Apr 26 1985
From The Space Library
Assured access to space is one of the Defense Department's "bottom lines" in fulfilling its mission, said Col. Victor Whitehead, deputy for the Air Force Space Command's (AFSC) Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELV), "and we're quite proud of our record,' AFSC's Newsreview reported. "We've gone three years in a row without a launch failure. In that time we have launched 30 totally successful ELVs.
"We've learned over the years what makes a successful launch; we don't go until everything is ready." The Space Command was examining what might be beyond the Space Shuttle and ELVs for space transportation, considering both manned and unmanned systems as a follow-on. "But I don't think you'll see a future scenario in which we will be dependent on a single system," Whitehead said. "There will be alternative ways of flying payloads. Our job is to determine what they are." The colonel pointed out that the Space Shuttle was a very good system, but that the Air Force recognized that if it stopped using ELVs and was dependent on the Space Shuttle alone, "our access to space would be limited if the shuttle, for some reason, is not available. We therefore found we needed a complementary ELV." Whitehead noted the follow-on Titan 34D7 would fulfill this alternative need. "This new booster will give us into the mid-1990s a totally separate way to launch a payload," he said. "We determine it should have the same capabilities as the shuttle in terms of performance, payload, and volume. This way, a payload that could fly on the shuttle can also fly on the Titan 34D7." But it was a true complement to the Space Shuttle in that it had "no common modes with shuttle. We have a completely separate set of contractors and separate launch facilities for the shuttle and Titan. If one system is down, the other continues on and flies those payloads," Whitehead concluded. (AFSC Newsreview, Apr 26/85, 3)
The USSR today launched the automatic "Prognoz-10-Intercosmos" station to study the structure of interplanetary and near-earth shock waves arising from the interaction of solar wind plasma and the earth's magnetosphere, FBIS, Tass in English reported. The station carried scientific equipment designed by USSR and Czechoslovakian scientists under an "intercosmos" program of international cooperation.
The station was in a high elliptic orbit with an apogee of 200,000 km, perigee of 400 km, period of 96 hours and 25 minutes, and inclination of 65°. The report stated all onboard systems and scientific equipment were functioning normally and that the USSR's coordination-computer center and institutes of the Academy of Sciences were processing incoming data. (FBIS, Tass in English, Apr 26/85)
The Department of Defense (DOD) placed a satellite on the Space Shuttle Discovery [see STS/Military Applications, Jan. 24], which put it in a radically different orbit from many spy satellites, the NY Times reported. According to figures made public by the Air Force, DOD put the satellite in a highly elliptical orbit at a low angle above the equator; the majority of U.S. spy satellites were in roughly circular orbits that passed across polar regions so that satellites would spend as much time as possible over the USSR. The satellite's, whose United Nations designation was 1985-10B, highest altitude was 34,670 km (21,543 miles); its low point was 341 km (212 miles). This elliptical path was inclined 28.4° to the equator, and the satellite took 10 hours to complete one revolution. In addition to its elliptical orbits, the satellite could maneuver from its initial orbit into another, perhaps more usual, orbit.
By international treaty, DOD was required to release to the United Nations a technical description of all its satellites' initial orbits. This recording process, which passed through the State Department and included filing the information with the Library of Congress, often took several months after an object was launched. The DOD released the data in early April to the State Department; the NY Times then requested and received the information. (NYT, Apr 26/85, A19)
Although the Defense Department's fourth edition of Soviet Military Power described an unfavorable imbalance between U.S. and Soviet strategic forces and research programs [see USSR/Missiles, Apr. 1], the annual report of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering stated that the U.S. would lead the Soviet Union in virtually every basic technology "critical to defense" over the next 10 to 20 years, Science reported, including many that would be crucial to the success of a sophisticated ballistic missile defense.
U.S. technology was superior in computers and software, electro-optical sensors, guidance and navigation, materials, microelectronics, optics, propulsion, radar, robotics, signal processing, telecommunications, and signature reduction (or stealth), the report said, and also in life sciences, production/manufacturing, and submarine detection. The Soviets, in contrast, led in no areas and matched the U.S. only in aerodynamics, conventional and nuclear warheads, and power sources.
In the area of weapons systems, the report said the U.S. was superior in 25 of 30 categories; the only exceptions were in categories where the U.S. had not chosen to deploy any weapons or where the U.S. was ready to deploy what experts believed were vastly superior weapon systems. These categories included deployed antiaircraft missiles, a deployed ballistic missile defense, deployed chemical weapons, and deployed antisatellite weapons.
The report concluded that the "strengthening of the U.S. military R&D commitment will make it more difficult for the USSR to close existing technology gaps." (Science, Apr 26/85, 478)
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
