Conference 7.286::space

    "Safing" the launch area takes several minutes. It involves things
    like shutting down the APUs (maybe that technically happens before
    'safing' starts), purging the area of possible exhaust and propellant
    gas buildups, disarming flight pyrotechnics and destruct mechanisms,
    reducing tank pressures and possibly purging propellant lines.
    
    Essentially, it involves reversing out the operations that take
    place in the last minute or two of the countdown.
    
    gary

It was reported last night over here in England that the cause of the
problem was a 1-inch valve in the fuel system that did not close as quickly 
as it is supposed to.

There are also other problems.  There is an oxidiser leak in the RCS system 
located in the left-hand OMS pod.  To avoid having to roll everything back 
into the VAB it is planned to cut through from the cargo bay into the OMS 
pod and then apply some kind of special sealant that has been imported from 
an English company.

jb

    The valve in the fuel line is supposed to be 80% closed 2 seconds
    after it is signaled to close.  It was only 65% closed so the software
    aborted the firing.  The engineers must now determine if a) the
    valve is too slow and must be replaced, b) the valve is too slow
    but it isn't a problem (modify the software) or c) the valve is
    okay and the sensors didn't keep up with it.  They are hoping that
    they can test fire within the week even if they have to do a
    replacement.
    
    NASA officials aren't entirely disappointed since it did give the
    relatively new launch team more practice.
    
    						Mike

    Also take note of the fact that this attempt can be considered a
    success in that the purpose of these 'simulated' countdowns and
    test fireings are to find the problems.  They found some problems,
    the system works!
    
    Good job!
    jim
    

    Hmmmm...
    
    This reminds me a lot of the months preceeding Columbia's maiden
    flight. Every little detail being checked, rechecked and rechecked
    again.
    
    FIne, but the question it raises in my mind is whether this is
    necessary. I was not under the impression that the changes to the
    orbiter were so dramatic to make this an essentially new vehicle.
    
    If it is necessary, are they going to be able, and willing, to sustain
    this sort of checkout for 'routine' missions? 
    
    gary

    RE .5
    
    Really,
    
    I think it is close to the time we admit the shuttle is a mistake!
    
    It is far too much of a kludge, and not at all inexpensive.
    
    We NEED the Aerospace Plane and it MUST be little more complicated
    than the Concorde.
    
    Last night on CNN Newsnight their poll was something like should
    the shuttle be cancelled.  I think people are beginning to get fed
    up with the shuttle.
    
    Tony

    The current testing IS a lot like that preceeding Columbia's maiden
    flight.  An FRF is the closest NASA can get to an actual launch
    of the hardware.  It has been more than 2 years since the LAST
    launch of an STS.  One can almost view the launch crew as "green".
    Obviously we would prefer for them to have a refresher!  (In fact,
    one of the officials yesterday said one bright spot was that the
    launch crew would in essence have another full-scale test, as a
    previous noter mentioned.)
    
    I forget how many FRFs there were AFTER Columbia's maiden launch,
    but there definitely wasn't one before EACH launch.
    

    Concerning .6, I think you are over-reacting.
    
    If the shuttle is such a mistake, how come the Russians are building
    one which looks remarkably similar to ours (albeit a little smaller)?
    Granted, the Russian shuttle can be replaced by a cargo pod, allowing
    them to use the hardware for unmanned access to space, but making
    such a change to the shuttle system has already been proposed and
    has received some support.
    
    The BIGGEST mistake relating to the shuttle was that the government
    put all their eggs in one basket by abandoning development of other
    types of launch vehicles (e.g., rockets - remember them?).  Take
    a quick glance at the Soviet approach and you'll see what we SHOULD
    have done; continued developing ELVs as well as a shuttle system.
    
    There are certainly tasks which are best suited to the shuttle;
    one of which is returning LARGE objects from space (like satellites).
    It is NOT cost-effective or intelligent to use the shuttle as a
    launching pad for satellites, though.
    
    Approaching the NASP like we did the shuttle would be a mistake.
    The NASP should only be ONE of a NUMBER of alternative means for
    us to access space.
    
    Yes, the shuttle is too complicated, yes, a second generation of
    shuttle should be developed (along with the NASP and ELVs), yes,
    there were mistakes made assuming the shuttle was the answer to
    every space access problem, but calling the shuttle a mistake is
    to go too far.
    

    re .8
    
    The orbiter shape and aerodynamics seems to me to be about the only
    part of the Soviet shuttle that is 'remarkably similar' to the US
    shuttle. It is probably the best designed, least compromised aspect
    of the shuttle design. At least in its initial flights, the Energia
    booster is not recoverable, i.e. their shuttle flies on an ELV.
    
    The unspoken question I had in mind was that if the shuttle really
    does need this amount of babying and handholding for each launch,
    what will happen when launches get to be routine, as they hopefully
    will.
    
    As for where to go next, I have wondered if it would not be better for
    NASA to direct its energy towards 'shuttle-2' (my term, not relating to
    any specific project) rather than building a Challenger replacement.
    
    FWIW, some ELV work did continue, under USAF funding and despite
    violent protest from NASA. The result, the Titan 4, is due to fly
    in October.
    
    re .7
    
    I thought (but am not certain) a FRF took place before each flight.
    I am certain they would do so after any SSME changeout, and that
    happens fairly often.
    
    I hadn't thought of the aspect of launch crew training. That is
    certainly a valuable aspect of a FRF but NASA and the news media (i.e.
    AW&ST) have been playing the engineering apsects of the FRF. 
    
    gary

    This level of hand-holding, etc. is unacceptable for a cost effective
    system.
    
    I agree Challenger II should never be built, it is a side show,
    the real effort should be placed upon, well I think it is the National
    AeroSpace Plane.  NASP should be able to take-off from any airport
    on limited notice, Moving parts would be fewer/less complicated
    and engines more reliable.  
    
    Tony

    Why don't we figure out what our objectives are before we build
    anything else?  The Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program was a series of
    logical steps to a) put men into space and b) get them to the moon
    and back.  There was an objective and we followed thru appropriately.
    
    What is our objective now?  Commercialization?  Lunar bases?  Mars?
    Fun?  Until we know, we can't possibly build the right set of vehicles.
    Do we need to improve the Shuttle?  Build a follow-on?  Build an
    entire new system?  Go back and build the next generation Saturn?
    Let private industry take over what is now the Delta, Titan, Scout
    type launches?
    
    Until we get ourselves "organized" we might as well keep the Shuttle
    and Space Station going.  At least we'll keep our hand in it until
    we focus our energies on something.  (The Shuttle and Station may
    in fact be the first logical step for whatever we decide.)
    
    							Mike

	* flame on *
    
    This is going too far, get rid of the suttle in favor of ELVs of
    the aerospace plane etc.   Come on people, why don't you give up
    cars in favor magnetic levitation trains ...
    
    Its true the suttle has had its problems, but then risks are part
    of any big project like this. Are you telling me you have forgotten
    the Apolo (whatever) fire, Apolo 13 blow out etc.
    
    The Russians also have had their own problems. When you take a risk
    you take a risk. It means that something might go wrong, and if it
    happens you take it in stride it doesn't mean you put your tail
    betwen your legs and run if everything doesn't go 100% right. 
    
    	* flame off *
    
    Boy that felt good, what it means essentialy is that its not
    so much the sutttle technology that is shaky its the support that
    is is getting from our governament and people that is shaky in
    my opinion.
    
    							Gil
    
    

    
    The Shuttle was not a mistake, the problem is political in
    not developing both a heavy launch vehicle and the shuttle
    at the same time.  Now let us not repeat  history,
    we need the shuttle , a Heavy Launch vehicle, and we need
    to experiment in the next generation space vehicle.
    
    The only fault I can see for NASA is not letting the
    commerilization of space happen. Then the cost of
    a lauch will be driven down.  Even cars in the US
    were not inexpensive until Mr Ford developent his 
    car and manafacturing ideas, NASA should stick to
    R&D and let the 'Fords' do their work.
    
    
    As for the Russian Shutlle, it is design to be a person
    carrier and to return experiments from Russian Space
    Stations.  Cargo will be launch by the Progress units
    as it is cheaper, but  a  problem in the Russian 
    Space Program is in crew changes and no easy way to return
    material to the ground.  The Russian Shuttle has run
    into problems and it is expected that it will not be
    launch untill next year.  One small point is that
    the Energia booster are recovered but it is unknow
    it they are reused. 
    
    
    

    Back to the base not after some divergence:
    
    Over the weekend the Hydrogen valve and sensor which caused the
    abort of last week's FRF was replaced.  Test data is now being
    evaluated.  A date (sometime this week) for the next attempt at
    FRF will be set after test data has been thoroughly reviewed.

    re .13
    
    The Soviets have stated that they plan to recover/reuse parts of
    the Energia in the future. This seems consistant with their 'one
    step at a time' method.
    
    As for 'NASA bashing'... their greatest fault was to allow the shuttle
    design to be controlled by committees, and committee of managers
    and politicos at that. Despite that, NASA and contractor engineers
    built a remarkable, if over overly complex vehicle.
    
    Since their inception, they have attempted to block any space project
    that they do not have some major element of control over. In the 60s
    they even attempted to control the space programs of other countries
    when they were the only launch game in town (one of the major factors
    that lead to Ariane). Their stance against ELVs and their current
    opposition to the commercialisation of space are entirely consistant
    with their history.
    
    The comment about setting objectives before designing solutions
    was a good one. Unfortunately, if it were a choice between waiting
    for a set of objectives for the space program and building a Challenger
    replacment, I'd choose the latter, entirely out of lack of confidence
    in NASA management and the 'guvmint'.
    
    gary 

    Its about time that NASA starts to realize It cant keep throwing
    all its effort into the Shuttle.  All thats heard nowadays is the
    shuttle this and the shuttle that.  Space science missions are the
    next step if our Space Program is to succeed or even get started
    again!  

SET FLAME



I know that most anyone who reads this notes file appreciates space.  
H*ll even wishes to go there, so do I.  

3 years ago, I would have blindly defended the shuttle against all 
comers, I cannot do that today. 

I think it is time to recognize that, while not exactally a step 
backward, the shuttle is not and cannot be the great leap forward that 
it was promoted to be.  It most definately is not a "space truck" or a 
"DC-3 for space".  Yet if the U.S. is to achieve grandios objectives in 
space we must encourage/develop a "space truck" or a "DC-3 for space" 
and cut our losses with the shuttle.  

Yes, losses.

Each shuttle launch costs >$250 million for no more than 50,000 lbs. of 
cargo.  Thats $5000/lb folks, the average human would cost $1,000,000.  

I think, that each launch of the shuttle, FROM NOW ON, will be at least 
as expensive, the cost of another failure is much, much to high.

Yet, we NEED the ability to profitablly launch for less than $200/lb and 
there AIN'T no way the shuttle CAN get below $2000/lb, much less be 
allowed to be that cheap.

Every $ spent upon the shuttle now and not spent upon follow-on systems 
DELAYS the era of mass space travel!!!!

We have learned just about all we can from the shuttle, maybe get flying 
again, I don't know and won't argue against it.  We probably need the 
launch capacity now.  Certainly don't build a replacement, certainly 
don't have a agressive launch schedule for the shuttle and work VERY 
HARD on follow on systems.

SET NOFLAME

Tony

    re DC-3 of space
    
    Its interesting to consider that the DC-3 was built using technology
    developed on the DC-2, an airplane not remembered by many and
    considered unsuccessful in many ways.
    
    With some luck, maybe the STS as it exists now will become the 'DC-2 of
    space'.
    
    gary 

>< Note 446.18 by STAR::HUGHES >
>    With some luck, maybe the STS as it exists now will become the 'DC-2 of
>    space'.
    
AMEN

Tony

    Realistically, though, does anyone REALLY expect the kind of money
    required to develop a replacement for the shuttle to EVER be
    approved by those folks in Washington?  NASP isn't a replacement,
    it can only augment, and the funding for that isn't even certain.
    (If you doubt me, vote for Comrade Dukuka, and see what happens.
    Who knows for sure what Bush plans until after the convention?)
    
    It ain't gonna take luck.  It's gonna take good old fashioned GREED.
    Yep, greed.  Some company will decide there is a definite market
    for reliable access to space.  Period.  Forget all your noble and
    pure thoughts.  The only way commercial aviation developed as quickly
    as it did was for private enterprise to realize they could make
    a quick buck.  Sure, the government helps some.  After all, NASA
    does stand for National AERONAUTICS and Space Administration.
    But beyond basic research, private enterprise will have to decide
    it is in their best interests to develop space.
    
    One can view the shuttle as an early prototype.  It definitely
    provides access to space.  It DOESN'T do it efficiently or cheaply.
    That's where a second generation shuttle can win.  It won't, though,
    if it is developed by and for the government.  Anything NASA does
    produce would be too complicated, too expensive, and probably still
    quite risky.
    
    BUT, as a previous reply noted, right now the shuttle is our ONLY
    means of manned/heavy lift access to space.  It would be foolish
    to abandon it until a replacement system is available.  If anyone
    can suggest a way we can facilitate a replacement system, other
    than by private industry, air your views.  Don't look to government,
    though, 'cause the money won't be there.
    
    

                                                            
    It is not as bad as it sounds
    
    Engineers have determined that the sensor not the valve was
    malfunctiong but they have decide to replace both parts as a unit.
    The recovery team is working smmothly and it is expected taht an
    on time engine firig will happen on Wednesday AM.
    
    All three of Discovery's engines will be test fired with a part of
    the half-million gallons of fuel.  The reason given was because
    of the long time since the last flight and the many changes made
    in the shuttle since the Challenger exploded .
    
    The delays howerver will all but certain that NASA will not meet
    its goal of a launch by late Sept.
    
    

    FRF is scheduled for 7:30 am Wednesday morning.
    

    IM TRYING TO GET A LITTLE RESPONSE TO THE IDEA THAT THE SHUTTLE
    IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS IT IS MADE OUT TO BE.  IT IS JUST THAT THIS
    IS ALMOST ALL THE PUBLIC HEARS ABOUT!  NOW LETS BE REALISTIC AND
    SEE THAT THE NEXT LOGICAL STEP MUST BE AN INCREASE IN OUR SPACE
    SCIENCE BUDGET SO THAT WE CAN FURTHER DEVELOP OUR SPACE PROGRAM.
    THERE SHOULD(I BELIEVE) BE A BIGGER EMPHASIS ON SCIENCE YIELDING
    MISSIONS AS COMPARED TO THE BASIC MAN IN SPACE OR SPACE EXPLORATION
    MISSION. ANY COMMENTS

    	Please write in mixed case letters.  ALL CAPS is considered
    shouting in VAX Notes and should only be done if you are really
    angry about something.  Mixed case is also easier to read.
    
    	Larry
    

    Man in space should always get first priority, although that
    doesn't mean we should forget about unmaned science missions.
    
    I will tell you what my space plan would be were I be able 
    to say so:
    
    1 - Easy access to space and back. For now that means the shuttle,
        later on maybe the HOTOL (1 stage to LEO) shuttle.

    2 - Space station. 
    
    3 - Moon station.
    
    4 - Maned visits to Mars, Asteroids, Jupiter, Saturn, etc. This
        means building a reusable interplanetary spacecraft.
    
    5 - Mars station, Sun Earth L5 station, etc.
    
    6 - Unmaned star probe to Alpha Centuri.
    
    The above are the goals and the priorities I would set, I would
    like all these things done at once but failing that priorities
    rule.
    
    You have heard of the rider report, well this is the Gil report.
    
    							 Gil

    This may not be the note for it, but...
    
    What is the problem with using the STS to loft payloads other than
    the orbiter vehicle?  The lift capability determined by the number
    of SRB's attached to the stack.
    
    jim
    

    I agree with Gil, lots of times it looks like the planetary scientists
    are trying to make the solar system safe for robots.  Nothing wrong
    with them as advance explorers, but till you get men up there you
    aren't really doing much more than taking pictures.
    
    The shuttle is very vitally important _at_this_time_ because we
    have no other access to space.
    
    Anyone wanna bet the shuttle won't launch this calendar year?
    
    Willie

    There has been some work done on using the stack (with shuttle engines
    on an unmanned cargo section) for lifting heavy cargos, but it's
    quite expensive to use man-rated hardware to lift cargo....
    
    Willie

    I have no problem with using man rated hardware in this lift range.
    The system should have been designed for this capacity in the first
    place after the descision to scrap the SATURN system!  I am certain
    the $5000 per pound mentioned in an earlier reply is considerably
    reduced without the orbiter on the current configuration.  
    
    Looking back to some of my earlier replies to the post disaster
    recovery strategy, I feel non-man rated launches of this particular
    system would have been the right track should there have been the
    capability.  We certainly spent enough on tests of the solids to
    buy a non man launch for ground tests without "twang"
    
    I place all the anti-shuttle dialogue in the * frustration * bucket.
    

    Les
    

    After reading the previous replies to this note, I have to put in
    my two-cents worth.
    
    The shuttle is not an overengineered piece of junk.  It is a highly
    sophisticated piece of experimental equipment that is a necessary
    step in the collection of knowledge that will allow us to ultimately
    reach our space goals (what goals?) successfully and cost effectively.
    
    We hear a great deal about it because it is all that we have going
    right now.  We cannot abandon it until we have the next generation
    ready.  Hopefully the powers that be will continue with a second
    generation program that will if fact be the space DC-3 that the
    press touted the shuttle to be early in the program, probably being
    fed the info by NASA to raise the interest level for funding purposes.
    
    When I first went to the missile range to work (Jan. 1957) the ATLAS
    ICBM was being built even though at the time we had not solved to
    problem of getting anything returned from space because of the reentry
    heat problem.  We had these ultra-simple little three stage rockets
    (originally used as sounding rockets at White Sands) which we fired
    almost weekly with nose cones made of experimental materials.  By
    firing the first two stages straight up, flipping the rocket over,
    and firing the third stage down we got enough speed built up to
    simulate reentry conditions.  Using this low cost method of data
    collection we were able to have an operational nose cone available
    to put on the first ATLAS when it went up that September.
    
    With any endeavor as experimental in nature as space exploration
    it is potentially fatally dangerous to ever consider any event as
    common-place no matter how many times before it has been successful.
    Each and every event smust be considered unique and be approcahed
    with the same caution as the the first of its kind was.  Any time
    something that should be done as a safety check is not done so that
    a schedule may be met or anytime you push a device beyond its design
    envelope for whatever reason you are flirting with disaster - which
    is exactly what happened with Challenger.  In the twelve years that
    I spent on the missile range human safety was always given the top
    priority, and in that time we had only two fatal accidents; one
    involving a team of technicians readying a satallite for launch
    being worked too many overtime hours in order to maintain a published
    schedule.  For some reason that was never determined (or at least
    published) something was done that caused the rocket motors in the
    satallite to fire while it was being worked on in a hanger - resulting
    is several deaths; and the other involving a TITAN missile project
    engineer deciding to make premature modifications to his "bird"
    to give it a capability that it was not intended to have (outside
    the design envelope) and an accident involving the unauthorized
    modification caused a fatality.
    
    With the shuttle program NASA officials became complacent and began
    to take "another routine launch" attitude.  As a result they pushed
    beyond the design envelope so they could meet a schedule.  We all
    know the result.
    
    The real problem is how to fire the public's interest and especially
    the interest of Congress to keep the money coming with programs
    that appear to be full of problems because safety checks are rerun
    at the expense of published schedules.
    
    I was pleased to hear that NASA made the decision to change the
    sensor and valve that aborted the test firing last week even at
    the expense of causing another slip in the launch date because it
    indicates that NASA is once again placing safety in the position
    of top priority - where it belongs.
    
    NObody asked, just my opinion.
    					Bill
    

    Just for the record, the Titan-IV is supposed to approach the lift
    capabilities of the Shuttle.  The problem is that payloads designed
    for the Shuttle's bay may not "fit".
    
    The Titan (and Delta) are examples of what we can do *right*.  They
    are proven machines that are matched quite well to their purpose
    in life.  Unfortunately we threw Saturn away and we put a lot of
    eggs in the Shuttle basket.  Out goes proven technology.  In comes
    a good machine (my opinion) that is overloaded with too many masters.
    I think the biggest thing that hurts the Shuttle is that there are
    no alternatives for things that it doesn't do well AND we don't
    have solid objectives in our program so that we can drive the Shuttle
    toward the kind of vehicle that can excell in the program.
    
    An example of what I mean: assume that a key objective is to build
    a space platform to use as a jumping off point for Lunar and Martian
    missions.  Ignoring the monetary constraints for the moment (sigh...),
    would it not make sense to have developed a Titan-IV class launch
    capability with "cheap" technology (big dumb booster) to loft hunks
    of the platform into orbit and then design a Shuttle which was merely
    a taxi for worker-astronauts?  You would certainly end up with a
    quite different vehicle that we have today.  For one thing, we may
    not have needed those infamous SRBs.
    
    For the short haul, let's get flying again.
    
    						Mike

Re.30

>    The shuttle is not an overengineered piece of junk.  

Nobody ever said it was.


>   It is a highly sophisticated piece of experimental equipment that 
>   is a necessary step in the collection of knowledge that will allow 
>   us to ultimately reach our space goals (what goals?) successfully 
>   and cost effectively.
    
Fine, if its just a step why are we building another at a cost of $3B?  
Why not take the next necessary step.  

I agree it is good to have safety first and NASA's newfound concern for 
safety hasn't changed my opinions on the shuttle one iota.

The OPERATING cost of the shuttle will still remain on the order of 
$5000/lb (this ignores any capital cost recovery).  To achieve our goals 
in space, whatever they may be, I contend it must cost on the order of 
as much per pound as it costs to go from NY to Tokyo by air, the present 
loaded and profitable cost of such transport is about $4/lb tourist and 
$8/lb 1st class.  

>   We cannot abandon it until we have the next generation ready.  
>   Hopefully the powers that be will continue with a second
>   generation program that will if fact be the space DC-3 that the
>   press touted the shuttle to be early in the program, probably being
>   fed the info by NASA to raise the interest level for funding purposes.
    
Even though I don't advocate that we abandon the shuttle, I certainly 
advocate minimal operations and minimal build up to support operations 
that will become excess with an aerospace plane, so that we can AFFORD 
the $20B a good aerospace plane project (21st century DC-3) will cost.

Also, I think the aerospace plane should have a far higher priority 
than the space station.

Tony

Does anyone know if CNN, or anyone else for that matter, will carry the FRF
Live?  I thought it'd be nice to tape to watch later...

Jim_who's_kinda_curious...

    minor nits...
    
    re Titan IV
    
    The upper stage of the nominal Titan IV is the Centaur G Prime.
    This model of the Centaur was designed to fit, with its payload,
    in the shuttle cargo bay and the payload shrouds being built for
    Titan are intended to have approximately the same volume.
    
    The Titan has about the same payload capacity as the STS/Centaur
    G, which is less than STS/Centaur G Prime. The larger version was
    designed for NASA's planetary missions, the big USAF payloads were
    to have used the smaller Centaur and match the Titan IV's capabilities
    quite well (as intended).
    
    re unmanned shuttles (aka Shuttle-C)
    
    I think NASA has been directed to investigate using the current
    hardware in an unmanned mode to use up the inventory of old design
    SRBs. This is being driven by the potential ammonium perchlorate
    shortage. I suspect NASA will fight this, even if it is practical.
    
    I think the Shuttle-C has been canned. After all, why build something
    out of existing technology when you can develope new technology,
    i.e. ALS :-(
    
    gary

    The FRF occured on time (7:30am EDT) and appears to have been
    successful with the SSMEs burning for an average of 20 seconds under
    control of the onboard sequencers.
    
    The results are being analysed by several teams over the next three
    hours.
    
    gary

    Why is it so important to see man in space when we do not even know
    the near space around us!  Space Science missions are now at the point where
    it must show a contribution to the manned space program to recieve
    funding.  S.S. missions must be justified in terms of the shuttle
    or have alot of glamour surrounding them in order to recieve public
    support. There arent too many science yielding missions proposed
    in the mid to late 80's and that can probably be seen because of
    this. 
    How are we to continue to grow as a space program when all we want
    to do is see ourselves in space and hear about new discoveries!
     We must(I feel) conquer and fully understand the geosphere and
    near space system first! What doya think?

Rather than dumping the Shuttle, why not turn it into what it was originally
conceived as? Keep the orbiter, dump the external tank and SRBs. Design and
build the recoverable, liquid-fueled booster that was originally going to be the
'boost' half of the stack. I don't know if it would reduce $/lb., but it would
take care of any further safety issues with the SRB/tank configuration.
-Tom R.

Repair has begun on TWO leaks, one on the fuel line to the OMS, the 
other from the ET to the SSME's.

This morning NPR reported that the later leak, from the ET to the SSME, 
could cause a CATASTROPHIC failure if it failed at SSME cut-off, that is 
almost in orbit.

Tony

    The way they are attempting to fix things bothers me a bit.  From
    what I've heard NASA was very reluctant to roll Discovery back to
    the VAB after the big symbolic hype they put on for the roll out.
    "We're back on track again!"  Right. 
        So instead they are cutting holes in the cargo bay to try and 
    get at the problem and fix it without moving the shuttle off the
    launch pad.  The news report I saw said the procedure of cutting
    through the cargo bay to get at engine components had never been
    done to a shuttle on the pad before.  Are they taking risks here
    to avoid negative PR?

    Caught an item on the news this morning that yesterday's SRB test
    was successful, at least on initial review. I think this was a full
    sized moter with multiple deliberate flaws to ensure that the final
    seals etc would work if they had to.
    
    gary

    I think what disturbs me the most about the recent SRB tests was
    an attitude displayed during a previous test:
    
    There had been some firing of an SRB (or maybe a short SRB made
    out of fewer sections), and they we're claiming it to be a success,
    because the hot gasses hadn't burned all the way through the first
    O ring.
    
    Now, my reading of the Roger's Commission report, and Feynman's
    later flames (in Volume III?  I forget which one) seems to tell
    me that the O Rings aren't supposed to burn through at all, and
    if some O Ring burning occurs, the system is failing.
    
    They didn't say anything about this on yesterday's test, but I'm
    still kind of worried.
    
    Then again, this will probably be the safest shuttle launch in the
    entire program's history.  It's just the fourth or fifth launch
    after this one (and those that follow) that will have me worried.

    In reading some of the replies in this note, I am glad to see others
    who share my opinion - I think the shuttle is too temperamental,
    too high strung to be a "workhorse".
    
     In the 60's, we took well proven technology (redstone tanks and
    engines) and clustered them to build the Saturn I. Nothing fancy
    - just proven hardware. The Saturn series was extremely successful.
    Although the Saturn V had newer technology (probably the "cutting
    edge"), it is still proven technology. We were rolling them out
    so fast, that when one Apollo mission (I forget which) headed home
    for the moon, another was being rolled out to complex 39.
    
     A lot has been made of the fact hat we need to get the old Delta's,
    and Titans running again, and this may be so, for a stopgap. But
    I read an article that pointed out that they were very expensive
    machines (in $/pound) because they were originally designed to "sprint"
    off the pads. So careful attention was paid to weight - the Delta
    tanks having triangular chunks taken out of them to lighten them.
    
     Every airline operator can tell you that the machinery has to be
    good (technologically), but simple and easy to maintain - as well
    as efficient. 
    
    I think the shuttle is too delicate to become economic. I think
    we need a launch vehicle whose design concentrates, not on
    ultra-hi-tech design and efficiency - getting every last ounce of
    thrust from the fuel, and running at pressures not heretofore used -
    but designed to give good thrust, at moderate pressures, and with
    good reusability, but ABOVE ALL, maintainability. A model T engine,
    perhaps.
    
     Imagine having to cut ahole in the bulkhead to get to some plumbing!
    Imagine what the FAA would say if someone were to do that on a 747!
    
    I think the fleet should be used until they can fly no more. And
    during this time period, the designers of the nation should build
    a cheap, reliable, easy to use engine. Apply that to basic tank
    structure - pehaps with clustering in mind.
    
     Up until the shuttle, our space vehicles have been a natural
    progression - building on the knowledge of the past. Then we take
    this massive ZIG off to the side, and we have a fleet that cannot
    rack up half of their projected flights.
    
    		Gregg

    I think what really summed it all up for me was when NPR just happened
    to mention that while all tests had been sucessful and everything
    was go, the first full-scale test for cold weather conditions wouldn't
    happen until after the first flight.  Think about that for a moment....
    
    Willie

    re:-1
      Yeah, let's hope that the first launch comes before winter!
                                                
    	Pessimistically,
    		Steve
    
    :-)

    Looks like they're going for late September, NASA seems to be satisfied
    with the joint tests.  The astronauts were seen on last night's
    news, and they seem ready to go.
    
    		Steve

    Nasa plans to send all computer control data
    radioed to the Discovery in a secret code, however
    voice communication between Mission Control and the crew will continue
    to be on an open radio channel
    
    Three Militray mission flow before used encoded communications
    of controled data
                                         
    During the salavage the press were monitoring the communication
    an reporting it on TV this made the Coast Guard and NASA to
    change over to a Digital Voice Encryption System normally 
    known as DES of DVP
    
    73's jb
    
    

    In reply to 446.42, A "workhorse" has to reliable.  Certainly the
    Saturn system turned out to be reliable in each use.  But it was
    never intended for "re-use".  The model T engine was simple,
    maintainable and all those attributes, but you could not run it hard
    for long periods of time, otherwise you were maintaining it.  I
    agree that we need a "truck" and not a Mercedes.  But the developments
    in racing, work down to the passenger car, and down to the "trucks".
    30 years ago who would have thought of trucks with automatics, air
    conditioning, and engine service life rating of 200-250,000 miles
    between overhauls in a comercial service environment.  Nasa built
    a Mercedes, to do a MACKS job.  At this point in their evolution
    both can travel at about the same reliability factor.  I'm still
    hoping the Shuttle can get to the Mercedes level of maintainability,
    not the Model T's...Les

    Well, I really have no experience with model T's, though I was told
    they were tough and reliable. I just think that the machine is too
    delicate to become a workhorse. No matter how much experience we
    get with it, I think it is never going to be tough enough for hi
    reliability space ops.
    
     I like the reusability concept - who doesn't? - but I get the
    impression that designers tend to think reusability is always
    accompanied with high tech, in terms of systems design. Now, I realize
    that in many areas, like the reentry protection, reusability is
    mated with hi tech.
    
     But just stand back and look at the thing - from an overall design,
    does it have to be THAT complex?
    
     I am not so sure.
    
    		Gregg

    RE: -.01,.02
    
    Gregg,
    
    To put this to bed and in another way, the main force behind the
    model T was that it was simple enough for the common man of those
    times to deal with for both when it worked properly and to fix when
    it was broken.  It was highly maintainable without much special
    training to everyone who had them, and there was usually qualified
    help just under the next shade tree.  The shuttle is a formula 1
    race car.  It can be maintained by those who built it, but this
    knowledge is difficult to transfer to those who replace those who
    move on.  I think this is a key difference and not reuse or reliability
    or the other ---ity's.  The shuttles systems, and its limits are
    still being explored and in some cases *designed*.  It is not even
    a model T on a test track, but rather HF's (Henry Ford) first car
    ever.  
    
    I feel the sofistication of the team and the shuttle and the
    understanding that is left behind will lead to a space truck that
    has the capability of meeting the immage of the first space truck,
    ford tri-motor, model T, DC3, 707, and the like, but the shuttle
    is still in the stages of the Duryea and Lotobus.  I'm shure that
    all the pioneers in the history of the transport industry, be it
    road rail or air, never had to cope with developing their machines
    under the scruteny of the general public and instant press.  
    
    I'm also shure HF would smile at his first 5 cars, his first assembly
    line, his first 5 model T's, his first 5 model T trucks.  He would
    smile.  He would have the smile of uncertainty.  BUT history says
    he had the confidence and vision to go ahead.  
    
    Will history say the same about us?
    
    Les
    

    I totally agree with the notion that the Shuttle is a Formula 1
    race car, and THAT is the problem - you do not get maintainability,
    reliability, reusability, i.e. a workhorse, by building a formula
    1.
    
     The trickle down of knowledge and experience from the formula 1's
    is absolutely necessary - but it's place is not in the design of
    a workhorse. You do both.
    
     Example - people have hopes, and have stated so, that the shuttle
    become the DC-3 of space. The technological innovatons of the DC-3
    were NOT discovered by designing the DC-3. They came from two sources.
    First, they were carefully assembled from test aircraft which had 
    no direct connections with air transport - they were research planes.
    Secondly, they were accumulated by Douglas in the creation of the
    DC-2, and other transport airplanes.
    
     If you look carefully at the history of aircraft development, you'll
    find that the latest research airplanes most often outperformed
    the production aircraft - which is as it should be.
    
     With the shuttle, we gave away years of careful, measured development,
    and tried to create a workhorse from a test-level craft. It's the
    same as if you had taken the X-15, at the beginning of it's flight
    test, and built a cargo pod, and announced that you were ready to
    go trucking.
    
    			Gregg