Xref: utzoo sci.space:11679 sci.space.shuttle:3236
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 1 AW&ST
Message-ID: <1989May29.032320.2277@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 29 May 89 03:23:20 GMT

Editorial criticizing both DoD for trying to refuse further funding for
the Aerospace Plane and NASA for offering to scale it down to an "unfocused,
interminable technology research effort".

Soviets offer to sell multispectral digital images at 4-5m resolution, price
negotiable.  [Previously the only thing they've sold at that resolution has
been actual photographs on film; most of their customers want digital data.]

Spot's 1988 fiscal year a considerable success.  In FY87 60% of Spot sales
were to the French government, but that percentage is now down to 30%,
mostly because of nearly 100% growth in overall sales.

NASA offers to take over the Aerospace Plane, converting it to a technology
development effort.  3-4 years from now, with the technology well pinned
down, NASA would ask DoD to fund the test vehicle.  The result, obviously,
would be about a 4-year delay in the first flight.  [If lucky, that is.]

DoD budget cutting delays Boost Surveillance Tracking Satellite system,
SDI's foot in the door toward full deployment, six months.  This slips
a full-scale development decision to next year, to everyone's relief.

Volkov, Krikalev, and Polyakov return from Mir April 27, leaving Mir
unmanned until August.  The next crew's major task will be to activate
the two planned add-on modules.  Soviets deny reports of electrical
power problems aboard Mir, although there are reports from people
monitoring Mir radio traffic of discussions of electrical difficulties.
Kvant's astrophysics instruments will continue to transmit data while
Mir is unmanned.

NASA picks Lockheed/Aerojet team to build the ASRM, despite safety panel
urgings that the project be dropped.  Truly says the panel did not have
current information due to restrictions imposed by the bidding process,
and they will now be fully briefed.  The government-owned plant to build
the new SRB will be privately financed, postponing the need for NASA to
supply funds for it.  Financial details have not been revealed.  There
is debate about whether this is really going to save money, although the
point may be moot since OMB refused to let NASA spend anything on it in
FY1990.  NASA will need special approval from Congress to sign a deal
with a cancellation penalty, to protect the financiers.  The plant will
supposedly ship its first flight-cleared motors in 1994, after which use
of the current Morton Thiokol SRBs will be phased out over three years.
Apart from getting rid of MT [about time!], the new motors will boost
shuttle payload by about 12 klbs.  The new motors will have one less
field joint and the joint design will be different, but details will not
be disclosed until negotiations are complete.  Aerojet says the joints
are designed so that the seals can be inspected right up to the moment
the joint is locked in place, another improvement.  The new motor is
slightly fatter than the old one -- diameter 150in instead of 146in --
allowing an extra 200 klbs of fuel per motor.  Motor performance will
be tailored to eliminate the need to throttle back the SSMEs during the
period of maximum aerodynamic pressure, another safety win.

NASA begins to review space station to decide whether to delay, scale
down, or just cancel if anticipated budget cuts happen.  House subcommittee
tells NASA to figure out by May 6 what it would do about a $400M cut in
the $2G station budget for FY90, plus $500-600M off FY91.  The cuts are
not yet firm but are widely considered inevitable.  NASA has spent over
$1G to date and would need to spend another $2G or so in termination fees
etc. if the project were cancelled, but this is still small compared to
the full cost of the project.  NASA continues to make noises about killing
the project if it is cut too far, but will not say how far is too far;
rumor hath it that $1.5G is about right.

Station managers deny that there are any plans for a scaled-down station
if the current one dies, but Marshall is known to have looked at the idea.
Cancellation would, of course, mean reneging on the agreements with Canada,
Europe, and Japan, at a time when the USSR is wooing potential international
partners in its space program.  NASA says termination would be a disaster
that would conclusively prove the US is not a reliable partner.  [Actually
many already tend to feel that way, but station cancellation would remove
any lingering doubts.]  The station does have quiet a bit of Congressional
support, but Congress is running out of innovative ways to fund it.  NASA
is not keen on a suggestion that DoD chip in, as NASA thinks such funding
unreliable and the loss of control too severe.

Rep. Lawrence Coughlin suggests reversing the no-commercial-payloads policy
of the shuttle, in hopes that it will start earning its keep again.  "We
need a return on our investment."  [Lordy.]

Subcommittee criticizes NASA for not (quite) meeting its commitment to
spend 20% of its budget on space science.  Sharp criticism of cancellation
of $25M for Gravity Probe B, but NASA says money is tight and it was not a
high priority.

Subcommittee warns NASA not to spend money on the Crew Emergency Rescue
Vehicle for the station until the subcommittee sorts out NASA's funding.
NASA would like to contract for design studies.  Dale Myers, acting NASA
administrator, says NASA is still not sure how capable the vehicle needs
to be, and more study is needed to produce a full definition of the types
of emergencies that might require the vehicle.  [Isn't there anybody in
NASA who can make a decision without 50 kg of paper to back him up?!?]

West German government approves formation of, essentially, a German Space
Agency with central responsibility for planning and execution of government
space activities.  Oddly, it will be government-funded but nominally a
private corporation.

US and USSR agree to develop "joint operational performance standards" for
Navstar and Glonass so civil users, notably aviation, can easily use both.

Soviets have apparently decided not to bring a shuttle orbiter to the Paris
airshow, although the An-225 Mriya, its carrier aircraft, will appear.

Eosat recommends US government fund Landsat 7, to maintain US leadership
and avoid a data gap late in the 1990s.  Landsat 4 and 5 are on their
last legs, especially financially, and Landsat 6 will not be ready for
launch until 1991; a data gap is probable.  Another is likely in 1996 or
thereabouts if a decision on Landsat 7 is not made soon.  However, Eosat
says the US probably can't get more than about 10% of the satellite data
market in the late 90s even if Landsat 7 goes up.  Among other consequences,
this makes private funding of L7 quite impossible.  There are other reasons
for that too.  Will data from the Mission To Planet Earth program be made
available without charge?  Will US weather-satellite data continue to be
available at a nominal cost?  (Eosat says this has lost them customers
already.)  What happens if a satellite fails unexpectedly, given that there
are no backups and no prospect of finding enough money to insure the
operational birds?  Will Congress reverse its earlier decision to prohibit
a merger of the weather and Earth-resources satellites under private
management (which would permit cost savings by merging satellites, and
make government weather-satellite money available)?  The National Space
Council is studying future US involvement in remote sensing, including
the possibility of getting out of the business; a report including
recommendations to Bush is expected this month.

Italian Space Agency awards its first contracts, for work on the SAX
X-ray satellite and the SAR-X imaging-radar shuttle payload.  There
is concern that the agency needs to start moving a bit more quickly or
a number of programs will be hurt by slow decision-making; the SAX and
SAR-X decisions came at the last possible minute.

First Commercial Titan launcher arrives at the Cape.

NASA to test a parafoil system, developed by Pioneer Aerospace, for
precision landings by parachute of launcher components weighing up to
60 klbs.  The parafoil, a gliding parachute, looks okay on paper, but
reefing [gradual opening] is utterly necessary because parafoils open
very abruptly, and reefing big parafoils is tricky.  Pioneer has a
new approach.  Parafoils have a particular advantage over conventional
parachute systems because by flaring a parafoil (making an abrupt pull-up
to trade forward speed for a reduction in sink rate), the landing can be
made gentle enough to eliminate the need for retrorockets or other
impact-cushioning devices.
-- 
Van Allen, adj: pertaining to  |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
deadly hazards to spaceflight. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu