Sep 6 1985
From The Space Library
RobertG (Talk | contribs)
(New page: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) engineers and technicians recently practiced the exact technique that would be used to fuel the Galileo spacecraft, simulating the [[Kennedy Space C...)
Newer edit →
Current revision
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) engineers and technicians recently practiced the exact technique that would be used to fuel the Galileo spacecraft, simulating the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) environment where the spacecraft would actually be fueled, the JPL Universe reported. This was necessary because Galileo's propulsion system, designed and built by West Germany and unlike previous JPL spacecraft in which the propulsion system was a separate module, would be sandwiched in between the bus and the despun section of the spacecraft. This would require fueling when Galileo was fully assembled, and any resulting problems could jeopardize the sensitive cargo.
“This four-day exercise is basically an 'undress rehearsal',” Hank Delgado, propulsion and pyro devices group leader, said. “We want to acquaint everyone with the procedures and equipment we plan to use to fuel Galileo.” Instead of using the actual propellants-mono-methylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide-that Galileo would use, the team practiced with less hazardous fluids-isopropyl alcohol and freon-allowing them to work without special suits. When Galileo was fueled at KSC, technicians would wear 55-lb. SCAPE (self-contained atmospheric protective ensemble) suits to protect them from the highly toxic propellants. Although the suits had an air supply and thermal control system, the limited air supply allowed only about an hour of work, requiring technicians to work in shifts.
JPL would send Galileo to KSC early in 1986 for final launch preparations. Technicians would then fuel the spacecraft, taking a day for each of its four tanks. For the following four months, the technicians would monitor the propellant closely for leaks or changes in temperature. (JPL Universe, Sept 6/ 85, 1)
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) announced it had scheduled for September 12 at Kennedy Space Center a 20-second on-the-pad test firing of the Space Shuttle orbiter Atlantis's three main engines to verify the flight readiness of Atlantis-the fourth and newest of the Space Shuttle orbiter fleet.
The flight readiness firing in a launch-day environment would exercise the Space Shuttle's main propulsion system and computer programs to demonstrate the proper integration of all elements prior to the first Atlantis launch scheduled for October 3 for mission 51-J. Engineers had previously test fired each engine individually at NASA's National Space Technology Laboratories.
On September 9 a firing simulation would kick off preparations for the test. The one-day test would check out critical flight and ground computer systems that controlled the actual engine firing and give the Space Shuttle launch team a chance to re-review test procedures.
Countdown for the flight readiness firing would begin at 4:00 a.m. September 10, with the clock at the T-43 hour mark, and culminate with the 20-second static firing.
Three days of preparations would precede the firing countdown, including purging the external tank with inert gases, installing special firing instrumentation, and mounting a radiation shield on the deck of the mobile launcher platform to protect the solid-fuel rocket boosters and external tank structures during the test firing. Total flight readiness firing, including pre- and post-test activities, would span six days and require support from personnel and operations from various NASA centers including MSFC and Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers.
Events leading to the September 12 engine firing would be nearly identical to those that preceded an actual Space Shuttle launch, with built-in holds distributed throughout the countdown at the same times they occurred in an actual launch countdown.
An automated ground launch sequencer would control the final nine minutes of the countdown. The sequencer performed the final series of events in a sp"ecific order, monitored various measurements of out-of"-tolerance conditions, and detected system malfunctions for which it would automatically stop the countdown.
Following the test, technicians would inspect externally and internally the three main engines to verify their readiness for flight. These post
Air safety experts, flight attendants, and some members of Congress were complaining that the emergency evacuation tests run by airlines had little resemblance to a real accident, the Washington Post reported. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations required that all jetliners pass an evacuation test that showed a planeful of passengers could be evacuated in 90 seconds. Such tests determined how many seats a plan must have in relations to the number of exits. However, flight attendants typically rehearsed several days for the tests in which there was no smoke, no fire, no elderly participants, or children.
Federal regulations didn't prohibit manufacturers from using their own employees for the tests, although no “passenger” could rehearse for the evacuation. Although regulations required a certain percentage of elderly persons or children for the tests, FAA officials said they often waived the requirement because of concerns that they might be injured.
Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), whose U.S. House public works and transportation subcommittee on investigations and oversight monitored the FAA, said that changes in the FAA's handling of evacuation requirements were long overdue. “We've got . . . no uniformity, just sort of a haphazard approach to rule making and safety, and lives of people are at stake,” he said. Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) of the same subcommittee called the approach to evacuation taken by the FAA and industry “just totally out of touch with the real world.” The controversy over the adequacy of evacuation requirements had simmered for months since the FAA permitted the Boeing Co. to eliminate two of ten exit doors on its 747 jumbo jet. Boeing officials convinced the FAA to allow elimination of the two over-wing emergency doors on the plane, because federal regulations required two doors for every 110 seats and none of the 747s with sealed doors would carry more than 440 seats.
The FAA's Seattle office, which handled certification of large commercial aircraft, approved the change without a test to see whether passengers actually could evacuate the plane within 90 seconds and instead relied on a mathematical calculationusing old evacuation tests. Critics complained that those tests were themselves flawed. (W Post, Sept 6/85, A21)
NASA and the U.S. Air Force announced award of $5 million 26-month contracts to Boeing Aerospace Co., General Dynamics, Martin Marietta, and Rockwell Internatl. to perform studies on space transportation architecture-the total transportation system of flight elements, ground and orbital support systems, and their operational interactions. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) awarded and would manage the General Dynamics and Martin Marietta contracts; the Air Force Space Division in Los Angeles, the Boeing and Rockwell contracts. The two agencies and four companies would maintain close coordination throughout the award period.
Broad objectives of the studies were to determine the nation's overall Space Transportation System architectures, including transportation and support systems needed to simultaneously meet mission and operational requirements, while substantially reducing total life-cycle cost; to identify the technologies required for the architectures; and to refine the resulting transportation and support system concept(s) for the mid-1990s if firm requirements were identified.
After the agencies first analyzed and provided projected mission/payload/ operational requirements for the mid-1990s to 2010, the companies would analyze mission requirements, develop and analyze architecture approaches, define future transportation system concepts, and identify technologies applicable to transportation system options.
Transportation system architectures and concepts would include launch and upper-stage flight systems, mission control concepts, ground support systems, logistics support systems, and on-orbit operations for both manned and unmanned systems. The resulting transportation architecture and vehicle concepts should outline and define the most promising concepts for improved cost-effectiveness and mission need accommodation for the specified period. (NASA Release 85-126)
NASA announced that its Lewis Research Center (LeRC) awarded a $79,194,665 contract to General Dynamics Corp.'s Convair Division to support the Space Shuttle/Centaur program from August 30, 1985 through June 1987 Under the cost-plus-award-fee contract, General Dynamics would supply labor, materials, and resources necessary for management and engineering services and launch operations services to implement the program.
Included in the multi-contract concept were services such as overall program management; administration and engineering support; technical management; operations, planning, and integration; and launch complex modifications.
NASA planned that the Space Shuttle/Centaur combination in May 1986 would launch Ulysses, the first and only planned mission to observe the polar regions of the sun, and a week later Galileo to explore Jupiter's atmosphere. In spring 1988 the combination would launch the Venus radar mapper mission to investigate the surface and interior of Venus. (NASA Release 85-125)
NASA today invited Rep. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who chaired the U.S. House science and technology subcommittee on space science and applications, to be a congressional passenger on an unspecified flight of the Space Shuttle, the Washington Post reported. Nelson, who represented the district in which the Kennedy Space Center launch site was located, later held a news conference at his office in Melbourne, Florida, to announce acceptance of the invitation.
The first congressional Space Shuttle passenger on an April 1985 flight was Sen. Jake Garn (R-Utah), chairman of the committee that oversaw NASA spending.
Although Nelson, unlike Gam, had no flying experience, he was an outspoken supporter of the space program. (W Post, Sept 6/85, A8)
The Department of Defense announced that' a large high-powered chemical laser destroyed at a distance of six-tenths of a mile a large liquid-fuel booster stage from a Titan 2 rocket in an experiment for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program, the Arizona Republic reported. The experiment, conducted at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, was significant “because this was the first full-scale test against an object this large,” said Mary Pshak, a spokeswoman for the SDI organization. “We had done a lot of subscale testing, but this particular experiment verified our earlier tests,” she noted.
Pshak declined to discuss the amount of power used because the information was classified, but said the laser was a large working model of MIRACL (mid-infrared chemical laser), considered the largest weapon-grade device of its type developed in the U.S. However, the SDI research program also was focusing on other types of lasers, some of which were considered even more promising. (Ariz. Republic, Sept 14/85, A28)
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
