March 1985
From The Space Library
NASA announced it had scheduled for no earlier than March 3 from KSC the launch of Space Shuttle mission 51-E, which was the 15th Space Shuttle mission and the orbiter Challenger's 7th flight. The Challenger was scheduled to land on March 7 at the 15,000-foot Space Shuttle landing facility at KSC. NASA previously announced the flight crew [see Feb. 7].
Challenger would carry the heaviest cargo taken into space by a Space Shuttle; total weight of the payload bay and cabin payloads would be nearly 53,400 lb., almost 15,000 lb. heavier than the previous record set on Space Shuttle mission 51-A.
After liftoff and insertion into orbit, the crew would prepare to deploy the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS-B)/inertial upper stage (IUS). Following release, the crew would maneuver Challenger to a safe distance and observe the IUS perigee kick motor firing, placing the TDRS in geosynchronous transfer orbit.
Following IUS first-stage burn of about 2 minutes 26 seconds, which would then drop off, the TDRS/IUS second stage stack would coast for six hours on the way to geosynchronous orbit altitude of 22,300 miles. Once there, the IUS second stage would fire for 1 minute 49 seconds to stabilize the TDRS in geosynchronous orbit and the IUS would drop off.
The IUS was an advanced solid-propellant, two-stage booster designed to carry heavyweight payloads into orbits higher than the Space Shuttle could reach. NASA first used the IUS on the STS-6 mission for launch of TDRS-A. Changes to the IUS since then corrected problems that developed during the STS-6 mission. The IUS first stage developed about 46,500 lb. of thrust, the second stage about 18,500 lb.
On the second day, the crew would use the Challenger's orbital maneuvering system (OMS) engines to raise their orbit to above 180 miles for deployment during the 22nd orbit of the 7,347-lb. Telesat-1 (ANIK C-1) and its payload assist module (PAM). (NASA Release 85-24)
A panel organized by the National Academy of Engineering in conjunction with the National Research Council (NRC) published its assessment of aviation technology in, "The Competitive Status of the Civil Aviation Manufacturing Industry," the NRC Newsreview reported.
U.S. aircraft manufacturers in the past had been particularly successful in translating advanced technology into products suited to the marketplace; however, as competition intensified, the timing of the introduction and the fit of the product to customers' needs had become increasingly important. European countries had tried repeatedly to create a viable air transport manufacturing industry; in 1970 their efforts were realized in the creation of Airbus Industrie, which drew on the resources of many companies in a number of countries. Those foreign companies created a dilemma for U.S. manufacturers, whose product lines were not extensive. Furthermore, U.S. markets were relatively open to competitors, while many foreign markets were closed to American-made products.
The panel foresaw a need for U.S. manufacturers to form international partnerships, especially as the U.S. aircraft industry was often in virtual competition with governments as well as with private commercial companies. And the panel determined that U.S. manufacturers had to be even more sensitive in interpreting the needs of foreign customers.
The panel did conclude that it was possible to further improve reliability of aircraft and air travel, as well as increase efficiency in fuel consumption and operations. Studies cited by the panel indicated that a variety of technological changes together could improve fuel efficiency by as much as 30-50%. Introduction of advanced turboprops or propfans could provide up to 20% additional improvement, and the experimental unducted propfan engine could raise that figure.
In the technology area of advanced structures, the panel viewed the U.S. and Europe as on a par in developing this technology. Although the U.S. led in application experience, Europe threatened the U.S. position. In propulsion technology, the panel saw the U.S. lead as not unassailable; Rolls-Royce was the principal foreign competitor, and the U.K. was committed to maintaining a comparative position with the U.S. The panel rated U.S. R&D facilities as the best in the world, European facilities as adequate, and Japanese facilities as handicapping their efforts to benefit from technological developments. (NRC NewsReport, Mar/85, 11)
After a detailed review of the history of Concorde development, J.C.D. Baine in his article, "The Concorde Supersonic Airliner-The Struggle for Survival," concluded that the survival of Concordes or their being superseded by second generation supersonic airlines appeared doubtful under the persisting circumstances of international economic, political, and social relationships.
He noted that the confrontation between aviation technology and the environment had brought into focus problems, whether real or emotional, that only advanced aeronautical science and technology would solve. That was especially true with respect to airport noise, sonic booms, and stratospheric pollution caused by emissions from multi-engines that consumed large quantities of petroleum-based fuels. Until those acceptable solutions were found, he concluded, opposition to civilian supersonic aircraft would continue and might further restrict or ban the aircraft's use on national and international routes.
However, he noted that the efforts of Great Britain and France to develop the Concorde should not be dismissed as a waste of human effort and resources. They had contributed to advancements in aeronautical science and technology that, though not financially rewarding, represented a store of scientific knowledge that would be available for future development. (Aerospace Historian, Mar/85, 10)
In a report of 1984 accomplishments, Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) commander, USAF Col. Philip Conran, said that AEDC conducted more than 200 separate test and evaluation programs during FY 84 and demonstrated the importance of the center's full-spectrum test support to development and operational aerospace programs.
In that year, propulsion systems testing dominated test and evaluation efforts, turbine engine testing being the busiest in the history of the center. Much of that had resulted from the new start for the F109 next-generation trainer engine and the fly-off competition between the F110 and F100 engines for the USAF's F-16 Fighting Falcon and the subsequent product verification of the F110.
In rocket motor testing, AEDC conducted three altitude test firings of the inertial upper stage (IUS) in an effort that helped Space Division and Boeing Aerospace Co. successfully understand and fix the April 1983 upper stage in-flight anomaly. After failure of the Palapa 8-2 and Westar 6 commercial satellites to reach desired orbits, AEDC supported the conversion of defense and commercial satellite perigee and apogee booster motors from carbon-carbon to carbon phenolic rocket nozzles.
AEDC considered completion of construction of the aeropropulsion systems test facility (ASTF) its outstanding achievement for 1984 and was proceeding with activation and acceptance testing to prepare the ASTF for operations in September 1985.
In the flight dynamics area, AEDC completed in a specially modified vacuum chamber the initial ground testing phase of the antisatellite pathfinder sensor that required the use of a spin mount rig, which had been three years in development, and an optical alignment system that provided accuracies on an order of magnitude better than any other available system. AEDC also developed and successfully demonstrated a new test technique of spinning a nose cone to evaluate reentry erosion.
One of the most productive programs at AEDC in 1984 was for the C-17 advanced cargo aircraft. AEDC provided more data in less time than usual and saved the sponsors about $1 million in wind-tunnel test time.
The in-house technology program, which supported testing and evaluation missions, delivered needed test techniques for testing of advanced reentry-vehicle materials, engine icing, and rocket motors. For example, AEDC applied a flash X-ray technique and worked with the University of Tennessee Space Institute to enhance the image of three test firings of the inertial upper stage, resulting in successful completion of the anomaly investigation. (AEDC Test Highlights, Spring/85, 2)
- February
- March
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
