Aug 14 1985
From The Space Library
RobertG (Talk | contribs)
(New page: During a news conference today at Johnson Space Center, Space Shuttle mission 51-F commander Gordon Fullerton said the Challenger's crew members could not endorse either the Co...)
Newer edit →
Current revision
During a news conference today at Johnson Space Center, Space Shuttle mission 51-F commander Gordon Fullerton said the Challenger's crew members could not endorse either the Coca-Cola or Pepsi-Cola they carried into space for the first time, the Washington Post reported. Both drinks were warm, fizzy, and full of froth whenever the crew tried to drink them.
“They both failed miserably, mainly because we had no refrigerator. Warm cola is not on anybody's favorite list of things . . . They just weren't at the right temperature and we had no desire to drain the cans the two drinks came in,” Fullerton said.
He added that, although the crew suffered no gastric distress from drinking the two colas, “I just can't extrapolate to any great desire to want them.” When reporters asked the sewn crew members if they would forsake the fruit juices they usually drank for the colas if the colas were refrigerated, they all shook their heads. “The drinks we have on board now are quite attractive,” said astronaut Anthony England. (W Times, Aug 15/85, A8)
NASA cleared today the Space Shuttle's main engines for launch, making possible an August 24 launch of Discovery, the Washington Post reported. Laboratory tests and a thorough examination of one of Challenger's engines, which prematurely shut down shortly after a July 29 launch, showed that it was not damaged during launch and that a pair of heat sensors, which mistakenly indicated the engine had overheated, caused the shutdown. NASA had fitted Discovery with new heat sensors that engineers believed were vastly superior to the ones that failed on Challenger.
Dominick Sanchini, executive vice president of Rocketdyne, which built the hydrogen-fueled engines, said, “Our analysis has verified what we felt right along was the probable failure mechanism. We're convinced that the sensors we have now have resolved the problem we saw on the last flight.” (W Post, Aug 15/85, A8)
The deputy for tactical systems at the Air Force Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) issued a request for proposals for demonstration and validation of the Air Force's planned Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF), Defense Daily reported. ASD planned to award up to four fixed-price contracts running approximately 33 months.
Seven ATF concept formulation contractors would compete for the contracts. The companies were Boeing Military Airplane, General Dynamics, Grumman Aerospace, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop, and Rockwell Internatl.
ASD said the demonstration/validation contractors would develop detailed concepts and designs of the ATF to meet operational needs, conduct testing to validate and assess proposed concepts, and identify and reduce overall program risks prior to start of full-scale development.
General Electric and Pratt & Whitney were competitively developing the joint advanced fighter engine for the ATF.
ASD was planning a FY 89 decision on full-scale development of the ATF, with initial operational capability set for 1995. The Air Force estimated the cost of developing and building 12 research and development ATF aircraft at $15.3 billion and believed it could build the ATF at a total unit cost only 20% higher than that of the F-15.
A top Air Force official had noted in 1984 that the ATF would have a basic Mach 1.5 speed and that it could employ technologies being demonstrated by the Grumman X-29 forward swept wing aircraft. (D/D, Aug. 14/85, 1)
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
