiplexer and a transmitter. The
telemetry transmitter is to have a bandwidth of 500 kHz, a minimum power
output of 5W and operate on either L-band or S-band. A similar video
transmitter is to be included to relay optical data from the flight  and
payload cameras. 
 
Two C-band radar transponders will be incorporated into the vehicle to
assist the Woomera range radars in providing accurate range safety
tracking. A Flight Termination System (FTS) utilising 2 WREBUS receivers
will provide command destruct capability. WREBUS was the system used
extensively at Woomera in the past. It is planned to develop an
omnidirectional strip antenna unit for each of the flight transmitters and
receivers to provide complete coverage irrespective of vehicle attitude.   
 
 
9. AUSROC III  GROUND  SUPPORT
 
        Ground support includes such things as: transportation, assembly,
test, fuelling, launcher stand, launch control centre, tracking, flight
termination, film and video systems and vehicle recovery.  Woomera is the
intended launch site for Ausroc III and, in particular, we are focussing on
the use of Site 5 which is the old abandoned Black Knight launch site and
is located approximately 5 km SW of the range instrumentation building. The
block house still exists at site 5 and the exhaust deflection pit can be
refurbished. As currently designed the launcher stand and access tower also
doubles as the transport cradle and assembly jig. 
 
The range instrumentation building is more than adequate for use as the
launch control centre. Pre-flight assembly and test will be performed in
Test shop 1 as was done during the Ausroc II trial. There are currently 2
operational Adour radar units at the range, and with the use of
transponders on the rocket, they would be capable of tracking the vehicle
for its full 500km apogee trajectory. A high power flight termination
system transmitter will need to be installed on the range and tested. Real
time display and analysis of critical flight parameters will be available
via an electrical umbilical prior to launch and by RF link after liftoff. A
dedicated launch sequence controller will be developed to perform the
critical preflight system checks, the launch sequence and abort routines.
 
10. CONCLUSION
 
The Ausroc III program has now been in existence for 3 years and in that
time approximately 50 students from 9 Universities around the country have
undertaken engineering design exercises from the broad range of launch
vehicle disciplines making up the Ausroc III system. The program represents
a learning experience for all those involved since no launch vehicle of
this type has ever been developed in Australia.  
 
Projects will continue to be forwarded to the Universities around the
country in future years, culminating with the construction and test flight
of the prototype vehicle. It is the belief of the ASRI directors and the
Ausroc coordination team that the "hands-on" approach to launch vehicle
education, as is currently being provided, will enhance the national
technology base and provide a small stream of enthusiastic engineers and
scientists capable of participating in future national or international
programs.   
 
11. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
As previously discussed, the Ausroc III program is dispersed throughout
Australia. There are currently no fewer than 30 students and qualified
engineers and technicians involved in the program. The author wishes to
thank the lecturers and students from the following universities for their
involvement in the Ausroc III Program:
 
                        University of Adelaide
                        University of South Australia
                        Monash University
                        RMIT
                        University of NSW
                        University of Sydney
                        University of Queensland
                        Queensland University of Technology
                        University of Southern Queensland
 
The author would also like to thank the many Ausroc core group members and
industrial sponsors who have given much in the way of personal time and
resources to the Ausroc activities over the past years. Their enthusiasm
and commitment to an Australian Space Program is what has kept this program
alive.
 
REFERENCES
 
No.             Author                          Title
 
1.              Cheers A.        "A Spherical Earth Model Particle
                                 Trajectory Simulator Utilising a 4th Order
                                 Runge-Kutta Method" Computer Program (c)
                                 Ardebil 1991
 
2.              Gordon S. and   "Computer Program for Calculation of
                McBride B.      Complex Chemical  Equilibrium Compositions,
                                Rocket Performance, Incident and Reflected
                                Shocks and Chapman-Jouguet Detonations"
                                NASA SP-273  1967
 
3.              Huang D. and    "Design of Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines"
                Huzel D.        NASA SP-125  1971
 
4.              Sutton G.       "Rocket Propulsion Elements"
                                John Wiley & Sons 1986
 
5.              Clayton A.      " Pressure Vessel and Fairing Design for the
                Heiland T.      AUSROC III Amateur Rocket System"
                Reddon G.       University of Adelaide, Project Thesis 1991
 
6.              Williams W.     "Propellant Injector Design Notes for Ausroc III
                                Liquid Fuelled Rocket"  Ausroc Conference 1991
 
7.              Simmonds S.     "Ausroc III - Flight Management System"
                                Technical Note 1993
 
8.              Cheers A.       "Ausroc III - G N & C"  Technical Note 1993
 
 
Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in directory space/AUSROC
 
--
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.     [email protected]

Article: 79681
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: AUSROC Update (October 1993)
Date: 13 Dec 93 17:12:25 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia
 
AUSROC PROGRAM UPDATE
October 1993
 
AUSROC II-2
 
The AUSROC II-2 vehicle is, essentially, a modified AUSROC II with improved
features to eliminate the possibility of a recurrence of events that resulted
in the destruction of the original vehicle. The overall length of the vehicle
will be close to the original 6 m but the body diameter has been reduced from
258 mm to 250 mm due to the availability of commercial tubestocks. The new
vehicle is being manufactured in anticipation of a mid 1994 trial out at the
Woomera Rocket Range. Below is the current status of each of the major
components of the new vehicle.
 
The lox/kero engine from the original Ausroc II is being reused since it
received essentially no damage from the failed flight attempt. We have decided
that the backup injector will be used even though the original injector is 
still in usable form.
 
Three Apollo brand stainless steel ball valves have been purchased; one each
for the lox and kerosene systems and 1 spare. The kerosene valve assembly,
complete with Kinetrol 02 pneumatic actuator, is complete and has undergone
initial testing. The lox valve assembly has been completed. A pneumatic piston
and lever arm arrangement has replaced the original kinetrol actuator in this
new assembly. The piston assembly allows for greater thermal isolation between
the actuator and the lox valve. The plastic pneumatic hoses have been replaced
by 3.2 mm diameter stainless steel tubing and swagelok fittings.
 
From a structural point of view, all body tube sections of the rocket have been
cut. They need to be squared on the lathe and have the access holes milled into 
them in preparation for the installation of the hatch backing plates. The fin
unit has been complete for some months now and uses 3 ex-Aerohigh fins instead
of the 4 fin arrangement from the original vehicle. The new fins and fin mounts
also represent an increase in strength over the original arrangement. The 
thrust mount which connects the engine, injector and fin unit to the airframe
has been completed and awaits installation.
 
The tank tubes have been cut to length but still need to be squared on the
lathe. The tank end-caps are in the process of being machined on an NClathe.
Once complete the end caps will be welded to the tank tubes and then heat
treated and remachined to the final dimensions.
 
The nose cone is complete and we are currently awaiting the completion of the
nose adapter rings. The 2 stage parachute recovery system has been refurbished
and repacked as per the original design and awaits instalment into the vehicle.
The deployment pyrotechnics will remain the same and are awaiting instalment.
The pitot tube was straightened out after impacting the ground during the
failed flight attempt.
 
The helium pressurisation system is using the original ball valve and Kinetrol
03 actuator and is complete. A new CIG glass wrapped pressure bottle has been
purchased and the wall adapter rings and tensioner bars have been manufactured
and attached. The pressure regulators are awaiting reseal kits for refurbish-
ment. All plumbing adaptors for the propellant and helium systems have been
completed ready for instalment including the 2 new check valves to prevent
backflow of gases between the 2 tanks.
 
As soon as the tanks and body tubes are completed the segments will be bolted
together and the plumbing installed and tested. This assembly will be under-
taken in Melbourne.
 
The electronics have been progressing swiftly on this second vehicle and have
been revised to simplify the interfacing between the various components. All
circuit boards are eurocard size. The following items are currently complete:
 
1. Main CPU
2. Pyrotechnics Driver
3. Power Supply
4. Analog Conditioner
5. Analog/Digital Converter
6. Video/Audio Transmitter (444 MHz)
 
Items not complete at this stage include the card cage, 1 Mbyte eeprom board,
wiring loom, disconnect plug wall adapters and the antennas. We are also still
awaiting the GPS unit and GPS antennas. The following is a list of sensors
which are to be incorporated into the Ausroc II-2 structure:
 
1. Lox, Kero & Helium Tank Pressures
2. Lox, Kero & Helium Valve position sensors
3. Motor Pressure
4. Pitot Tube - Dynamic and Static Pressure
5. Nose Temperature
 
In regard to the launcher, it will have to be refurbished. A stiffener truss
has been designed and needs to be manufactured and welded to the back of the
launch rail. The stiffener truss will make the rail more rigid and allow more
force to be applied to the tensioner cables.
 
The majority of the Ausroc II-2 materials and eqipment have now been purchsed
with the financial assitance provided by the Australian Space Office. At this
stage it is estimated that a further $6000 will be required to complete the
Ausroc II-2 program provided that the Woomera Launch and insurance policy are
essentially free of charge.
 
A submission has been made to RAAF-ARDU several months ago to undertake a 
second launch campaign at Woomera some time in 1994. A decision regarding this
second Ausroc campaign has not yet been made. The mimimum Woomera Range
requirements requested for the Ausroc II-2 trial are as follows:
 
1. Use of Test Shop 1 for pre-flight assembly and test.
2. Use of the IB for Ausroc telemetry equipment.
3. Launcher Area 2. (Using existing Ausroc II launcher)
4. Equipment Centre 2. For launch control operations.
5. Range intercom and timing system.
6. One Adour radar for range safety trace and impact location.
 
A launch liability insurance cover was obtained for the first trial from the
Australian Space Insurance Group, which is based in Melbourne. This policy was
written to indemnify the Commonwealth to the extent of 10 million dollars. A
similar policy will be organised in the near future for the second trial.
 
We were initially planning to have the Ausroc II-2 vehicle completed by the
end of 1993. However, delays with the propellant tanks will push the completion
date into early 1994.
 
 
AUSROC III
 
The Ausroc III program is progressing well. To date, most of the Ausroc III
projects have been theoretical in nature and little in the way of financial
resource has been required to support the program. However, it is expected
that development construction of AUSROC III items will commence in ernest in
1994.
 
Students at Adelaide Uni. undertaking the motor gimbal project have fabricated
and tested a 2 axis gimbal rig and gone a long way towards completing the 
design of the hydraulic system. A prototype cold gas thruster has been developed
and tested by a student at the Uni. of SA. Several dynamic analysis studies
have been undertaken by students at QUT and UNSW. The motor heat transfer
analysis has been undertaken by students at Monash and Adelaide Universities.
Many other projects are currently underway and due for completion by December.
 
In all, 20 student projects are being undertaken in 1993 which are related to
Ausroc III. Talks are to be given by most of these student groups at the ASRI
conference in December.
 
Mark Blair
ASRI Director
Ausroc Program Coordinator
 
--
Previous AUSROC updates can be obtained by anonymous ftp to
audrey.levels.unisa.edu.au in directory space/AUSROC
 
Steven S. Pietrobon,  Australian Space Centre for Signal Processing
Signal Processing Research Institute, University of South Australia
The Levels, SA 5095, Australia.     [email protected]

Article: 80470
From: [email protected] (Ralph Buttigieg)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Australia in Space!
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is [email protected]
Date: 20 Dec 93 16:51:08 GMT
 
G'day All
 
Some of you may have heard of plans by a Queensland business man,
James Kennett, to launch satellites from the Northern Territory into
orbit.  These plans are real.  Three rocket launches will put 9
microsatellites in a equatorial LEO.  These satellites will be used 
to relay signals from automated sensors in remote areas. 
 
The satellites will be launched from a yet to be determined site near
Darwin.  The PacAstro PA-2 rocket will be used.  This is a small Swedish
designed 2-stage liquid fuelled rocket.  The first launches are due
early 1996. 
 
The satellite network will monitor pumping stations, irrigation and
energy systems, cattle gates, etc.  Not only will it be used in
Australia but markets in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are hoped for.
 
The important thing is this is not another Cape York project.
Contracts have been signed the money is there. (about $55M) It has the
full support of the Australian Space Office and Federal and Territory
governments. 
 
I will post any new info as it comes available.  For those interested
there a articles in Australian Financial Review 10-12-93 and the
Brisbane Courier Mail 13-12-93. 
 
Press releases have been issued by Senator Schacht, KITcom and
PacAstro.  I only have the PacAstro release so far.  It's posted as 
the next message. 
 
Ta!
 
Ralph
 
--- GoldED 2.41+
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD: Astro/Space BBS (02) 635-1204  3:713/635
(3:713/635)
 
Article: 80471
From: [email protected] (Ralph Buttigieg)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Australia in Space!
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is [email protected]
Date: 20 Dec 93 17:10:28 GMT
 
November 29, 1993
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melanie Horn, Manager of Technical Marketing
PacAstro Corporation
520 Huntmar Park Drive
Herndon, VA 22070
(703) 709-2240, (703) 709-0790 FAX
 
PacAstro Signs Agreement for 2 Launches with Australian Company
 
PacAstro Inc.   of  Herndon,  Virginia  has  taken  a  major  step  towards
providing  reliable, low cost launch services for small satellites, signing
an agreement for two launches of communication satellites to  be  developed
in Australia. The agreement with KITcom Pty of Queensland, Australia brings
PacAstro's  launch  backlog to 3 launches and over $10M. In addition to the
KITcom contract PacAstro is under contract to launch a Swedish satellite. A
fourth launch contract is currently being negotiated for a  remote  sensing
satellite.
 
KITcom is a joint venture between Kennnett International Technology P.L. of
Queensland  and several private investors. Kennett International Technology
provides security monitoring services for clients in Queensland, Australia.
The  new  LEO  messaging  service  from  KITcom  will  focus  on   security
monitoring,  sensor  readout  and  asset  management  and  will  expand the
availability of the service to all of Australia and much of  Asia,  Central
and  South  America  and Africa. Under the terms of the agreement, PacAstro
will obtain a KITcom board seat and become an equity shareholder in KITcom.
 
While larger global messaging  and  communications  systems  utilizing  low
Earth orbit constellations like Iridium and Orbcomm are not yet in service,
companies  like  KITcom  are leveraging the low cost of small satellites to
expand existing services  and  to  create  in-house,  custom  communication
systems tailored to the specific needs of their industry.
 
Australia's  massive land area and large, sparsely populated regions can be
efficiently  monitored  using  Low  Earth  Orbit  small   satellites.    In
cooperation  with  the  Australian  government,  KITcom  and  PacAstro will
service   these   markets   from   a   network   of   equatorial   orbiting
microsatellites.  Australia's space program is aggressively pursuing viable
commercial space programs, and the KITcom program is  an  early  result  of
this  pro-business  space  policy.   A  new  Australia launch site, a joint
venture corporation development of small satellites for  comunications  and
remote  sensing,  and  increased  commercial  applications  at the existing
Woomera site are other programs under consideration in Australia.
 
PacAstro was founded in 1990 by small satellite builder AeroAstro to create
the most cost effective, most reliable and highest  quality  transportation
system  for small satellites and suborbital payloads.  The company includes
team members Swedish Space Corporation, co-developer of the vehicle and the
focus  of  PacAstro's  European  Marketing   and   sales,   and   Sumitiomo
Corporation,  the $160B multinational which is bringing the PacAstro family
of low cost rocket vehicles to the Asian  market.  The  basic  PA-2  rocket
carries  750  pounds  to  orbit  for  $6M using environmentally safe, clean
liquid oxygen and kerosene propellant in a simple reliable 2 stage vehicle.
 
--- GoldED 2.41+
 * Origin: VULCAN'S WORLD: Astro/Space BBS (02) 635-1204  3:713/635
(3:713/635)
 

Article: 81427
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ASRI Conference Report (12 January 1994)
Date: 17 Jan 94 09:47:31 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia
 
ASRI  CONFERENCE  REPORT
 
On the 8-10th December 1993, the 3rd annual ASRI conference was held 
at the Signal Processing Research Institute (SPRI) Building at the University 
of South Australia. At this conference, papers from all of the ASRI program
areas were presented by ASRI members and university students from around
the country.
 
The conference attendance ranged from 20-40 over the 3 day period and
included personnel from DSTO, the SPRI, the Australian Space Office,
National Universities, Industry, retired experts from Australia's space
history, as well as ASRI members and several general public.
 
Program updates were given at the beginning of the conference, followed by
the more specific technical papers. In addition to Ausroc, Australis and
Scramjet, a new program to utilise surplus 3.5" sighter rockets, which are
currently located out at Woomera, was officially discussed for the first
time. The sighter rockets are being targeted for a number of scientific,
educational and hardware evaluation roles to enable ASRI to further promote
space science and technology in Australia and gain more trials experience. 
 
Some 26 University students participated in ASRI projects in 1993. However,
due to work, family or financial reasons, only 11 of these students were
able to attend the conference and deliver their project results in person.
Some of the papers were delivered by proxy. All students, however, have
provided project reports which have been added to the ASRI reference
library.
 
The quality of the project work, as a whole, was most impressive with some
of the projects producing and testing development hardware. All projects
have contributed new information, some of which has already led to several
design improvements in the Ausroc III launch vehicle program.
 
The results of the 1993 project work has assisted in the preparation of
project work for 1994. Several third year engineering students were also
present at the conference to get information and ideas for potential
project work in 1994.
 
Two student awards were presented at the conference. These were for 'Best
Presentation' and 'Most Outstanding Project'. The 'Best Presentation' award
was presented by Frank Eliason from the Australian Space Office, one of our
major sponsors, to Alec Bachorski from Adelaide University who had
undertaken a combined project with Greg Brown titled 'Control System
Simulator'. 
 
The 'Most Outstanding Project' award was presented by Mark Blair, the ASRI
Chairman, to Stuart Tibbits and Jason Wellington again from Adelaide
University who had undertaken the 'Ausroc III Motor Gimbal System' project.
This project involved the design, FEM modelling, fabrication and test of
the complete gimbal rig assembly for the Ausroc III motor. 
 
Alec, Stuart and Jason are to be congratulated for their enthusiasm and
commitment during 1993 as are all those who participated in the ASRI
programs.  
 
A third award was presented by Tzu-pei Chen, the ASRI Treasurer, to Mark
Blair. This award was a certificate signed by representatives from leading
amateur groups in the USA, the UK and Australia in recognition of his
efforts in the promotion and development of amateur rocketry.
 
The final day of the conference had papers presented by Frank Eliason from
the ASO, outlining the Australian Government Space Program, John Douglas
from the SA Economic Development Authority, outlining space industry
developments in SA and Mark Blair, presenting a paper on international
amateur programs. From these papers it was clear that ASRI is one of the
largest organisations of its type in the world and can make a useful
contribution to the development of a National Space Program.
 
The conference was capped off by a tour to the Woomera Rocket Range. 
During this tour, 17 of the conference delegates we were able to visit 
numerous facilities around the range including:
 
        Instrumentation Building (the range nerve centre)
        Test Shop 1 (where Ausroc II was assembled and tested)
        Explosives Fitting Shop
        Evetts Field Runway
        Launcher Area 2 (where Ausroc II  was launched)
        Launcher Area 5 (where Black Arrow & Black Knight were launched)
        Launcher Area 6 (where Blue Streak / ELDO were launched)
        Launcher Area 8 (where Redstone / WRESAT was launched)
        Launcher Area 9 (where Rapier and Sea Wolf were launched)
 
Thanks must be given to John Draper, the RAAF Range Manager, for arranging
the tour and Bob Dyer, one of the Woomera Area Administrators, for acting
as tour guide for us and arranging the barbecue at Breen Park on the
Saturday night. Bob must also be thanked for introducing a number of our
contingent to the sport of sailboarding on one of the many large salt lakes
in the area.
 
Finally, the ASRI Directors would like to thank all the ASRI members and
University students for their involvement in the various ASRI programs
throughout 1993. The valuable technical input which they have provided by
undertaking projects has brought us closer to achieving our goals and
meeting our constitutional objectives.
 
Mark Blair (January 1994)

Article: 81428
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ASRI Technical Reports (12 January 1994)
Date: 17 Jan 94 09:49:16 +1030
Organization: University of South Australia
 
ASRI TECHNICAL REPORTS
 
This article provides a list of all ASRI technical reports. These reports
are the result of project work undertaken by ASRI personnel and university
students from around the country. The list includes reports from all ASRI
program areas. Copies of these reports are kept at the ASRI library and can
be obtained from:
 
                ASRI Technical Publications Officer
                PO Box 184
                Ryde  NSW  2112
 
                Phone:  (08) 287-0078
                Fax:    (08) 287-0078
 
The references provided indicates the year in which the report was written
followed by the report number for that year. 
 
 
ASRI  REPORT  LIST              (as of 12/1/94)
 
Ref.    Title                                   Author/s     Uni/Group
 
89-1    AUSROC I  Design Report                 M. Blair     Ausroc Core
                                                J. Coleman   Ausroc Core
89-2    AUSROC II  Design Report                M. Blair     Monash Uni.
                                                P. Kantzos   Monash Uni.
 
 
90-1    Future Projects Proposal Document       M. Blair     Ausroc Core
90-2    Study of a Suborbital uG Booster        T. McDonald  RMIT
                                                A. Sinclair  RMIT
90-3    Ablation of Scramjet Surfaces           D. Griffin   Qld. Uni.
 
 
91-1    Pressure Vessel and Fairing Design      G. Reddon    Adel. Uni.
        for Ausroc III                          T. Heiland   Adel. Uni.
                                                A. Clayton   Adel. Uni.
91-2    Telemetry Encoder (I)                   P. Beck      Uni. of SA
91-3    Telemetry Encoder (II)                  A. Paravati  Uni. of SA
91-4    Thermal Effects on Concrete             B. Dugdale   Uni. of SA
                                                S. Turner    Uni. of SA
91-5    Helium Flow Management System           N. Duoc      Monash Uni.
91-6    Inertial Navigation System              J. Chard     Monash Uni.
91-7    Autopilot Control System for a Rocket   B. Ang       Monash Uni.
                                                T. Nguyen    Monash Uni.
91-8    Chamber Gimbal System                   P. MacKenzie Monash Uni.
                                                M. Stent     Monash Uni.
91-9    Ausroc III Trajectory Simulator         M. Huth      QUT
91-10   Ausroc III Propulsion System            M. Blair     Ausroc Core
91-11   Ausroc III Injector Design              W. Williams  Ausroc Core
91-12   Ausroc Program Paper                    M. Blair     Ausroc Core
91-13   Ausroc IV - Orbital Capability          M. Blair     Ausroc Core
 
 
92-1    Ausroc III Gimbal Mount                 H. Clifford     Adel. Uni.
                                                S. Tibbits      Adel. Uni.
                                                J. Wellington   Adel. Uni.
92-2    Telemetry Aquisition System             G. Herman       Uni. of SA
92-3    Ausroc III Launcher Stand & Tower       F. Nastasi      U.S.Q.
                                                F. Jacobson     U.S.Q.
92-4    Ausroc III Launcher Connects            A. Ried         U.S.Q.
92-5    Ausroc III Lox Loading System           D. Miller       U.S.Q.
92-6    Ausroc III Recovery System              P. Siaw         RMIT
92-7    Ausroc III Aerodynamic Analysis         N. O'shea       RMIT
92-8    Ausroc III Dynamic Analysis             R. Coning       RMIT
92-9    Ausroc III Autopilot Algorithm          A. Burridge     Monash Uni.
                                                A. Coia         Monash Uni.
92-10 Ausroc III Payloads                       I. French       ASERA
92-11 Ausroc Insurance Issues                   W. Jones        ASIG
                                                K. Ikin         GIO
92-12 Australia's Amateur Rocket Program        M. Blair        Ausroc Core
92-13 Ausroc III Nose Manufacture               S. Mitchell     G+D Comp.
92-14 Ausroc III Navigation and Guidance        A. Cheers       Ausroc Core
92-15 Ausroc III Trajectory Simulation          A. Cheers       Ausroc Core
92-16 Launch Operations at Woomera              W. Williams     Ausroc Core
92-17 Ausroc II Post Mortem                     T. Chen         Ausroc Core
92-18 Scramjet Comb. Chamber and Nozzle         G. Perkins      Qld. Uni.
92-19 Scramjet Fuels                            P. Petrie       Qld. Uni.
92-20 Scramjet Trajectory Analysis              M. Cheng        Qld. Uni.
92-21 Scramjet Structural Design                S. Overton      Qld. Uni.
92-22 Scramjet Ablation Analysis                S. Charleston   Qld. Uni.
92-23 Scramjet Intakes and Leading Edges        C. Doolan       Qld. Uni.
 
 
93-1    Hybrid Rocket Propulsion Project        R. Rae          USQ
93-2    Design of Cold Gas Reaction Control     J. Hamilton     Uni. of SA
        Thrusters for Ausroc III
93-3    Propellant Utilisation System for       A. Daley        QUT
        Ausroc III
93-4    Design of a Gimbal System for           S. Tibbits      Adel. Uni.
        Ausroc III                              J. Wellington   Adel. Uni.
93-5    Ausroc III Flight Simulator             A. Bachorski    Adel. Uni.
                                                G. Brown        Adel. Uni.
93-6    Development of a Solution to Cross      P. Allen        Adel. Uni.
        Coupling in a Chamber Gimballing        R. Morgans      Adel. Uni.
        System and Design of Concept
        Solutions for the Actuator Mount
93-7    Ausroc III Rocket Motor Design          P. Tan          Adel. Uni.
                                                P. Tan          Adel. Uni.
                                                A. Polujnikoff  Adel. Uni.
93-8    Payload Separation System               D. Adams        Monash Uni.
93-9    Steerable-Chute Recovery System         J. Halford      Monash Uni.
93-10   Ausroc III Regenerative Rocket Motor    H. Lee          Monash Uni.
93-11   Finite Element Analysis of Launch       S. Patch        UNSW    
        Vehicle Characteristics
93-12   Ausroc III - A Dynamic Analysis         P. Dalton       QUT
        Using FEM
93-13   Design of Supersonic Inlets with        C. Craddock     Qld. Uni.
        Shape Transition
93-14   Design of an Internal Axisymetric       C. Eckett       Qld. Uni.
        Scramjet Inlet