January 1983
From The Space Library
Speaking in the House of Representatives, Reps. Don Fuqua (D-Fla.) and Larry Winn (R-Kans.) noted the 25th anniversary of the start of the U.S. space program. When the Navy's Vanguard rocket exploded on its pad in December 1957, the Army "quickly moved forward" to finish developing Explorer 1, and the Jupiter C rocket carried it into orbit January 31, 1958. After two Soviet space firsts-Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, and Sputnik 2 carrying the dog Laika into space on November 3, 1957-the United States had entered the space race that would land two astronauts on the moon just over 11 years after Explorer 1.
Explorer 1 exceeded all expectations, transmitting data until its batteries were exhausted May 23, 1958. Scientists basing a decay rate on data from Sputnik said that Explorer 1 would not last more than five years. But on March 3, 1970, more than 12 years after launch, Explorer 1 plunged back into Earth's atmosphere and burned up. It had made the most significant discovery of the International Geophysical Year (the Van Allen radiation belt about Earth), controlled the temperature in a satellite, and found that micrometeorites were not serious hazards to space vehicles, data valuable to the Moon missions.
Although "the American story in space is only 25 years old," Winn added, "we have made tremendous progress in that quarter century, and it all began with Explorer 1" (CR, Jan 31/83, E204; AFSC Newsreview, Feb 11/83, 1)
The hydrogen leak that caused postponement of Challenger's maiden launch had been traced to one of the three engines, according to KSC's Dick Young. A three-quarter-inch-long crack appeared in the combustion manifold of the #1 engine, a piece of metal an eighth of an inch thick. (W Post, Jan 30/83, A-2)
NASA reported a number of differences between Shuttle orbiters Columbia and Challenger, most of them stemming from Columbia's being a vessel for research and development, whereas Challenger came equipped as an operational craft.
Control and display panels on Columbia had sensors configured for data collection and processing in the flight-test phase; those on Challenger had fewer of these and more support equipment, such as a Ku-band antenna system for tracking future data-relay satellites. On the first four flights, Columbia had an ejection-seat system for the commander and pilot in case of accident in the launch or landing phase of flight-testing. Challenger had no ejection system; the space used for it on Columbia would serve on Challenger to seat the mission specialists. On its first flight in February, Challenger would seat all four of the flight crew on the orbiter's flight deck; it would be able to seat three more crew members in the mid-deck on later flights.
Challenger would weigh about 2,000 pounds (907 kilograms) less than Columbia and could carry more payload and additional crew on operational flights. The orbiters differed in thermal-protection systems: heat-shielding tiles on Columbia were being replaced with densified tiles to eliminate porosity that made the original tiles vulnerable to loosening. All of Challenger's tiles had been densified. Challenger also had an advanced thermal-protection blanket, a silica material sandwiched between an upper and lower quilt and bonded directly to the orbiter skin. Its identification marking also differed from Columbia's, being located so the name would be visible during on-orbit operations. (NASA Actv, Jan 83, 4)
- 1983
- January
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
