Conference 7.286::space

    Will the new orbiter be enhanced or will it be the same as the older
    orbiters, i.e.,
    
    	- New computers
    
    	- Lighter
    
    	- New technology used
    
    
    Chris

    The new orbiter will be the best of the fleet. But not because
    of new technology, just because of reduced uncertainties and
    better methods gained from experience with the other orbiters.
    
    This will translated to a lighter shuttle with better performance,
    and best of all considering past and present events more reliable.
    Nothing out of this world just a few percentage points.
    
    Gil

It will also be a test bed for features that will ultimately be retro-fitted
into the existing shuttles.  The most visible example of this will be
a drogue parachute that will be deployed upon landing to slow the shuttle
down -- right now all it has are some big, heavy brakes and a requirement for
a *lot* of runway.

- dave

From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space Shuttle drag chute tests set to begin at Ames-Dryden (Forwarded)
Date: 18 Jul 90 20:03:52 GMT

Mark Hess/Ed Campion
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                      July 18, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-8536)

Don Haley
Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif.
(Phone:  805/258-8381)

Kyle Herring
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone:  713/483-5111)


RELEASE:  90-100

SPACE SHUTTLE DRAG CHUTE TESTS SET TO BEGIN AT AMES-DRYDEN

     Tests of a drag parachute system to improve the landing 
capabilities of Space Shuttle orbiters are expected to begin 
later this month at NASA's Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, 
Edwards, Calif.

     The tests are part of NASA's continuing program to upgrade 
operational capabilities and flight safety of the Space Shuttle  
fleet.

     Drag chutes are specially designed parachutes deployed from 
the aft end of an aircraft or aerospace vehicle to supplement the 
normal system of brakes and help slow the vehicle's speed after 
it has landed on a runway.  Drag chutes on the orbiters will 
permit them to land safely in a shorter distance and also help 
reduce tire and brake wear.

     The drag chute tests will be conducted on the same B-52 that 
Ames-Dryden uses as a "mothership" to take manned and unmanned 
aircraft to altitudes of up to 40,000 feet where they are air-
launched and their research flights begin.

     The orbiter drag chute is four feet smaller in diameter than 
the normal B-52 chute.  For these tests, a modified orbiter drag 
chute compartment has been mounted on the B-52.  This results in 
a difference in the load path of the parachute loads on the 
aircraft.  To handle the new loads, NASA has strengthened the 
tail section of the B-52 where the drag chute deployment system 
is located. 

     Instrumentation will record loads at various locations in 
the attachment system and aft-facing cameras will film the 
deployment of the drag chute during the tests.  Data obtained 
from the tests will be used to validate predicted loads for an 
operational orbiter.

     Eight landing tests with the orbiter chute system are 
planned at Ames-Dryden with chute deployment at speeds ranging 
from 140 to 200 knots (160 to 230 mph).  Orbiter landing speeds 
range from 180 to 225 knots (210 to 260 mph).

     The B-52 is restricted to a top landing speed of 200 knots 
in the tests because of tire limitations.

     Endeavour, the orbiter being built by Rockwell 
International, Palmdale, Calif., is expected to become the first 
Space Shuttle with a built-in drag chute deployment system when 
it is rolled out of the assembly plant next year.  The system 
will be installed on the three orbiters now in use -- Discovery, 
Atlantis and Columbia -- as part of the program to continually 
upgrade and improve the reusable spacecraft.   

     Piloting the B-52 during the tests will be C. Gordon 
Fullerton, a former astronaut who flew on two Space Shuttle 
missions.  Fullerton, now a research pilot at Ames-Dryden, was 
also a member of the NASA flight crews that carried out the Space 
Shuttle approach and landing tests at Ames-Dryden in 1977 with 
the prototype orbiter Enterprise.

     The NASA B-52 test aircraft, built in 1952, is the oldest 
B-52 in flying status and also the oldest research aircraft flown 
by NASA.  It was used as the launch aircraft on most of the X-15 
research flights in the 1960s and lifting body missions in the 
1970s and early 1980s.  It was most recently the launch aircraft 
for the first successful test of the commercially developed 
Pegasus air-launched space booster.

     The orbiter drag chute test program is managed by NASA's 
Johnson Space Center, Houston.  Also participating in the program 
are Rockwell International, which designed the orbiter drag chute 
system; Irvin Industries, Santa Ana, Calif., which designed the 
parachute; and the Boeing Airplane Co., Seattle, which designed 
the modifications to the B-52 test aircraft.  

  The counterpart to landing chutes for aircraft operations are arresting
facilities (much like on an aircraft carrier) and a crash barrier (cabling up
off the ground to physically catch the aircraft and stop it in a fairly short
distance).  Has anyone heard of these things going in for the eventuality that
the chute doesn't deploy correctly?  It would be bad if it happened while on
a 'short' runway without these safety measures.

  Note that arresting cables would require a hook on the shuttle to snare them.
I'm sure I haven't heard of that anywhere.

John

They don't have the facilities for getting the orbiter onto the transfer 747
at very many locations. They'll be landing with 15k foot runways anyway but 
the chute will cut down on the brake replacements that have been happening.

RE: <<< Note 645.5 by 2853::BUEHLER "An education teaches you why you need one" >>>

A book I have in the Shuttle briefly mentions barrier tests done with the
Enterprise.  The barrier (cloth net sort of thing, as used on carriers) was
erected and then the orbiter was slowly winched into/through it.  No high-speed
testing was done.
						-- Tom

;^) ;^) ;^)

  Yeah, but imagine a carrier *launch*.  Do they hook the external tank up to
the catapult, launch it off the deck, then ignite the engines?  Or do they run
the engines up first (as would be SOP for an aircraft), then catapult?  In the
latter case, I think the carrier would pick up a few knots just prior to launch.

John

From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Date: 30 Oct 90 23:51:30 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

          Lisa Malone
          (407) 867-2468                                   Oct. 30, 1990

          KSC Release No. 177-90

          ENDEAVOUR SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE ARRIVES AT KSC


               One of the three main engines for NASA's newest shuttle  or-
          biter,  Endeavour, is scheduled to arrive at Kennedy Space Center
          today.  This engine, like Endeavour, features many upgrades,  and
          is the first piece of flight hardware to arrive at  KSC  for  the
          fifth orbiter.

               Engine  number  2032  has  passed  all acceptance testing at
          Stennis Space Center,  near Bay St.  Louis,  Miss.,  and is being
          shipped  by  truck to KSC.  Upon arrival,  the engine will be un-
          crated and inspected in the space shuttle main  engine  shop  lo-
          cated in the Vehicle Assembly Building. The engine will be stored
          in the engine shop until Endeavour arrives in May of next year.

               Some of the improved features on this engine are a new  con-
          troller  with  a  larger  memory  capacity and improved wire har-
          nesses.

               Press representatives need to be at the KSC  Press  Site  by
          1:30  p.m.  tomorrow  for a viewing of the engine.  John Plowden,
          Rocketdyne Launch Site Director,  will  be  available  to  answer
          questions.

I wonder how long before they use it as a spare part to stuff in some other
orbiter  :-(

Burns

    Doesn't sound like they could easily use this engine for spares.  Seems
    to be somewhat different.  Maybe its still plug compatible, maybe not.
    
    Tony

From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Date: 10 Jan 91 21:47:22 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

             Headline News
Internal Communications Branch (P-2) NASA 
Headquarters

  Thursday, January 10, 1991	Audio Service: 202 / 755-1788

This is NASA Headline News for Thursday, January 10, 1991

[... other news omitted (-dg) ...]

NASA recently modified its contract with Rockwell Space 
Division, for the development of OV-105, Endeavour, to include the 
design, fabrication and installation of an orbiter drag chute 
system.  The price of the modification is $33.3 million and brings 
the OV-105 contract value up to $1.8 billion.  The drag chutes will 
be deployed upon orbiter touchdown, and are intended to 
supplement main gear braking to improve the landing capabilities 
of the orbiter on shorter runways.

    $33.3M for a drag chute?????
    
    Maybe its just me, but I think this is rather excessive.  
    
    Tony

    I agree! There MUST be something _else_ in this package...
    
    I hope.
    
    John B.

Could you quote a price that you think is fair?

I'm curious on what basis you find the number excessive.   How much should
this cost?


- dave

    Re: The drag chute
    
    	Having worked on NASA contracts in the past I can safely say that
    most of the $33 million is being spent on one thing: Paper and the
    bureaucracy to push from here to there. While a certain amount of
    documentation is necessary in any project as complex as this, sometimes
    NASA goes way over board.
    
    				Drew
     

    Re :what is a fair price for a drag chute
    
    Maybe I'm using a totally off base frame of reference, but I know that
    even drag racers use drag chutes.  I't only some fabric and string,
    pluss some (hopefully not much) modification/reenforcement of the rear
    end).  I would think that no more than $1M would be a fair price for
    something with the raw materials content of about $10K, but that's just
    my gut feel.
    
    Tony

How about a place to store the chute?  That probably involves some sort of
door through the tiles.  Triggering mechanism?   Integration into the orbiter
electronics (redesigning cable harnesses, perhaps).  Ordinance safing (assuming
it is some sort of blow-off thing).  Not to mention testing, plus the fact that
they are only building 1.0 of them :-(  (plus spares).

Burns

    Re .19
    
    All good points, but still $33.3M is a LOT of money, maybe 20X what I
    would have expected.  
    
    I certainly hope that 'the space truck' was not designed as inflexibly
    as you suggest.  Certainly one of the things I think of when I think of
    a truck is something that is easy to customize.  
    
    And I should hope NASA doesn't build one of them, but rather uses drag
    chute technology from somewhere else.  They should not be in the mode
    of developing new technology for something that can be purchased off
    the shelf.  
    
    I'm sorry Burns, I think NASA has a REAL problem.  It seems to take
    them 10-20X as much to do ANYTHING as it should.  Why should the Hubble
    cost $1.5B when the Keck Observatory, using novel lens and pointing
    control technology to achieve an over 400 inch mirror cost less than
    $100M?  In my own, perhaps nieve opinion, the technological hurdles of
    the two telescopes seem about equal, yet one costs 15X the other?
    
    Tony

    Well the Hubble needs to be very flexible and all the adjustments
    possible must be automated. Plus all the space borne hardware to make
    it point (since it doesn't have a globe to be mounted to ;^)
    
    I think that it's an expensive addition but I also think that there's a
    lot of testing built into that quote to make sure that when they push
    the button, it deploys

    I think we ought to cut NASA a little slack.  They are in the business
    of pushing the state of the art.  They have learned over the years
    that to be successful under those circumstances you have to be very
    careful.  They have a lot of meetings to review things, and they do
    a lot of testing.  Even so, they have screwups, and some of those
    screwups have killed people.
    
    As stated above, it isn't reasonable to compare the Keck telescope
    with the Hubble.  The HST has to operate totally "hands free", and
    that's not simple.  Also, its the first of its kind, so they probably
    built more failsafes into it than will turn out to be necessary, once 
    we have more experience with orbiting telescopes.
    
    A deployable parachute must be integrated into the on-board software.
    I don't know how flexible that software is, so I can't say what might
    be a reasonable cost for adding this feature.  However, I hope they
    budget a lot of money to test the revised software.  If it deploys
    during liftoff by mistake you could, to use NASA jargon, lose
    ``mission, vehicle and crew''.  Keep in mind, you programmer jocks,
    that this can't be tested.  It has to work right the first time.
    
    Maybe they do go to more trouble than is needed to check everything
    twice, and get all requirements and constraints written down.  However,
    I would be very reluctant to point out any one task and say "that's
    not needed".  What they are doing _really is_ rocket science.
        John Sauter

    I disagree STRONGLY.
    
    I think the attitude of 'lets cut NASA a little slack' does nothing but
    get us paying more for something than we should.  Sure they are in the
    business of pushing the state of the art.  Maybe they do it tooo much
    tho?  Why does a drag chute, of all mundane things possible, HAVE to
    push the state of the art?
    
    It sure is reasonable to compare Hubble and Keck.  Keck is supposed to
    make so many adjustments per second and it is so isolated (on the top
    of a volcano in Hawaii) it is essentiallly hands-off.  Hubble is almost
    as hands-on as is the Keck, since thanks to TDRS, it is in constant
    touch with the ground.  Both are first of their kind (maybe people
    don't know what Keck is, Keck is a 400 inch teclescope using 32 mirrors
    to achieve the 400 inch diamerer, this requires many adjustements per
    second to make the individual mirrors act as one mirror, a new, untried
    technology that looks like it will work beyond the wildest projections
    of 5 years ago, 6 or 9 sections, I don't remember, are now in and
    working fine), both push technology to the limit.  In my own opinion,
    Keck is more of a technical challenge.  After all, many consider the
    Hubble to not be the first of its kind, the spy sats are similar in
    technology.  Keck used a new, never before tried technology to make its
    32 individual mirrors be ground to appear as one mirror, a phenemonal
    achievement.
    
    In any case, is a 15-1 ratio of cost what ANYONE would expect as being
    reasonable price to pay for the differences?  Frankly I doubt it,
    especially as another new telescope technology using laser beams and an
    adaptive optic section in the light path, may be able to correct for
    atmospheric disturbance.  It is likely that Keck will be able to do
    EVERYTHING except UV spectroscopy, better than Hubble.  And certainly
    for only UV spectroscopy, we wouldn't have needed anything as
    sophisticated as Hubble.
    
    Sure the chute has to work right the first time.  But $33M????  Lets
    put that amount into perspective (i.e. numbers that we can all
    understand).  That is 650 person-years @50K per year!  For a drag
    chute????!!!!???!!!??!  I cann't believe it!  I'm dumbfounded.
    
    If this is the best we can do with respect to cost, and space station
    is another indictment, I submit it is time to stop the shuttle and the
    station and start with the next generation launch vehicle.  But don't
    let NASA build it, or we will get another gold-plated testimony to the
    failings of breaucracy.
    
    Tony

    Re: .22
    
    	I wouldn't be to concerned about a drag chute failure during launch
    or after touchdown. If it opened during launch, the hot exhaust from
    the SSME and SRBs would quickly incinerate it (although I'm sure that
    there would be a few controllers watching this on their monitors with
    their hearts in their throats for a second or two). If it failed after
    landing it would be no big deal since the Shuttle could still use its
    brakes as it has on every other landing for the past decade. If it
    deployed early (i.e. before touchdown) before landing and while it was
    still travelling at supersonic or hypersonic speeds, the chute would be
    quickly torn to shreds and the lines would break (due to the excessive
    aerodynamic pressures). The only time it COULD present a problem would
    be just before landing but then again all they have to do is not use
    the air brake and not perform the final flare maneuver and they would
    most likely get the Shuttle down safely anyway (especially if they land
    at Edwards which has more hte adequet landing space).
    
    				Drew
    

  When NASA is careful and spends extra time and money to get things done
safely they are wastfull.

  When they go low budget and something blows up the public screams that they
should have been more carefull.

  This year man kind got the 1st look at the surface of Venus, and for the 1st
time we saw Pluto and it's moon as two separate objects and the press was
nothing but negative about the two projects that brought us those pictures.

  In some lines of work you can't win.

  George

    I too feel that we are being a bit too critical of NASA. I don't
    know how much it costs to integrate a drag chute into the 4 orbiters.
    But then neither do I know how much it would cost to put them into
    4 new technology planes. 
    
    Do you ?  The costs of everything. Including changes to the plane, 
    to its software, to operating procedures, plus chutes, etc.
    
    $33 M seems a bit too much to me too, but I am willing to trust NASA
    until I have some REAL proof of gold bricking. 

    re: .24
    
    I'm not convinced that there are no catastrophic failure modes if the
    chute opens during powered ascent.  The remains of the cloth or the
    lines might easily jam the connectors, preventing the SRBs or the ET
    from separating cleanly, or at all.  Imagine an SRB which is still
    attached by a chute line: you can't shut it down, and blowing it up
    might do more harm than good.  It could impart enough V in the wrong
    direction that the main engine fuel margin wouldn't be enough to make 
    orbit, or perhaps even one of the regular abort sites.
    
    Imagine a damaged Shuttle trying to land at the Nashua, NH airport!
    (If that's too far-fetched, imagine the Canary Islands.)
        John Sauter

    I have to agree with many of the replies listed here.  $33 million
    seems like a lot of money, particularly in that the Rogers Commission
    recommended that this be looked into (and I would have hoped that the
    necessary planning and modifications would have been included in
    Endeavour's airframe before it was built).  If this cost is to modify
    the remaining fleet, then it seems more reasonable.
    
    As far as testing, maybe we can get the Soviet's data, after all Buran
    has a drag chute (auto deployed) and has demonstrated it ;^).  Better
    yet, let's just purchase the hardware from them!
    
    

>    seems like a lot of money, particularly in that the Rogers Commission
>    recommended that this be looked into (and I would have hoped that the
>    necessary planning and modifications would have been included in
>    Endeavour's airframe before it was built).  If this cost is to modify
>    the remaining fleet, then it seems more reasonable.
    
Endeavour's airframe was built before the Challenger accident. Remember, all
parts were built as spares and only need to be assembled. I would think that 
the basic airframe would be the same as the other orbiters. Thus, no provision
would have been made for a drag shute unless it was already built into the 
spare parts. Endeavour will be more modern that the other orbiter's, due to
new computers, upgraded software and overall enhancements to the orbiter with
the electrical, hydralic and engine systems. The drag shute would be added, I
think, to the airframe. The orbiter is to be delivered to KSC this year, thus
I would assume that it is basically finished, so any modifications would take 
time and require reworking areas, just like to other orbiters.

When I originally saw the price, I didn't think anything of it, since, I would
not know how much it is supposed to cost and I am not an American taxpayer. 

How much does it cost to build an orbiter? Probably a billion or two, so, is
$33 million a proportional amount?

Did the lifting bodies or any other aircraft that did not land under power have
drag shutes? I can't recall a lifting body aircraft that had one.

There was a photogragh in one of my last issues of SPACE FLIGHT NEWS about the
drag shute tests for NASA, I will find the article and see if there was any
other information regarding this and post it here.

Susan

    re:.29
    You're correct in that the spares elements being midbody, wings, etc
    were already built.  I should have said that the chute system should
    have been implemented before the airframe was assembled/integrated.
    (The modifications would have been easier.)
    As far as lifting body type aircraft, I believe that the X-24nn had a
    chute system for spin recovery and possibly landing, however I have
    never seen any photographs of it's use. 
    Cheers.

	The question about the $33M chutes in my mind is this:  How much does
NASA believe they will save long-term from the lower wear-and-tear on the
brakes?  If they could show that, just picking a number from thin air, at 10
flights they've saved more on the brakes than on the price of the chute (and
paperwork and bureaucracy ;-), then even if the $33M figure is very high, it
was money well spent since it lowered the overall aggregate cost.  A lower
price would have money better spent, however...  (Yeah, $33M for a chute seems
to be an awful lot.)

	Incidently, I don't really buy the shorter runway issue.  NASA already
has a lot of long-enough runways lined up around the world as backups.  Is there
*any* place in the Shuttle's orbit that if the reentry burn _had_ to be
initiated at that very second that it couldn't reach one of the alternates?
(That question also poses the additional question of "under what circumstances
can they not wait another 5 minutes before the reentry burn?")

								-craig

I predict that if the chute allows them to make 1 or 2 planned landings at
KSC rather than EAFB, it pays for itself.

As to contingency landings, remember that in some launch profiles there is
a period of time between "negative return" and single engine TAA capability.
I wonder if there are any short runways that are in range during this time?

Burns

RE:                      <<< Note 645.31 by SSBN1::YANKES >>>

At the risck of digressing the Endeavor note,

>Is there
>*any* place in the Shuttle's orbit that if the reentry burn _had_ to be
>initiated at that very second that it couldn't reach one of the alternates?

I would bet that the answer is yes, there are many places (orbital track
windows) from which a landing on land (any land, never mind a runway, either
long or short) cannot be attained.

I don't recall what the maximum cross-range capability of the Shuttle is (the
distance to either side of the orbit great circle track that the shuttle can
glide during atmospheric descent), but I think it's of the order of 1000 miles
tops.  This says that, to a first approximation, a given point on the ground
can only be reached if it is within 1000 miles of the point at which the
orbiter can first take advantage of aerodynamic lift.  This probably occurs at
an altitude of a couple of hundred thousand feet.  This point in turn is
located some 6 or 8 thousand miles in front (along the orbital track) of the
point where the retro burn occurs.  So this all adds up to the following: the
points on the surface of the Earth which can be reached by a Shuttle that
performs the retro burn at point X above the surface of the earth all lie in a
circle of about 1000 miles radius that is centered on the point Y, where point
Y is 6-8 thousand miles downrange of point X.

Consider a high inclination orbit, and where point X (the retro-burn) occurs
somewhere near southeast asia at a time when the orbital track goes south out
over the south Pacific Ocean.  Well, the point Y 6-8K miles downrange would be
somewhere out in the middle of the western Pacific, and there isn't much land
out there.
						-- Tom

	Re: .32 and .33

	Ok, shucks, I guess I should have asked the question like this: at
present, there is X% of the orbital path (which, of course, differs from
mission to mission) for which an instantanious de-orbit burn cannot reach
an acceptably long alternate runway.  With the drag chute giving it the
capability of using a shorter runway, presumably the new "can't get there
from here" percentage is lower than X%.  By how much?  Is it significant?
Couple that with the unanswered question of what is the likelyhood that the
Shuttle would have to make an instantanious de-orbit burn, and I don't find
the "more emergency runways" argument to be compelling.

	However, if it does let the shuttle land more often at KSC, then it
is probably a great idea due to the economics of the turn-around.

								-craig

    re .34
    
    The new brakes will already allow for landings at KSC.
    
    					-**Ted**-
    

From: [email protected] (WILLIAM HARWOOD, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.military
Subject: New shuttle crack found
Date: 15 Mar 91 14:47:25 GMT 
 
	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) -- Surprised engineers found a tiny
crack in a hinge mechanism from the new shuttle Endeavour, meaning
stress- related fractures now have been found in the same parts on all
four of the nation's space shuttles. 

	But William Lenoir, NASA's associate administrator for space flight,
said the latest crack found Thursday would not affect NASA's new launch
schedule, which now lists six flights in 1991 and three launches in less
than eight weeks starting with the shuttle Atlantis's planned takeoff
around April 5.

	``In the long run, it's not going to matter and it will not affect
our schedule,'' he told reporters at the Kennedy Space Center.

	Overnight, engineers hauled Atlantis to launch pad 39B for final
flight preparations. The ship's five-member crew is scheduled to fly to
Florida Sunday for a practice countdown next week that will set the
stage for launch.

	While the crack found Thursday in a hinge assembly taken from
Endeavour will not affect the shuttle launch order, it could cause a
minor additional delay for Discovery's planned takeoff next month on a
military mission.

	That flight originally was planned for March 9, but it was
delayed to late April because of cracks in the hinge mechanisms of
critical fuel line doors that must close properly in space to permit a
safe re-entry. 

	Hinge assemblies were removed from the newly built shuttle
Endeavour to replace those aboard Discovery. 

	But engineers Thursday discovered a crack in one of the replacement
hinges that measures a quarter-of-an-inch long and 60-thousandths of an
inch deep. That is about twice as severe as a crack in one of Atlantis's
hinge assemblies that was deemed safe to fly as is.

	Similar cracks were found aboard the shuttle Columbia and in every
case, stress and metal fatigue is believed to be the culprit. Even
though Endeavour has never been launched, the doors have been opened and
closed for testing and maintenance.

	If Endeavour's hardware cannot be flown as is, NASA managers could
order Columbia's hinges, currently being repaired in California, to be
installed aboard Discovery. Endeavour's hinges then would be fixed and
installed aboard Columbia. But Lenoir said NASA was studying a variety
of options.

	``We might go ahead and fly the Endeavour units on Discovery,'' he
said. ``We might change our minds and take the ones we're bringing back
from Columbia and put them first onto Discovery. Or we might just take
the Endeavour units and grind them down and make the same fix.''

	Discovery currently is scheduled for launch around April 25 with
Columbia taking off on a Spacelab life sciences mission around May 22.

	In the meantime, Atlantis remains on schedule for takeoff around
April 5 to ferry the $617 million Gamma Ray Observatory space telescope
into orbit to study extremely high-energy radiation from exploding stars, 
enigmatic quasars and other especially violent astronomical objects.

	NASA originally hoped to launch seven shuttle missions in 1991, but
the crack problem threw a wrench into the space agency's manifest. NASA
managers have tentatively approved the following launch schedule:

	--April 5: Atlantis takes off at 9:18 a.m. EST on a five-day mission
to launch the Gamma Ray Observatory. This is the first shuttle flight
since December.

	--April 25 (tentative): Discovery is scheduled for launch on an eight-
day military flight. Launch originally was planned for March 9 but it
was delayed to fix the hinge cracks (new hinge repairs threaten
additional delay).

	--May 22: Columbia blasts off on a Spacelab life sciences mission.

	--July 25: Atlantis carries a NASA communications satellite into
orbit. The satellite originally was scheduled for a June launch aboard
Discovery.

	--Sept. 19: Discovery, carrying an environmental satellite, is
launched.

	--Nov. 15: Atlantis is launched on an unclassified military mission to
put a Defense Support Program early warning satellite into orbit.

	Atlantis's November mission originally was planned for July, but it
was bumped to late in the year by the decision to switch the NASA
communications satellite from Discovery to Atlantis.

	To launch the military satellite in November, NASA had to delay a
materials processing science mission until Jan. 13.

From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Date: 4 Apr 91 20:16:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

Mark Hess, David Garrett
Headquarters, Washington,D.C.                         April 4, 1991
(Phone:  202/453-4164; 202/453-8400)

Janet Dean, Alan Buis
Rockwell International, Downey, Calif.
(Phone:  213/922-5227; 213/922-1856)


EDITORS NOTE:  N91-25

ENDEAVOUR ROLLOUT SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 25


	The rollout of NASA's newest Space Shuttle orbiter, Endeavour, 
is scheduled for April 25, 1991, at a ceremony at Rockwell 
International's Space Division Facility, Palmdale, Calif.  

	The rollout ceremony will be held at 11 a.m. PDT.  Numerous 
federal, state and local dignitaries and Rockwell personnel are 
expected to be in attendance, including NASA Administrator Richard 
H. Truly and crewmembers of STS-49, the first scheduled flight of 
Endeavour in May 1992.

	The week following rollout, Endeavour will be mated to the new 
Shuttle carrier aircraft, flown to the Johnson Space Center, 
Houston, for an overnight stay and then to the Kennedy Space Center, 
Fla.

	Media wishing to attend the rollout must obtain credentials at 
the Rockwell newsroom at the Desert Inn, Lancaster, Calif. (805/948-
2429), which will be open April 24  - 25.  A photo ID and a letter from
the editor of assignment from each news organization will be required.

	Another advisory will be issued in mid-April providing further 
details, including a schedule for rollout, mate and delivery 
activities.

4/24/91: NEW U.S. SPACE SHUTTLE ENDEAVOUR TO ROLLOUT

RELEASE:  91-62

        The United States' new Space Shuttle orbiter, the
Endeavour, will rollout tomorrow at a ceremony at Air Force
Plant 42 in Palmdale, Calif., where the orbiter was assembled
by Rockwell International Corporation's Space System Division
(SSD).

        A crowd to include several thousand Rockwell employees
and their families, government leaders and top Rockwell and
NASA officials is expected as the Endeavour makes its public
debut.  Endeavour is the fifth operational orbiter Rockwell has
built for the U.S. Space Shuttle program.

         NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly calls Endeavour
NASA's finest Space Shuttle yet and praised the efforts of tens
of thousands of people on the NASA/industry team across the
nation who contributed to the new orbiter's construction.

        Truly stated, "On behalf of NASA and the nation, I am
extremely proud to be taking delivery of the Space Shuttle
orbiter Endeavour, the latest in a line of magnificent flying
machines.  Painstakingly built by some of the finest and most
dedicated members of the government/industry work force in
America and equipped with extremely capable avionics and
mechanical systems, Endeavour will join our fleet of remarkable
space ships -- Columbia, Discovery and Atlantis -- in carrying
out the world's grandest adventure, the exploration of this
vast new ocean we call space."

        Members of the crew of Endeavour's first flight will be
on hand to receive the ceremonial "keys" to Endeavour from
Rockwell.

        Dr.  Robert Duce, Dean of the University of Rhode
Island's Graduate School of Oceanography and Vice Provost for
Marine Affairs, will present NASA with Endeavour's first
"payload" -- a sternpost remnant recovered from the orbiter's
namesake, the first sailing ship commanded by British explorer
Captain James Cook in 1768-1771.  On the trip, Cook observed
and recorded the transit of the planet Venus. The artifact will
be carried aboard Endeavour on her maiden voyage.

        The name Endeavour resulted from a nationwide
orbiter-naming competition supported by educational projects
created by student teams in elementary and secondary schools.
President Bush chose the name, which was proposed by both a
fifth grade class in Mississippi and a team of Georgian
students in grades 8-12.

        Endeavour is scheduled to be mated to NASA's new
Shuttle Carrier Aircraft at the Rockwell Palmdale facility
early next week and flown to Ellington Field, near NASA's
Johnson Space Center, Houston, for an overnight stay.
Endeavour is scheduled to arrive at the Kennedy Space Center,
Fla., on May 3.

        A total of $1.8 billion was spent on Endeavour:
approximately $1.6 billion on the orbiter vehicle and orbiter
support items such as extravehicular mobility units, television
cameras, upgrades to the Remote Manipulator System, government-
furnished equipment such as recorders and support for safety
and quality inspections; and approximately another $0.2 billion
on four Space Shuttle main engines.

        SSD manages the Endeavour construction program under
the direction of the Johnson Space Center. Fabrication of
Endeavour's forward and aft fuselages, forward reaction control
system, crew compartment and secondary structures was completed
at SSD's headquarters facility in Downey, Calif. Final
assembly, test and checkout were performed at the SSD Palmdale
facility.  In addition, more than 250 major subcontractors and
approximately 3,450 associated suppliers nationwide performed
work on Endeavour's components and support services, accounting
for nearly 50 percent of the total work on the program.

.38>> debut.  Endeavour is the fifth operational orbiter Rockwell has
.38>> built for the U.S. Space Shuttle program.

Please pardon my ignorance, but just how "operational" is Endeavour at this
moment?  I've been reading all the updates about shuttle processing at KSC
indicating replacement of pieces "...taken from the shuttle Endeavour..." like
ET umbilical door hinges, engine parts, etc. etc.  Is this thing really
flight-worthy, or are we looking at a few months of "waiting for new parts from
suppliers" to arrive.

BTW, I know that Endeavour isn't scheduled to fly till next year, but I was
curious just how "raped" this vehicle really is (under the aeroshell, that is).

...Roger...

    Re:.39
    
    	The term "operational" refers to the fact that it can fly into
    orbit unlike the Enterprise. As far as how many parts are missing, I
    don't know for sure but it won't be flying next week or anything like
    that :-)
    
    				Drew
    

Article         1174
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.military
Subject: New shuttle Endeavour unveiled
Date: 25 Apr 91 19:18:17 GMT
  
	PALMDALE, Calif. (UPI) -- The shuttle Endeavour, the new
``jewel of the fleet,'' rolled off the assembly line Thursday to the
cheers of a flag-waving throng of well-wishers, replacing the lost
shuttle Challenger and boosting NASA's fleet of spaceships back to four. 
	Still one year away from its maiden flight, the $1.8 billion
Endeavour -- equipped with a braking parachute, a beefed up hydraulic
system and other improvements ordered in the wake of the Challenger
disaster -- was towed into view at Rockwell International's shuttle
factory about 11:25 a.m. PDT.
	With the swelling theme from the movie ``2001: A Space Odyssey''
blaring over loud speakers, the spotless black-and-white orbiter was
rolled into position before hundreds of flag-waving Rockwell workers,
NASA officials and six members of Endeavour's first crew.
	``Endeavour, the jewel of the fleet! Isn't it beautiful?'' asked
astronaut Daniel Brandenstein, commander of Endeavour's March 1992
maiden voyage. ``I tell you, if that doesn't put a lump in your throat,
I don't think you're human. We hope to get at least 100 missions out of
this baby.''
	Also on hand for the rollout ceremony were school students from
Senatobia, Miss., and Tallulah Falls, Ga., who picked Endeavour's name
in 1989 in a nationwide competition.
	``Endeavour is a beauty,'' said NASA Administrator Richard Truly. 
``But in this case, beauty is more than skin deep. This orbiter's not
like the others. It's equipped with the latest avionics, the finest
mechanical systems, a new drag chute and equipment for longer duration
flights.''
	Robert Duce, dean of the University of Rhode Island's graduate school
of oceanography, presented Brandenstein with Endeavour's first 
``payload,'' part of the sternpost recovered from the shuttle's
namesake, a sailing ship commanded by British explorer Capt. James Cook
between 1768 and 1771.
	The centuries-old remnant will be carried into orbit during
Endeavour's first mission next March, a daring satellite repair mission
featuring three spacewalks.
	``To all the people who built the Endeavour ... I don't know if Capt.
James Cook's Endeavour came in under budget and on schedule, but you
sure pulled it off,'' Truly said.
	NASA plans to officially accept delivery of Endeavour on Tuesday. If
all goes well, engineers will bolt the 100-ton spaceplane to the back of
a Boeing 747 transport jet Thursday for a two-day cross-country flight
to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
	With its arrival in Florida, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration once again will have a four-shuttle fleet: Endeavour,
Discovery, Atlantis and Columbia, all named after scientific research
ships.
	Despite the gala rollout ceremony, however, Endeavour is far from
complete.
	A nose-mounted cluster of steering rockets will not be delivered
until July and the ship's three main engines will not be installed until
September. Two rear rocket pods will not be finished until later in the
year and Endeavour will make its first flight using pods borrowed from
Columbia.
	In other work transferred to Florida, engineers at the Kennedy Space
Center also will have to install several major subsystems, including two
17-inch wide fuel line disconnect fittings in the belly of the orbiter,
major elements of the shuttle's cooling system and the drive mechanisms
of two fuel line doors.
	Even so, NASA officials were eager to accept delivery of their newest
space shuttle.
	Endeavour was built to replace Challenger, destroyed 73 seconds after
blastoff Jan. 28, 1986, by a booster failure that ruptured the ship's
external tank and triggered the breakup of the orbiter.
	All seven crew members were killed, including New Hampshire high
school teacher Christa McAuliffe.
	After a lengthy debate in Congress, Rockwell International was
authorized to start building a new shuttle on Aug. 1, 1987. The price
tag was $1.8 billion.
	During Endeavour's maiden flight in March 1992, two spacewalking
astronauts plan to bolt a new rocket motor on a commercial
communications satellite stranded in a useless orbit after a rocket
failure. With three spacewalks on tap, the flight promises to be one of
the most challenging in shuttle history.
	Joining Brandenstein for the maiden flight will be co-pilot Kevin
Chilton, Pierre Thuot, Kathryn Thornton, Thomas Akers, Bruce Melnick and
Richard Hieb, who is awaiting blastoff Sunday on his first flight aboard
the shuttle Discovery.

From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


          KSC SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT - MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1991 - 10:30 AM

                         ENDEAVOUR (OV 105) - PALMDALE, CALIF.

               Endeavour is being prepared for delivery to KSC  this  week.
          The  new  orbiter  was  rolled  out of the Rockwell manufacturing
          plant on April 25.  Endeavour is scheduled to  be  mated  to  the
          agency's new 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft on Wednesday.

               The  first  leg  of  the  cross  country ferry flight,  from
          California to Texas,  is scheduled for May 2.  A refueling and an
          overnight  stop is planned at Ellington Field in Houston,  Texas.
          The journey,  from Texas to Florida,  will continue the next  day
          with the estimated time of arrival at KSC is midday.

Article         8032
From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Shuttle Status for 05/06/91 (Forwarded)
Date: 6 May 91 18:48:20 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (USENET Administration)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 
 
          KSC SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT - MONDAY, MAY 6, 1991 - 11 AM
 
                    ENDEAVOUR (OV 105) - FERRY FLIGHT IN PROGRESS
 
               Endeavour departed Kelly Air Force Base, San Antonio,  Texas
          at  about  10:03 a.m.  EDT today and landed at Ellington Field in
          Houston, Texas an hour later.  A ceremony will be held in Houston
          for  the  new shuttle during its planned four-hour stay.  Weather
          conditions will be evaluated to determine the  next  leg  of  the
          ferry flight to Florida.
 
               Last Friday,  Endeavour flew from Palmdale, Calif. to  Biggs
          Army Air Field in El Paso,  Texas where the vehicle remained  for
          two  nights.    Sunday,  Endeavour flew from El Paso to Kelly Air
          Force Base, San Antonio, Texas for an overnight stay.
 
               Once here at KSC and demated from the 747, Endeavour will be
          towed to the Orbiter Processing Facility  where  the  tail  cone,
          ferry  flight  kit  items,  the two simulated orbital maneuvering
          system pods,  and mock forward reaction control  system  will  be
          removed. The new orbiter's initial stay in the OPF is planned for
          about  one week.  Endeavour will be towed to the Vehicle Assembly
          Building for several months of powered down work.

Article         1277
From: [email protected] (WILLIAM HARWOOD, UPI Science Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.military
Subject: Endeavour arrives at spaceport
Date: 7 May 91 18:38:14 GMT 
 
	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) -- The new shuttle Endeavour, built to
replace the lost Challenger, arrived at the Kennedy Space Center Tuesday
while the crew of the shuttle Columbia wrapped up a practice countdown
that sets the stage for launch May 22.

	Engineers at a nearby hangar spent the day inspecting the shuttle
Discovery, which glided to a rare Florida space center touchdown Monday
to close out an eight-day ``Star Wars'' research flight.

	NASA spokeswoman Lisa Malone said overall, Discovery was in good
shape after its fiery re-entry.  But the ship suffered more heat damage
than usual and about 1,000 insulating strips between fragile heat-shield
tiles will have to be replaced -- twice the usual number.

	``We came in a little hot and heavy this time,'' Malone said, adding
that 10 tiles required replacement. But there was no damage to the
orbiter structure and no other systems were affected.

	But one of Discovery's four Michelin-built main landing gear tires
was damaged during touchdown. Malone said three of 17 plies were worn
away after the right-side main landing gear tire hit the runway slightly
before the left-side tires.

	The shuttle's nose gear tires also were damaged, but engineers did
not expect any problems readying the ship for its next flight in September.

	Discovery's landing was the second Florida shuttle touchdown since
April 19, 1985, when the ship blew a tire after landing in a stiff
crosswind. Pending completion of tests to verify the performance of new
brakes and other systems, shuttles routinely land at Edwards Air Force
Base in California, weather permitting.

	A few miles away at launch pad 39B, meanwhile, Columbia's four-man,
three-woman crew strapped in early Tuesday and worked through the final
hours of a practice countdown that ended about 11:30 a.m. with the
simulated ignition and shutdown of the shuttle's three main engines.

	NASA managers plan to hold a two-day flight readiness review next
week to discuss Columbia's ground processing and to set an official
launch date. Internal NASA documents show May 22 as the current target.

	If that schedule holds up, NASA will chalk up its third shuttle
launch in just 47 days, beating a record set in 1985 by a full week.

	``The people who got this mission ready for us did a hell of a job
and this crew's been training and waiting for a long time to fly this
mission,'' Columbia skipper Bryan O'Connor said Sunday after the crew
arrived for the countdown test.

	During their nine-day flight, Columbia's crew plans to conduct an
exhaustive series of experiments to learn more about how weightlessness
affects human physiology. Also on board: 30 rats and 2,400 tiny
jellyfish that will serve as test subjects.

	While Columbia's countdown was ticking into its final stages Tuesday,
the new shuttle Endeavour arrived at the Kennedy Space Center atop a
Boeing 747 jumbo jet, finally ending a five-day weather-delayed trip
from the ship's assembly hangar in Palmdale, Calif.

	With hundreds of space center employees looking on, the giant
aircraft landed shortly before 9:30 a.m. on the same runway Discovery
used the day before.

	Despite its arrival in Florida, Endeavour is far from complete.

	A nose-mounted cluster of steering rockets will not be delivered
until July and the ship's three main engines will not be installed until
September. Two rear rocket pods will not be finished until later in the
year and Endeavour will make its first flight using pods borrowed from
Columbia.

	In other work transferred to Florida, engineers at the Kennedy Space
Center also will have to install several major subsystems, including two
17-inch wide fuel line disconnect fittings in the belly of the orbiter,
major elements of the shuttle's cooling system and the drive mechanisms
of two fuel line doors.

	During Endeavour's maiden flight in March 1992, two
spacewalking astronauts plan to bolt a new rocket motor on a
commercial communications satellite stranded in a useless orbit after
a rocket failure. With three spacewalks on tap, the flight promises to
be one of the most challenging in shuttle history. 

Article         8069
From: [email protected] (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Shuttle Status for 05/08/91 (Forwarded)
Date: 8 May 91 22:23:14 GMT
Sender: [email protected] (USENET Administration)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 
 
          KSC SHUTTLE STATUS REPORT - WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1991 - 11:30 AM
 
                       ENDEAVOUR (OV 105) - VAB Transfer Aisle
 
               Endeavour  was  towed to the Vehicle Assembly Building over-
          night arriving in the transfer aisle at approximately  3:30  a.m.
          today. The orbiter will be moved to high bay 2 on Friday where it
          will be jacked and leveled.  Next week,  the orbiter's weight and
          center of gravity will be determined.  Tail cone  removal  opera-
          tions are planned the end of next week.
 
 
                                     TURN BASIN
 
               Today,  external tank no.  52, earmarked for the STS-44 mis-
          sion in November,  is scheduled to arrive by barge in KSC's  turn
          basin at Complex 39.

    I've heard that the later shuttles can put significantly heavier
    payloads into orbit than the early ones.  Does anyone have a
    table of payload capacity for the four of them?  /jlr

RE:    <<< Note 645.46 by TECRUS::REDFORD "Entropy isn't what it used to be" >>>

Not off the top of my head, but I believe that the empty-weight differences are
around a few thousand pounds. This should translate directly to extra payload
capability.
						-- Tom

From: [email protected] (WILLIAM HARWOOD, UPI Science Writer)
Subject: New shuttle Endeavour begins final processing
Date: 7 Mar 92 18:19:15 GMT

	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) -- The new shuttle Endeavour, built to
replace the fallen Challenger, took a major step toward its maiden
flight Saturday when the gleaming $2 billion spaceplane was moved to an
assembly building for final processing and launch in early May.
	Under an overcast sky, about 1,200 NASA workers, contractors and
family members clapped and cheered as Endeavour was slowly backed out of
its hangar with a recording of Kate Smith singing ``God Bless America''
blaring in the background.
	``It's something that kind of brings everybody together,'' said
shuttle engineer Jennifer Webb as Endeavour slowly rolled past. ``No,
it's not just another (orbiter), it's a special one. This will be a
special flight.''
	With spectators snapping pictures and cheering it on, the 100-ton
orbiter was carefully hauled a few hundred yards to NASA's cavernous
Vehicle Assembly Building for attachment to an external fuel tank and a
pair of solid fuel boosters.
	If all goes well, Endeavour will be hauled to launch pad 39-B late
next week for work to ready the ship for a critical 21-second engine
firing around April 6. Assuming no major problems crop up after the
test, Endeavour's maiden launch is expected around May 7.
	``I think for the team, it's kind of romantic,'' said project
engineer Hugo Delgado. ``You'd be surprised how much you can develop an
affection for a machine. It's great, they love it. We had a lot of fun
with it.''
	It was just as exciting to family members and friends who were given
special passes to visit the space center Saturday for Endeavour's short
trip to the VAB.
	``Is that the thing the astronauts ride in?'' asked Meagan Tilghman,
a 6-year-old from Cocoa, Fla., who watched the shuttle's move from her
mother's shoulders.
	Jack Diesel, a Lockheed employee, took his two daughters to see
Endeavour, saying, ``Little girls don't get to see this every day. For a
couple of minutes, I was a hero in their eyes.''
	Endeavour's first flight promises to be one of the most challenging --
and dramatic -- in shuttle history with two spacewalking astronauts
scheduled to bolt a new rocket motor on a commercial communications
satellite stranded in a useless orbit.
	On board will be commander Daniel Brandenstein, co-pilot Kevin
Chilton, Pierre Thuot, Kathryn Thornton, Thomas Akers, Bruce Melnick and
Richard Hieb.
	Endeavour was built to replace Challenger, destroyed 73 seconds after
blastoff Jan. 28, 1986, by a booster failure that ruptured the ship's
external tank and triggered the aerodynamic breakup of the orbiter. All
seven crew members were killed.
	After a long debate in Congress, Rockwell International was
authorized to start building a new shuttle Aug. 1, 1987. The price tag
was $1.8 billion, not counting the cost of three $35 million main
engines and other equipment that pushed the final cost slightly above $2
billion.
	The new spaceplane arrived at the Kennedy Space Center in early May
1991 when NASA was shooting for a launch in mid-April 1992.
	But after its arrival at the Florida spaceport, engineers realized
they would be unable to make the target date because of an unusually
large amount of work brought to Florida from the Rockwell plant in
Palmdale, Calif.
	Some of the work was deliberately transferred to Florida to avoid the
high cost of processing a shuttle on the West Coast. But once detailed
inspections began, unexpected problems came to light and engineers
initially speculated launch might slip eight weeks or more.
	But with Saturday's roll over, Endeavour's processing is only about
three weeks behind schedule.
	``These guys have done an incredible job ... getting out within three
weeks of when we thought we were going to get out,'' said Jay Honeycutt,
a top NASA manager at the Kennedy Space Center. ``They made up about an
eight-week deficit and cut that down to three weeks. It's just a
spectacular job.''