Dec 18 1985
From The Space Library
RobertG (Talk | contribs)
(New page: Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC) Materials Science Laboratory would make its first spaceflight on Space Shuttle 61-C, scheduled fo...)
Newer edit →
Current revision
Marshall Space Flight Center's (MSFC) Materials Science Laboratory would make its first spaceflight on Space Shuttle 61-C, scheduled for launch on December 18, the Marshall Star reported. Using a mission peculiar equipment support structure (MPESS) in the payload bay, the Materials Science Laboratory-2 (MSL-2) would provide accommodations for three experiments in materials processing-the MSFC-managed Electromagnetic Levitator (EML) and Automated Directional Solidification Furnace (ADSF) and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory-Managed Three-Axis Acoustic Levitator (3AAL).
The electromagnetic levitator experiment would allow scientists to study the effects of materials flow during solidification of a melted material in the microgravity environment. Six samples would be suspended in the electromagnetic field of a coil and melted by induction heating from the coil's electromagnetic field.
The ADSF consisted of four furnace, or sample, units. The experiment would investigate the melting and solidification process of four different materials for later comparison to samples of the same materials processed on earth.
In the 3AAL experiment, 12 liquid samples would be suspended in sound pressure waves and rotated and oscillated in a low-gravity nitrogen atmosphere. Investigators would study the degree of sphericity attainable and small bubble migration similar to that having to do with the refining of glass.
The standard switch panel in the orbiter aft flight deck would provide activation, deactivation, and status monitoring capability. (Marshall Star, Dec 18/85, 2)
Gen. Lawrence Skantze, commander of the Air Force Systems Command, declared that the U.S. military space program was about to begin a new era in which military space systems competed against terrestrial systems to determine which could better handle military situations, Defense Daily reported.
Three developments had created the military space program, reaching what Skantze called a “critical mass.” These were the establishments of the Unified Space Command that provided for the first time an advocate for U.S. space activities; the Project Forecast II technology study, which would propose among other things “quantum leaps in space capabilities;” and the growing momentum of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
“This critical mass, merging with the proven combat enhancement roles of space systems and a tight defense budget, would thrust the military into a new era of force structure decision,” Skantze said. “A limited budget and its allocation process will place space systems in direct competition with terrestrial systems for resources and solutions to military problems,” he commented.
Space systems would have to demonstrate that the benefits they provided were worth more than the terrestrial force addition that would have to be foregone for the space system, Skantze pointed out. In the past, “space systems have often competed for R&D dollars with terrestrial systems that have traditionally done the same or similar jobs,' he explained. “At times we have the luxury of being able to afford both. These times are gone. Given the more sophisticated treat, and the corresponding increased complexity and cost of all aerospace systems, tradeoffs among different mission areas are now essential.
“In an era when fielding a single military satellite can cost up to $.5 billion, we need to carefully consider what we are willing to give up to get a space system,” he asserted.
Regarding the outlook for a shift to space systems, Skantze said that “future tradeoffs of space systems will be tough for several reasons. One is that right now, space systems are fewer in number, more costly, and subject to different logistics concepts than terrestrial systems. While multiyear contracting can reduce cost, we haven't been able to take advantage of economic order quantities the way we have for missiles, bombs, or even planes. Development and production costs for spacecraft will continue to exceed the flyaway cost of a B-1 B or F-15-even with on-orbit satellite repair on the horizon.
“While the Shuttle offers that possibility,” he added, “we still have to build space systems reliable, redundant and survivable. For two to ten years at a time, military spacecraft must survive in-space radiation or combat, regulating their own systems or responding to remote controls. Ultra-high reliability is costly, but we can't yet afford squadron-level maintenance of military satellites on-orbit. For now, we're working on new maintenance concepts and better materials, propellants, and hardening to reduce some of the cost of space systems. However, they will remain expensive military alternatives until we find a new way of doing business.” A second reason making tradeoffs between space and terrestrial systems difficult was that “the payoffs are different, and hard to compare,” since space systems were “force multipliers,” that is, they made weapon systems more capable, Skantze said.
And a final reason that made tradeoffs difficult, he said, was “that a decision for a space system can be all or nothing,” meaning the number of fighter wings could be pared and still provide an effective force to some extent, “while the Unified Space Command cannot cut back on satellite numbers and still operate an effective system. The investment question can boil down to doing it all or just not doing it,” he commented. (DID, Dec 18/85, 241)
NASA announced that H. William Wood, deputy associate administrator (Networks), Office of Space Tracking and Data Systems (OSTDS), was retiring effective early in January after more than 30 years of government service.
Wood had served in his present post since April 1984. Before that he managed the Network Systems program as the division director since 1981. Wood was a research engineer at Langley Research Center when NASA was formed in 1958; and in 1959 he became the group leader with the Tracking and Ground Instrumentation unit for the Mercury Network. His other NASA assignments included associate director, Network Systems Division; NASA senior scientific representative in Australia; and associate director, Operations, in the Network Directorate at Goddard Space Flight Center. Earlier, Wood had served several years in the U.S. Air Force.
Wood received the NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal and two NASA Exceptional Service Medals, and he is a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society. In 1955 Wood received a BSEE degree from North Carolina State University. (NASA anno., Dec 18/85)
NASA announced that it had selected Boeing Aerospace Operations to receive the Flight Equipment Processing Contract (FEPC) at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Wornick Co. was a Boeing subcontractor. The three-year award with a two-year priced option would begin in January 1986 at an estimated total cost of $76.5 million. The contract also included provisions for two additional unpriced, five-year extensions. JSC would manage the work under a cost-plus incentive/award-fee contract arrangement, which included incentive fee for sound cost management and an award fee based on performance.
Under the contract, Boeing would assume responsibility for receipt, launch preparation, and postlaunch activities relating to the overall process of crew-related flight and flight-type equipment required to support the Space Transportation System program. The contractor would process and resupply individual flight equipment items, which supported the flight crew in its daily operation of the orbiter vehicle, and would operate and maintain support equipment required for the successful processing of the flight equipment, which included extravehicular mobility units, food and medical systems, communications equipment, and other miscellaneous items.
In addition to Boeing, NASA conducted final negotiations with Hamilton Standard Management Services, Inc. The selection of Boeing for the contract represented the consolidation into one contract of work currently performed by 16 firms under 19 contracts. (NASA Release 85-174)
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
