Apr 16 1985
From The Space Library
NASA announced that its Administrator, James Beggs, and Canadian Minister of Science and Technology, The Honorable Tom Sidden, signed on April 16 a memorandum of understanding to conduct a cooperative program for detailed definition and preliminary design (Phase B) of a permanently manned Space Station. Under the memorandum, the countries for the next two years would conduct parallel Phase B studies and exchange information on their work. Canada, which had approved $8.8 million for the first year of Phase B, would study a space construction and servicing system, a solar array for a platform or as a potential auxiliary power source for the Space Station, and a remote sensing facility.
At the signing, Administrator Beggs said that "we are pleased Canada has become an international partner in [this] phase of the Space Station's development. We look forward to working with our friends in Canada, Europe, and Japan in building a firm foundation for future cooperation on a permanently manned Space Station to serve the needs of the free world in developing the peaceful uses of space well into the next century." Separate agreements would cover cooperative efforts during development, operation, and use phases of the Space Station. (NASA Release 85-58)
NASA announced it selected the first participants in a program to assimilate discoveries from space astronomy experiments into a comprehensive modern astrophysical theory in order to use more effectively future experiments such as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Gamma-ray Observatory, the Solar Optical Telescope, and similar planned projects. After evaluating 49 proposals from 300 individuals at 80 institutions, NASA selected seven groups to participate in the astrophysical theory program.
Dr. Richard McCray and a scientific team from the University of Colorado would study detailed ways in which spectra form in a variety of astrophysical sources such as stars, supernovae, and active galactic nuclei.
Dr. Jeremiah Ostriker and colleagues from Princeton University would analyze the most distant observable parts of the universe to determine possible effects of the theoretical "big bang".
Dr. Pierre DeMarque and a team from Yale University would develop computer models of the sun to examine the internal motions and magnetic fields that caused sunspots, solar flares, and solar wind.
Dr. Roger Chevalier and his team from the University of Virginia would study the hot gases that appeared to surround clusters of galaxies, individual galaxies, and supernova remnants to determine the origin and motion of the gases as well as their effect on the development of galaxies.
Dr. Ronald Taam and colleagues from Northwestern University would study the origin of rapid bursts of high-energy radiation from neutron stars and globular clusters in order to model the ignition, nuclear evolution, and propagation of burning fronts on surfaces of neutron stars and to understand the nature of hot plasma confinement in magnetic fields near such subjects.
Dr. David Black, heading a team from Ames Research Center and the University of California, Santa Cruz and Berkeley campuses, would investigate various physical and chemical processes taking place in the formation of stars, concentrating particularly on the stars' origins in giant molecular clouds in interstellar space and the protostellar/protoplanetary disk-shaped nebulae surrounding fledgling stars.
And Dr. Simon White and a team of scientists from the University of Arizona would study questions regarding star and planet formation, including properties of star-forming regions, galaxy formation, and evolution.
NASA would bring the researchers together in 1986 to exchange information and to encourage a better understanding of the advances that science has made with data acquired from space research. (NASA Release 85-59)
USA Today reported that its debate for that day would explore the pros and cons of U.S. manned space missions. In its editorial, USA Today said, "Human brains can adapt to change. Machines cannot. Without men and women in space, there would be no one to even try to fix the Navy's stranded satellite" [Navy communications satellite carried on the Discovery 51-D mission]. ". . . Space is our last frontier. Without humans aboard to ride rockets to the stars and beyond, man will never embrace what he has envisioned," the editorial concluded.
USA Today guest columnist Geoffrey Keller, a professor of astronomy at Ohio State University, wrote that one of the values of the manned space program was that it would help to lengthen the useful life of expensive space telescopes (for example, the Hubble Space Telescope), by permitting astronauts to replace worn-out telescope parts and to make telescopes more powerful as new and more efficient cameras were invented and installed.
In an opposing view, James Van Allen, a professor of physics at the University of Iowa, wrote that nearly all of what he considered the really important and durable products of space technology were "achieved by much-less expensive unmanned spacecraft, operating automatically and under command control from ground stations, often for many years in earth orbit or in the far reaches of the solar system.
". . . The public acclaim for the Apollo program has left a permanent imprint on NASA and has, in effect, committed it to an overriding emphasis on further development of manned space flight," Van Allen continued. "This emphasis is simultaneously NASA's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. Manned space flight, with all its mythological foundations, has assumed the aura of a religion. The Space Shuttle and the proposed permanently manned space station are primarily embodiments of this religion," he wrote. But, he added, "the relevant results to date are far too meager to justify such hyperbolic expectations and such enormous expenditures. Meanwhile, the proven applications of space technology are languishing for lack of resources." (USA Today, Apr 16/85, 8A)
NASA announced the postlaunch status of the NOAA-A, -B, and -C missions carried out for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In addition, NASA announced it scheduled NOAA-D for launch in 1987. NASA submitted on January 24, 1984 a postlaunch report for NOAA-E (launched March 18, 1983) and would submit a postlaunch report for NOAA-F (launched December 12, 1984) after a full year of data collection and evaluation.
NASA successfully launched NOAA-A (NOAA-6) June 27, 1979, from the Western Space and Missile Center into a sun-synchronous orbit. The satellite ceased providing usable atmospheric soundings on October 22, 1983, when the filter wheel assembly became inoperable. NASA still used the primary imaging system. NOAA-G would replace NOAA-6 in November 1985.
During NOAA-B launch on May 29, 1980, one of the two Atlas booster engines had a thrust reduction. This premature booster engine cutoff caused a deficit in velocity and altitude of the Atlas, making the sustainer engine burn 55 seconds longer than planned. As the sustainer engine was still thrusting when the spacecraft attempted to separate from the launch vehicle, the spacecraft consumed most of its attitude control gas as it fought the booster for its attitude control. The apogee kick motor burn put NOAA-B into a highly elliptical, 269 x 1466 km, 92.5° inclination orbit. As a result of the combination of incorrect orbit and loss of attitude control, NASA terminated the mission. The aborted NOAA-B mission brought about changes in subsequent NOAA launches, and the next three launches were successful. On June 23, 1981, NASA successfully launched NOAA-C (NOAA-7) from the Eastern Space and Missile Center into a sun-synchronous orbit. Failure of the filter wheel assembly on February 7, 1985, terminated the collection of usable atmospheric soundings. On February 25, 1985, NASA placed the primary imaging system on standby when NOAA-9 became the operational spacecraft for afternoon observations.
NASA achieved the mission objectives of NOAA-A and -C, and the spacecraft provided useful sounding and imaging data far in excess of their two-year design life. NASA certified these missions successful. Due to launch vehicle malfunction, NASA terminated the NOAA-B mission and reported that mission unsuccessful. (NASA MOR E-615-79-01 [postlaunch], E-61580-02 [postlaunch], E-615-81-03 [postlaunch] Apr 16/85)
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
