Conference 7.286::space

    Uh, gee, I expect it will be a long time before ANYONE gets enough
    mass up there to create any significant amount of gravity.  What
    you're probably thinking of is rotation to simulate gravity due
    to centrifugal (pseudo-)force.
    
    I'm a little doubtful the US will ever get a space station which
    is devoted to non-military means, which is an irritation of sorts
    to me.  After all, NASA *was* established as a civilian agency.
    I'm all for national defense and all that, but when the armed forces
    start taking over the space station it's time for them to spend
    their own money and create their own station and leave the "civilian"
    space station alone!
    

    To add to .1, look at the dynamics of the situation.  In order to
    attain 1g, by use of mass, one would have to construct a space station
    of equal mass *AND* density of the earth.  To use less mass (and
    they would) would require much higher densities in order to obtain
    1g.  Not likely.
    
    jim
    

    I was assuming it would be understood that I was talking a rotation
    strategy, and some where from my antiquated physics, I remember
    that there was a ratio of orbital mass and rotation moment required
    to simulate gravity.  In other words you need something long and
    of a certain size to create artificial gravity by rotation.  If
    you didnot then I'm shure the Russians would have added a spiral
    component to an orbit in the direction of travel and caused a psudo
    rotating member and solved what they have percieved as a very real
    limit to time in space for an individual...
    

    The MIR space station was once put into a 'gravity-gradient'
    position, but not for the crew but to min the amount of fuel 
    required to maintain it orientation towards earth , but now 
    with the astrophysical and other photo studies I don't think 
    they will try it again.  A good example of this is a 'top' 
    spinning and always stable relative towards the center of earth 
    several satellites have done this including UoSAT-2.  IE spin along
    its axis with a big difference in mass from one end of the
    cylinder to the other then the space craft will become stable and
    only make one revolution per orbit ( always pointed towards
    earth)
    
    as for the length of stay in freefall limited to 6 months that
    is not true.  The Cosmonauts efficiency when down but medically
    they could have stayed up longer, the present goal form the 
    Cosmonauts on MIR now is for 9 months.  To help do this 
    walls, floor and other earthly features to establish up/down
    and private sleeping qtrs, a larger space station so that
    experiments do not have to be torn apart each day etc.
    And and extensive daily exercise program, the last crew
    of six months were back jogging on earth within a week
    of deorbiting. So for a trip to Mars and back one does not
    need a pseudo-gravity environment.
    
    john
    
    
    
    

    More on gravity gradient:
    
    It does not even need a spin at all.  SKYLAB was put in gravity
    gradient after it was abandoned, for example, but not spun up.
    The deal is that gravitational attraction between two masses decreases
    the further apart the masses are.  Even though gravity does not
    change much over a distance of a few tens of meters, it does change
    a bit.  Thus if one piece of an orbiting object gets closer to the
    earth than another piece, the closer piece is attracted even more
    strongly, and will tend to rotate the whole object so that it is
    as close to earth as possible.  If the end closest to the earth
    is also the heaviest end of the object, then it is more stable.
   
    This mode is very fuel efficient...it is going with the natural
    forces rather than trying to oppose them.
    
    Burns
        

    
    I think .5 is correct. The Soviets claim that amount of time required
    for a manned Mars mission in almost zero-g is well within limits based
    upon their Salyut experience. I don't think they view 6 months as a
    limit. 
    
    They are placing more emphasis on personal space, psychological issues
    (the 'floor' and 'ceiling') and on larger crews. Much of the time
    Salyut was operated by two man crews and they have stated that 3 or 4
    people are the minimum for long space activity. 
    
    gary

    6 months came to mind from a Popular Science article I happened
    to read about 2 years ago.  (And who knows what month and year it
    was published.  Do remember the source.)  Will yield to this groups
    more learned status and more up to date info.  
    
    At least you guys have got me treking down to the library and changin
    my reading habits from PS to AWST and Science versus Omni...Les
    
    8^)

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!hplabs!sri-unix!sri-spam!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!
Subject: Build the Space Station right or cancel it!
Posted: 4 May 87 19:56:47 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
 
    There are storm clouds on the horizon for the American Space
Station.  Caspar Weingber is now in the middle of a hostile take over
of the Station.  It is not clear why he is doing this.  Perhaps he
wants the Station for the DOD.  More likely he wants to kill the
Station outright and free up Space Shuttle time for SDI missions.  The
original "power tower" concept for the Space Station was a bold and
exciting design. However due to micro-budgeting by the OMB and other
bean counters, the Space Station has now been reduced to being little
more than a pressurized tin can full of bored astronauts. 

    This is exactly the same dreary road the Space Shuttle went down
in being converted from its originally excellent design into the
turkey we have today.  NO LEARNING HAS TAKEN PLACE.  Key scientist are
now resigning in protest from top positions overseeing the Space
Station, i.e. Prof. Peter Banks of Stanford University.  The Space
Station raises an interesting ethical question for engineers:  How
long can an engineer remain with a project that is being watered down
and bastardized by bean counters and politicians, before the engineer
throws down his tools and walks away in protest?  If the Space Shuttle
engineers had done this, maybe we wouldn't have a Shuttle today.  Then
again, maybe the Shuttle would have been adequately funded and we
would have a robust and fully reusable Shuttle.  We need a Space
Station in LEO.  If the politicians refuse to adequately fund it, then
cancel the project.  The need for a Space Station will still be there.

    If the politicians are faced with the choice of having a properly
designed Station or no Station at all, then they must eventually bow
down to building a properly designed one. 

                        Gary Allen

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!pyramid!oliveb!ames!cit-vax!oddhack!jon
Subject: Closed minds at Rockwell?
Posted: 8 May 87 21:05:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
  
    An article in this morning's (May 8) LOS ANGELES TIMES newspaper
reports that Rockwell has warned 3 senior engineers they risk being
fired if they persist in public criticism of Rockwell's Space Station
design. 
 
    One of the three, Oliver Harwood, has proposed an easily
extensible tetrahedral station built from cylindrical modules and
spherical nodes connecting the modules.  His concept could be made
operational with as few as 4 Space Shuttle flights (for an initial
triangle of modules) as opposed to the 11 or more required for the
current NASA configuration.  Harwood has been involved in the design
of SKYLAB and other major NASA projects. 
 
    Harwood's inability to get Rockwell to consider his concept,
combined with their criticism of the NASA reference configuration, has
put the group in conflict with Rockwell management. 
 
    My opinion:  Rockwell's stifling dissent, Morton Thiokol is
punishing integrity, and NASA steadfastly ignores the increasing
number of warnings about the vulnerability inherent in relying on the
Space Shuttle. Meanwhile, every major launch system in the world is
down. [At the moment only. - LK]  We don't have a space program.  We
have a $8G/year slush fund for big aerospace companies; and we
probably won't even have THAT after the next Shuttle accident.  The
Dream has had a stake driven through its heart, and the best way to
revive it is to STOP thinking that NASA is able or willing to do the
job, and start supporting the much longer term, private, small scale,
profit-making alternatives.  Maybe it will take 50 years instead of
20; but when we do go, it will be for reasons that don't change
depending on the mood of the Administration and the competence of NASA
management; and NASA can go back to doing the only thing they've been
consistently good at:  Research and scientific missions. 
 
    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!ames!hao!scd
Subject: Re: A response to Henry's editorial
Posted: 9 May 87 14:00:42 GMT
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Xref: decwrl sci.space:1405 sci.space.shuttle:163
  
    After reading the Rogers commission report I could not help but
notice that most of the problems cited were BUDGET related.  It seems
Congress did not fund NASA appropiately.  In the report, every
complaint brought before the Commission could have been prevented, had
NASA had the money it needed. 
 
    NASA set such an ambitious launch schedule for itself in order to
keep the Shuttle program in the public eye.  This was necessary to
show Congress that somthing was being accomplished.  If Congress saw
that progress was being made, it would be more willing to fund NASA. 
It is easy to see that a Catch-22 situation would soon develop. 
 
    There were a large number of hardware problems brought before the
Commission that could have been avoided had NASA had the necessary
funding.  These problems ranged from the tires and brakes, to the
infamous SRB joint and seal.  The Commission's recomendations are
going to cost NASA a lot of money to implement.  Hopefully, Congress
will be willing to provide the necessary funds. 
 
	Dave Rowland NCAR

    From watching "The Rocky Road to Jupiter", it is my opinion that
    it was not necessarily the _quantity_ of money that matters, but
    the _consistency_. NASA was totally unable to predict what next
    year's budget would be. Congress needs to realize that in order
    to do anything productive "up there" requires a long term commitment.
    They need to guarantee a certain budget for the next ten years
    and not be able to willy-nilly muck around with it for temporary
    political gains. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

  It certainly seems that 4-8 years is about the limit.  The government
needs independantly voted-in commissioners (or whatever) which are responsible
for long term scoping and implementation of major governmental programs.
The funds should be committed to the project that the commissioner has been
saddled with and the funds can't be revoked until the project is completed.

  The intent of such a system would be to eliminate (or at least reduce) the
impact of administration changes.  Wait till a democrat gets into office
and trashes the "Star Wars" stuff.  All that work and money out the window
and moved over to social programs.  Then a republican gets back in and the
social programs are left in a mess so that we can build up our national
defense again.

  The impact of this would be that some final destination for space research
could be scoped out for, say, the next 20 years.  The goal could be
colonization of Mars, or remote sensing of 85% of the objects in the solar
system in a survey of useable materials available for extra-terrestrial
habitats.  Or whatever.

  Oh.  Note that I said *one* commissioner runs the show.  One person at the
helm with *real* authority at the functional level allows us to bring in
people from the private section since salaries can be made more attractive
and the promise of accomplishing something more probable.  Foremost, a single
person's plan, uncompromised, with the vision of that one individual is
far more valuable than many shifting visions which go with the flow.

  I know this whole reply is something of a digression, but I'd really like
to see NASA and any other space administration we have gain from a long
term plan pursued by an authoritative individual (possibly from the private
sector) who doesn't have to be utterly responsive to the whims of popular
opinion running amok at the time or to a congress and presidency which reacts
to the popular opinion (I know, "The populace is what it's all about" -
but not the day-to-day whims of the populace or "Whoever can yell loudest
wins").

John

    Welcome to America. Its a Democracy. We don't do 5 year plans.

>    Welcome to America. Its a Democracy. We don't do 5 year plans.

  I thought about the tone of my note on the way home last night.  It *does*
seem a little like forcing things down people's throats.

  The idea was that the representative bodies (congress, popular elections,
what have you) would determine these large programs and who is responsible
for them.  I suppose such a scheme would end up depending on the whims of
the populace, but who knows?  Maybe when people realize that voting to have
a 50 Billion dollar program to paint all rocks in Texas bright green is
a bad idea, they'll think twice about their next move.

John

    Unfortunately, I agree with both .12 and .13.  There has to be some
    compromise which can be reached which would allow for long-term
    funding and planning.  Perhaps something which would allow Congress
    to vote on a long-term strategy.  Then it would take a 2/3 or 3/4
    vote to revoke the plan????
    
    Burns
    

    The problem with that Idea is you open the doors for a lame duck
    Congress and President to nail the incomming congress/president
    with programs that they disagree with.  The Republicans vote for
    huge miliatary build up or Democrats vote for huge Social programs.
    But I think we digress.  I would also like to see a long range plan
    for the space program but until the US people believe we need a
    space plane or station more than two new aircraft carriers we will 
    be stuck with them.  Of course with the current state of affairs
    at NASA, (the weatherman should have just looked out the window) we
    are probably getting what we deserve.

    I too agree with Re .13, .14, and .15
    
    The U.S. has constistently show its short sigthness. Anything beyond
    four years semms to be beyond it, more often still anything beyond
    the next budget year. They will give it this year and take it away
    in the next.
    
    What we need is a way to insure long term (up to 20 years at least)
    committement, funding, and oversigth of long term projects. 
          <For example the building of a US space station.>
    
    It could be as sugested in Re .15, a process by which the governament
    once committed to a long term project and a certain level of funding
    over the project life. Would find it very difficult (2/3 vote) to 
    decrease its level of funding or kill it outrigth. But just regular
    bussiness (1/2 vote) to increase its funding, (seems like there
    isn't a governament project that can finish without going over budget).
    Leaving the oversight part to the particular agency, those guys
    don't get rolled over every four years).
    
    Or a new division of governament could be created, a long term board.
    Where each ex-president, has a life time membership and is responsible
    for the oversight of any long term projects he may have initiated.
    <For example Reagan could go on administrating his STAR WARS project
     until its completion. Still with veto power over any law directly
     related to the project, i.e. funding, kill etc.>
    

    Well, the government passed a 5-year HIGHWAY spending bill, didn't
    they?

>    Or a new division of governament could be created, a long term board.

  This is the direction I was thinking of in my reply.  A single, coherent
effort by a single person (or closely knit group) would certainly be more
effective than what we have now.  You'd have to give these long-termers very
definite, but very localized power.  They would be subject to recall or
impeachment just like any other official (can you impeach anyone you want?)

  Question is, can competent people survive amidst all the beaurocracy?

  I like the 2/3 vote.  It seems like *all* votes should require 2/3 majority.
Seems pretty silly to pass a law where one percent less than half of the
representative body disagrees with the law (either in whole or in part).

John

    re .17
    
    Shortsightedness is also a characteristic in US business.  We typically
    have to show short term profit at the expense of long term growth.
    The Japanese, for example, can take losses for a period of time
    while they prepare for expansion into a market.
    
    BTW, did anyone read about a potential permanent lunar base?  I
    saw it alluded to in a very brief article.  Seems that NASA has
    been hinting at it.
    
    					Mike

    re .20: permanent lunar base:
    
    See this weeks AW&ST, good article. A few <$1m feasibility study
    contracts to be awarded this summer. Theory has it that we can
    establish a permanent base, useful as a staging area for Mars mission,
    by 2015, at a cost of $80b, which is roughly what Apollo cost (adjusted
    for inflation), and which is about 1/3 of the annual defense budget
    (sigh).
    
    

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!LL-VLSI.ARPA!glenn
Subject: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab
Posted: 12 May 87 22:10:23 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
 
    In Space v7, 219 Mike Caplinger repeats on of the often quoted
myths of our space age: 
 
> Subject: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
> What's the big deal about Mir, anyway?  The diagram I saw in a recent
> AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with
> the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?)
>    With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did
> everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago.
>    I realize there's a symbolic issue here, but it doesn't look to me like
> the Russians are "way out in front" now any more than they were in 1960.
 
    Let us compare the advantages of the two stations.  As a reminder
Soviet stations have come in 3 generations: Their 1st containing
Salyut 1 (Apr - Oct '71), Salyut 2/Cosmos 557 (1973 - failures that
were never manned), Salyut 3 (Jun '74 - Jan '75), Salyut 4 ( Dec '74 -
Feb '77), and Salyut 5 (Jun '76 - Aug '77); Second generation with
Salyut 6 (Sept '77 - Jul '82) and Salyut 7 (Apr '82 - present); Third
generation Mir (Feb '86  - present).  Skylab was launched in May '73,
the last crew left in Feb '74, and decayed in July '79. 
 
    Where Skylab is currently ahead:
 
    (1) Skylab had a final mass of 77 Tonnes (with 2200 lbs per metric
Tonne), and the combined cluster Skylab + the Apollo Command Service
Module is listed as 90 Tonnes.  The current Soviet Mir/Kvant station
has a 33 Tonne mass as launched, while the combined Mir + Soyuz +
Progress cluster is 47 Tonnes. However there are some caveats here. 
The mass for Skylab includes some 8 Tonnes of food, water, air, and
fuel for that were required for the entire mission.  By comparison the
Progress freighters bring that up to Mir.  There have been 5
Progresses to Mir, each bring some 2.3 Tonnes of cargo/fuel/water for
a total of 11.5 Tonnes added to Mir, plus about 1 Tonne more brought
up by the Soyuz's with the Cosmonauts.  Of course some of that has
been discarded as waste.  In Skylab all the garbage was kept in a tank
at the "bottom" of the station, so it maintained that mass (plus the
astronauts took up about 200 Kg per trip).  Also there is one other
problem with Skylab's mass - all the books I have found give the value
as launched, with both solar wings, but one was lost before orbit. 
That probably reduces the mass by 2-3 tonnes. 
 
    (2) Working volume for the Skylab complex was 357 cubic meters. 
The current Mir/Kvant combination is about 160 cubic meters.  From a
psychological point of view that was definitely better for Skylab
crews.  However much of that volume had little useful value, and
pictures of Skylab show that its walls are not completely covered with
equipment, the way the Mir's is.  Also it should be noted that the new
NASA station has a volume per crew that is about the same as Mir's, or
perhaps a bit smaller. 
 
    Where Mir & other Soviet stations are ahead:
 
    (1) All Russian stations, right from Salyut 1 in 1971, have had
orbital manoeuvring rockets that use Hydrazine (UMHD) fuel and
Nitrogen Tetroxide oxidzer.  This allows the Soviets to do extensive
orbital changes with their systems. For example this lets them lower
the orbit to meet supply ships and Soyuz's (usually by letting the
orbit decay a bit so this does not cost them fuel), thus allowing
those systems to bring up more material.  Then they raise the orbit to
keep the space station up there. Thus with this the orbital working
lifetime of the second generation Soviet Stations was about 5 years,
and none of their working stations have decayed from orbit (Salyut 2
and Comos 557 were two early stations that were damaged on orbit,
never manned, and allowed to decay - the others were brought down by
command from the ground).  Skylab had only a small Nitrogen gas system
with 0.8 Tonnes of gas.  As a result only small changes could be made
to Skylab's orbit.  As we all know it reentered in 1979 due to this. 
 
    (2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking
ports, while Mir has 6.  Skylab had only one.  This has many
implications. First one crew could be docked to the station while a
second crew came up for a visit or to replace the first crew.  Without
multiple ports crew exchanges, where all or part of cosmonauts
releaved those currently manning the station, would be extremely
difficult.  Secondly this allows cargo to be brought to the station
while a crew is on board (see point 3 also). Thirdly the extra ports
can be used to expand the current station.  Salyut 6 & 7 had one extra
module added to them at a time (Salyut 7 had this done twice to it). 
Mir currently has one expansion module added (Kvant) but is designed
to take at least 5 modules, plus a Soyuz and one other vehicle. Skylab
was a one shot deal - no plans for expansion.  Indeed the TRS rocket
system that was being designed to attached Skylab from the shuttle had
two plans for it - one to boost it to a higher orbit, the other to
send it to reentry in the ocean areas. 
 
    (3) The Russians developed an automatic docking system back on
Salyut 6 (1977) which allows unmanned cargo craft like Progress, or
large "star" modules (20 Tonne expansion unites) to attach to the
system.  Since the cargo craft are unmanned they do not need heat
shields and can carry more material.  This naturely cuts the effort
and cost in supplying the station and makes their long duration
missions possible.  Indeed Skylab was launched with 140 days worth of
supplies on board.  The Apollo capsule could only bring a few weeks
worth up with them.  The plans for a fourth mission to Skylab called
for only a 30 day stay, due to supply problems.  Again the Soviet
autodocking system means the expansion modules need no crew, making
their design and testing simpler.  Skylab had nothing like that
developed for it.  Sure we could supply a station from the shuttle and
expand it that way, but not without developing equipment which we do
not have.  The Russians have had automatic systems doing this for 10
YEARS! 
 
    (4) All Soviet stations since Salyut 6 (1977) have been refuelable
via Progress tanker craft.  In addition their water and air was
resupplied from the same vehicles via similar lines and transfer
systems from the Progress to the station.  Fuel supplied to Salyut 6
or 7 was about 5.3 Tonnes each, to Mir I estimate 2.2 Tonnes so far. 
Since UMHD/Nitrogen Tetroxide has a much higher specific impulse than
Nitrogen gas that gives them much more boost capability.  Water and
air totaled about 11 Tonnes each for the Salyuts. Mir is early in its
cycle so that less material has been supplied there. The first
generation Russian stations where like Skylab - throw away cans. You
used them until they ran out of supplies and then tossed them.  Second
generation and the new Mir can be used as long as you need or want
them. 
 
    (5) Since Salyut 6 (1977) Russian stations have had a working
partial water recovery system.  The older versions recovered about 50%
of the water (Mir may be better from some comments).  Since water a
human uses about 4.5 Kg of water a day, but only 0.8 Kg of oxygen and
0.7 Kg of food (dry) this is the most important thing to recover
first.  Sure better systems have been built on Earth, but nothing else
has flown in zero g.  This is vital for a real station or long voyages
to the planets.  Nothing like this on Skylab. 
 
    (6) Mir has a data/communications relay system through their TDRS
system (the Eastern Data Relay Network).  While the shuttle has this
Skylab did not. 
 
    (7) Mir's solar power system puts out more power, 9-10 KW, than
Skylab's. People think Skylab was better because some books talk about
the total possible power there as 23 KW.  However Skylab's max
deliverable power was only 8.5 KW before they lost the solar wing, and
about 6-7 after the repairs. The difference comes from looking at the
area of the solar cells and their efficiency, while ignoring shadowing
effects, losses in the power cables, and other power system losses
which reduce the output to 33% of the max value. Mir's values are for
the actual system output power. In addition the Soviets will be doing
a space walk to add more solar panels to Mir in the next month or so. 
 
    (8) The Russians have put a lot of work into making the crew
psychologically comfortable on their stations, from the experience
they have gotten from their long voyages.  They send up gifts from
home and fresh fruits on the Progress tankers, have a TV studio set up
to set up weekly vido conversations with friends and families.  Color
schemes on the station are for maximum comfort etc.  Again we can do
this, but they have 10 years of experience of what people miss most in
orbit (they get great pleasure in tending the small gardens in the
space station for example). 
 
    Where Mir will probably exceed Skylab:
 
    (1) The Mir complex will exceed the combined Skylab complex mass
when two more 20 Tonne "star" modules are added, probably by the end
of next year. 
 
    (2) The Skylab's working volume record will fall if the Soviets
add the announced 4 "star" expansion modules that Mir was designed to
take.   This will take several years to occur. 
 
    All of this was only hardware.  It ignores the experience the
Soviets have gained: 10 years of materials science experiments, zero g
life science work, the knowledge of how space station system work in
orbit, how joined structures behave in orbit over years of time.  If
you think that the Russians having more than twice the number of man
hours of space experience means nothing then you must argue that space
is different in that reguard than any activity here on Earth -
experience counts when things must be done well or quickly. Right now
the US is not even on the top 10 list of space flight durations. 
 
    Look, Skylab was a wonderful house in space, but we have done
nothing real in space stations since.  Saying that Skylab is better
than Mir is like arguing that the Titanic ocean liner is better than a
flying 747 aircraft. Sure the ocean liner was more comfortable and
larger, but it was older technology, goes less places, is generally
less flexible than the 747, and no longer exists.  We have no working
space shuttle, and a space station which will not be operating
probably for another decade.  To say that there is no problem because
we are still ahead of the Russians on the basis of Skylab is to deny
the reality of the world.  It makes people feel good in this country
but it does not help solve our problems.  Let us get the US program
moving. 
 
                                          Glenn Chapman
                                          MIT Lincoln Lab

Path: muscat!decwrl!hplabs!sri-unix!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks
From: jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Space Station teams
Message-ID: <79100004@uiucdcsp>
Date: 18 Oct 87 23:17:00 GMT
Lines: 135
Nf-ID: #N:uiucdcsp:79100004:000:4291
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu!jenks    Oct 18 18:17:00 1987
  
    HIGH TECHNOLOGY magazine (August 1987) had a story on the U.S.
Space Station. 
 
    There are four "work packages" and thirty companies in 8 teams
bidding for them.  NASA is *supposed* to pick a team as of November to
do the work on each package.  In the following section, team leaders
are in CAPITALS.  The teams are in column form under the team leader. 
 
    The packages and teams are:
 
Segment I     Crew and lab modules                     ($2.5 billion)
 
         BOEING                     MARTIN MARIETTA
         Grumman Aerospace          General Electric, Astro Space Division
         Lockheed Missiles & Space  Hughes Aircraft
         Teledyne Brown Engineering United Technologies (Hamilton Standard)
         TRW                        USBI Booster Production
                                    Wyle Laboratories
                                    McDonnell Douglas Astronautics
 
Segment II    Framework (main boom)                    ($3.7 billion)
 
         ROCKWELL                   McDONNELL DOUGLAS
         Grumman Aerospace          Honeywell
         Harris                     IBM
         Intermetrics               Lockheed Missiles & Space
         Sperry                     RCA
         SRI International
         TRW
 
Segment III   Free-flying platform and research eqpt.  ($750 million)
 
         GENERAL ELECTRIC           RCA
         TRW                        Honeywell
                                    IBM
                                    Lockheed Missiles & Space
                                    McDonnell Douglas
                                    RCA (I don't know why it's here twice.)
                                    Computer Sciences
 
Segment IV    Power system                             ($1.0 billion)
 
         ROCKETDYNE                 TRW
         Ford Aerospace & Commun.   Lockheed Missiles & Space (On both sides!)
         Garrett Fluid Systems      Planning Research Corp.
         General Dynamics           Analex
         Lockheed Missiles & Space  Teledyne Brown Engineering
         Sunstrand                  Eagle Engineering
 
    The preceding was copied from HIGH TECHNOLOGY completely without
permission. 
 
    Alphabetical Listing of Companies and Segments:
 
     Key:
          #1: Segment I     Crew and lab modules
          #2: Segment II    Framework (main boom)
          #3: Segment III   Free-flying platform and research eqpt.
          #4: Segment IV    Power system
 
 
	Analex, #4
	Boeing, #1
	Computer Sciences, #3
	Eagle Engineering, #4
	Ford Aerospace & Communications, #4
	General Electric, #3
	Garrett Fluid Systems, #4
	General Dynamics, #4
	General Electric, Astro Space Division, #1
	Grumman Aerospace, #1
	Grumman Aerospace, #2
	Harris, #2
	Honeywell, #2
	Honeywell, #3
	Hughes Aircraft, #1
	IBM, #2
	IBM, #3
	Intermetrics, #2
	Lockheed Missiles & Space, #1
	Lockheed Missiles & Space, #2
	Lockheed Missiles & Space, #3
	Lockheed Missiles & Space, #4
	Lockheed Missiles & Space, #4
	Martin Marietta, #1
	McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, #1
	McDonnell Douglas, #2
	McDonnell Douglas, #3
	Planning Research Corp., #4
	RCA, #2
	RCA, #3
	RCA, #3
	Rocketdyne, #4
	Rockwell, #2
	SRI International, #2
	Sperry, #2
	Sunstrand, #4
	TRW, #1
	TRW, #2
	TRW, #3
	TRW, #4
	Teledyne Brown Engineering, #1
	Teledyne Brown Engineering, #4
	USBI Booster Production, #1
	United Technologies (Hamilton Standard), #1
	Wyle Laboratories, #1
 
    Through the course of my job interviewing, I have heard several
companies' representatives complain that their companies had "lost the
contract" with NASA for the Station.  I thought the results weren't
due until November.  It isn't always the best policy to question the
interviewer's source of information.  I wish I knew, however, what the
real status is on the Station bids. 
 
    Would someone who knows what NASA has done on these bids please
let me know?  I am putting special emphasis on these companies during
my job search.  If NASA has decided which teams will get the
contracts, I want to know. 
 
        -- Ken Jenks
		Graduating MS: Aero/Astro Engineering (BS: Computer Science),
		Looking for a full-time manned-space job, starting 1/88,
		University of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign
 
			(Resume available on request)
 
jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks

From: jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Station contractor addresses
Date: 31 Oct 87 19:10:00 GMT
  
    There was enough E-mail asking me to mail out copies of the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of the Space Station contractors I've
gathered in my job search that I will post the (almost) complete list.
Please don't abuse this list -- I've gone through a lot of trouble and
a lot of phone money to compile this, and the folks at the other end
have been unfailingly cooperative.  I'd appreciate it if you didn't
abuse their generosity. 
 
    As you can see, the only contractors I know nothing about are
Analex and Eagle Engineering.  (Rocketdyne seems to be a division of
Rockwell. That's why it's so hard to find in company registries, etc.)
 
    Please DO NOT mention my name or where you got the names and
addresses of these people if you contact them.  I don't want to be
personally responsible for these nice peopre getting hundreds of phone
calls, but I do want to get skilled people in touch with the
appropriate places in the Station project to enhance the nation's
space program.  A dilemma: personal desires vs. philosophical ideals. 
 
    Thanks to those of you in net.land who helped me compile this
list. With any luck, this will help some good people make some
connections they would otherwise miss in the space industry. 
 
-- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC
 
		Looking for job in space.  Help, anyone?
 
jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu		{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks
 
 
Alphabetical Listing of Companies and Segments:
 
     Key:
          #1: Segment I     Crew and lab modules
          #2: Segment II    Framework (main boom)
          #3: Segment III   Free-flying platform and research eqpt.
          #4: Segment IV    Power system
 
 
Analex, #4
	Address:
		TX or CA
	Phone:
 
Boeing, #1
	Address:
		The Boeing Company
		Employment Office
		PO Box 1470
		Huntsville, AL  35807
	Phone:
 
Computer Sciences, #3
	Address:
		PO Box 21127  Kennedy Space Ctr, FL 32815   	(305) 853-2484
		8728 Colesville Rd  Silver Spring, MD 20910  	(301) 589-1545
		304 W Rt%38 / PO Box N  Moorestown, NJ 08057  	(609) 234-1100
		4835 University Sq Ste 8  Huntsville, AL 35816 	(205) 830-1000
			(Applied Tech Div)
		200 Sparkman Dr N W  Huntsville, AL 35805 	(205) 837-7200
			(Defense Sys Div)
		6565 Arlington Blvd  Falls Church, VA 22046 	(703) 237-2000
			(Energy Resch Div)
	Phone:
 
Eagle Engineering, #4
	Address:
	Phone:
 
Ford Aerospace & Communications, #4
	Address:
	Phone: (301) 345-0250  Ask for Jim Furilla or Judy Kopetz
 
Garrett Fluid Systems, #4	Formerly Garrett Pneumatic Systems Division
	Address:
		Garrett Fluid Systems Company
		1300 W. Warner Rd, Box 22200
		Tempe, AZ 85282 
	Phone:
 
General Dynamics, #4
	Address:
		General Dynamics Bldg  Ft. Worth, TX 76101  	(817) 777-2000
	Phone:
 
General Electric, Astro Space Division, #1, #3
	Address:
		Attention: Mike Kavka
		Mail Stop 101
		Astro Space Division
		East Windsor
		POB 800
		Princeton, NJ 08543-0800
 
	Phone: (609) 426-3400
 
Grumman Aerospace, #1, #2	Large piece of Station awarded in July
	Address:
		2852 Kelvin Ave  Irvine, CA 92714  	(714) 660-4200
		S Oyster Bay  Bethpage, NY 11714  	(516) 575-3369
		Grumman Blvd / MS F05-07  Calverton NY  (516) 575-0574
	Phone:
 
Harris, #2
	Address:
	Phone: (303) 727-4000 Ask for GASD
 
Honeywell, #2, #3
	Address:
		W. R. Moore
		Mail Station 257-5		Ho
		Aerospace & Defense Grp
		Honeywell Plaza
		Minneapolis, MN 55408
		  (612) 870-5186
	Phone: (813) 539-3689
 
Hughes Aircraft, #1
	Address:
		Hughes Aircraft
		Radar Systems Group
		Engineering Employment
		POB 92426
		Los Angeles, CA  90009
 
		Hughes Aircraft
		Space Communications Group
		Attn: Employment Ofc. - College Relations
		909 N. Fepulveda
		El Segundo, CA  90009
 
	Phone: (213) 606-2111 (Radar Systems Gro}p)
	       (213) 647-7177 (Space Communications Group)
 
IBM, #2, #3
	Address:
		IBM
		Personnel
		3700 Bay Area Bvd.
		Houston, TX  77058
 
	Phone: (713) 282-2300
 
Intermetrics, #2
	Address:
		Indl Sys Div - 733 Concord Av  Cambridge, MA 02138
	Phone: (800) 325-5235
	       (617) 661-0072
 
Lockheed Missiles & Space, #1, #2, #3, #4, #4
	Address:
			{Shuttle contract, not Station}
		Lockheed Space Operations Company
		Attn: Mr. Don Quirk
		110 Lockheed Way
		Titasville, FL  32780
 
	Phone: (305) 867-2765 (Kennedy Space Center)
	       (305) 383-2200 (Titasville switchboard)
 
Martin Marietta, #1
	Address:
	Phone: (504) 257-4716 (Sandy)
 
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics, #1, #2, #3
	Address:
		Richard B. Rout,
		Dept. 5900, Mail Code 11-3
		McDonnell Douglas
		Astronautics and Space Division
		5301 Bolsa Ave.
		Huntington Beach, CA  92647
 
	Phone: (714) 896-5633
 
Planning Research Corp., #4
	Address:
		1500 Planning Research Dr  McLean, VA 22102  (703) 556-1000
	Phone: (703) 734-1199
 
RCA, #2, #3, #3  (Subsumed by GE/Astro Space)
	Address: (See GE/Astro above)
	Phone:
 
Rocketdyne, #4
	Address:
	Phone:
 
Rockwell, #2		Actually, this guy works with Shuttle, not Station
	Address:
		Steve C. Hoefer
		Supervisor, Crew Activity Planning
		Rockwell Shuttle Operations Company
		Rockwell International Corporation
		600 Gemini Avenue
		Houston, TX  77058
 
	Phone: (713) 483-4438
 
SRI International, #2
	Address:
		SRI International
		Personnel Dept.
		333 Ravenswood Ave.
		Menlo Park, CA  94025
 
	Phone: (415) 859-3993  (Elizabeth Brackmann)
 
Sperry/UNISYS, #2		Changed name from Sperry to UNISYS
	Address:  (Eastern Time)
	Phone: (800) 645-3440
 
Sunstrand, #4
	Address:
		Sundstrand Energy Systems 
		Unit of Sundstrand Corp.
		4747 Harrison Ave, P.O. Box 7002
		Rockford, Ill. 61125
 
	Phone: (815) 226-6000
 
TRW, #1, #2, #3, #4
	Address:
		Jack Friedenthal
		Bldg. 135, Rm. 2823
		One Space Park
		Redondo Beach, CA  90278
 
		Penny Burkes
		Bldg. R2, Rm. 2130
		One Space Park
		Redondo Beach, CA  90278
 
	Phone: (213) 535-6027 (Penny Burkes)
	       (213) 297-8765 (Irwin Newman)
 
Teledyne Brown Engineering, #1, #4  (Did not actually bid on #4)
	Address:
		Teledyne Brown Engineering
		Attn: Mr. Tom Robinson
		Cummings Research Park
		Huntsville, AL  35807
 
	Phone: (800) 633-2090
 
USBI Booster Production, #1
	Address:
		United Space Boosters
		BPC
		188 Spartman Dr
		PO Box 1900
		Huntsville, AL 35807
	Phone: (205) 721-2400
 
United Technologies (Hamilton Standard), #1
	Address:
		Phil Beaudoin
		Hamilton Standard
		One Hamilton Road
		Windsor Locks, CT  06096
 
	Phone: (203) 654-6000
	       (203) 654-4601 (Personnel)
 
Wyle Laboratories, #1
	Address:
		Wyle Laboratories
		Personnel Department
		Attn: Mr. Gordon Bakken
		7800 Govenor's Drive West
		Huntsville, AL  35807
 
	Phone: (703) 834-1633 (Mr. Gordon Bakken in NJ)

From: jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Mysterious Eagle Engineering
Date: 4 Nov 87 16:25:00 GMT
 
    I've gotten a whole lot of E-mail from many people on the net. 
Thanks to everyone who sent things in to help me with my search for
employment. I'm working hard to keep the letters and resumes going out
as fast as I get addresses in. 
 
    One of my "problem companies" -- somebody who seemingly has no
address and does no advertising -- has been Eagle Engineering.  I had
never heard of them.  Nobody I knew had ever heard of them.  Then I
received the following. 
 
    (The following is quoted material, but I won't put those ">"
things in.) 
  
From: MATTHEWS%ASD.SPAN@STAR.STANFORD.EDU
Subject: Eagle Engineering
To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Status: R
  
    I have before me the 1987 Eagle Engineering calendar, and on the
bottom of each page they give the following information: 
 
Street Address:
   711 Bay Area Blvd., Suite 315      (only a couple of miles down the
   Webster, Texas 77598                   road from my apartment!)
 
Post Office Address:
   P.O. Box 891049
   Houston, TX 77289-1049
 
Phone Number:
   (713) 338-2682
 
    In the back there's this blurb about the company (I'm quoting
liberally, without permission, but since this calendar is obviously an
advertisement for the company, I don't think they'll mind): 
 
    "Eagle Engineering is dedicated to providing clients with the
highest quality of consulting services and products in the aerospace
field. Eagle meets the need of each customer by providing experienced
and extremely talented people.  Assignments are accomplished by
assembling multidisciplinary teams tailored to meet the unique
challenges of each client. Team members are drawn from over one
hundred officers, employees, associates, and consultants who
individually average over 25 years of experience. Their technical and
managerial experience covers virtually every aerospace discipline. 
 
    Projects include conceptual design of aerospace vehicles, future
space technology development, advanced space mission planning, failure
analysis and fault isolation, liability litigation, project
feasibility evaluation, proposal preparation, human factors
engineering, operations analysis, and general management consultation.
Meeting the daily challenges of these activities keeps the Eagle
staff on the leading edge of aerospace technology." 
 
    The company is made up mostly of engineers retired from NASA and
contractors, which accounts for the high average experience.  In fact,
I don't think any of them have been in the space program less than 10
years (with the exception of a few very lucky co-ops).  They have been
mostly subcontractors to NASA and to major contractors in the JSC
area, but in recent years the expansion of the commercial space
industry has opened up many new opportunities for Eagle; they are the
prime engineering contractor for Space Services Incorporated of
America (Conestoga launch vehicle) and provide systems engineering
support for Space Industries, Incorporated (especially the Industrial
Space Facility project). 
 
Mike Matthews   (ARPAnet) MATTHEWS%ASD@STAR.STANFORD.EDU
                          MATTHEWS%LOCK@STAR.STANFORD.EDU
                (BITnet)  JKS7233@TAMVENUS
                (SPAN)    MATTHEWS::ASD  or MATTHEWS::LOCK
                (Usenet)  good luck! (might try some mysterious gateway 
                          incantation)

Disclaimer: Lockheed Engineering and Management Services company pays me to
            engineer, not to have opinions. Or to read E-mail...

From: jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Do we need a Space Station?
Date: 17 Nov 87 22:06:00 GMT
  
    I'm working on a Special Projects paper entitled "Is there a
scientific need for the Space Station?"  (or some such).  The
following are arguments and comments I've gathered in my research. 
I'd appreciate it if you'd add comments of your own, more subjects,
and references.  I'll be sure to cite you as a reference if something
major is included. (Hmmm -- my English handbook doesn't have the
proper format for a reference gained through electronic
correspondence.  I guess I'll have to wing it.) 
 
    Thanks for those of you who have contributed already.  You'll find
things summarized here and sometimes quoted exactly -- I couldn't say
it better than you could!  If you disagree, please mention it.  
 
-- Ken Jenks, MS: Aero/Astro Engineering, BS: Computer Science, UIUC
 
		Looking for job in space.  Help, anyone?
 
jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu		{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks
 
 
Subject: new technology
	Pro: The Space Station will cause new technology to be
		invented.
	Con: More new technology would be invented by a similar
		investment in other projects (Big Dumb Booster,
		Superconducting Super-collider, other boosters,
		non-rocket launchers, ion engine, Mission to Earth,
		planetary exploration, etc.).
	Comments: Will this "new technology" be used only for military
		(SDI) purposes?  A space station would create a
		different kind of technology.  Given that new
		technology is a Good Thing.
 
 
Subject: easier access
	Pro: The Space Station would give us longer durations on orbit
		for experiments.
	Con: An extended-duration Shuttle could do the same thing for
		much less money and give us another Shuttle in the
		process.
	Comments: Not the "permanent manned presence" that Reagan asks.
		Crews and experiments could be rotated on orbit for
		longer exposure durations.  This requires two Shuttles
		on orbit at once.
 
 
Subject: on-site supervision, repair of satellites
	Pro: The Station would allow us to repair satellites on orbit
		instead of bringing them to the ground for repairs.
	Con: We can already (supposedly) do this with the Shuttle.
		Station's orbit can't be altered, so an OMV will have
		to retrieve the satellites and tow them to the Station.
	Comments: The Con argument can be negated by co-orbitting the
		sats with the Station. (q.v.)
 
 
Subject: consolidation of satellites
	Pro: We can have many satellites co-orbitting with the Station.
		This will allow us to put up lots of radiation &
		micrometeor shielding in one place (saves mass &
		money), have one power supply instead of many, readily
		servicable with frequent manned tending, and easy
		retrieval.
	Con: Station environment is not ideal for all satellites:
		thermal radiation, low, non-polar & unchangeable orbit,
		vibration, and environmental contamination (outgassing,
		waste products, EM interferance) can make co-orbitting
		undesirable.  Added complexity means more things to go
		wrong.
	Comments: Some satellites will require co-orbitting;
		others will be at a great disadvantage.  This calls
		for a mix of co-orbitting and free-flyers.
 
 
Subject: Space Station as a assembly/deployment site
	Pro: SS would provide a clean environment in which to build
		and deploy satellites in a place easily protected
		against micrometeors & radiation.
		Satellites can be unpacked&/manufactured and tested on
		orbit, thus making it unnecessary to include deployment
		mechanisms and nine-nines reliability for high-G launch
		(both expensive).  This lowers costs of satellites and
		increases reliability (tested satellites can wait for
		replacement parts and be repaired on orbit).
		Low-acceleration bus can push sat to new orbit.
		Eventually could have standardized parts (solar panels,
		attitude control systems, telemetry units) and put them
		together with custom parts flown up.
	Con: Contaminents from SS would make the environment "dirty"
		(see co-orbitting above).  Astronauts would have to
		wear EVA eqpt or use glove boxes to assemble sats.
		Current sats have little trouble with micrometeors; why
		worry?
		NASA's current baseline SS is not configured to handle
		this.  The design is unlikely to be modified after bids
		are finalized (supposedly 11/87).  Using humans to unpack
		satellites takes away from time they could be using for
		other experiments.
	Comments: Con arguments seem weak.
 
 
Subject: cost
	Pro: Station can lower costs of satellites (see below) and pay
		its way in new technology and spin-offs.  Certain items
		produced in space would be far superior to those
		produced on Earth, and might even be cheaper.  Vacuum
		and cold temperatures are there for the taking; one
		doesn't have to produce them.
	Con: Everything on Station will be brought up at ~$4000+ per
		pound.  Money invested first in Big Dumb Booster would
		lower all costs to orbit and make Station cheaper
		(we should do BDB first).
		----
		The space station, as proposed, would give us almost
		nothing compared to a habitable Shuttle external tank.
		Not the volume, not the cheapness, not the ease and
		simplicity of launch.  The SS is a program designed to
		keep the space contractors going, not the space program.
		---
		We've sent probes to almost every planet in the Solar
		System without a space station. I'm also willing to bet
		that the total cost for launching _all_ those planetary
		probes was less than the SS.
		---
		The same money would buy 4-5 new Shuttles.  The STS
		assembly line could be kept permanently open, and new
		Shuttles could be specialized for particular roles.
	Comments: Lots of emotion on this one.
 
 
Subject: propoganda
	Pro: The Station will re-establish USA as a pre-eminent
		space power, proving to the world that we still can
		(and are willing to) have a major space program.
	Con: The cost of $20-40 G is too high for the propoganda
		value.  The Russians have already done this; all
		we'd be doing is catching up.  We should do something
		more spectacular, like push to Mars.
	Comments: This is straying away from my original request
		for a *scientific* need for the Station.  There
		are many political ones.  (Pork barrel comes to
		mind.)
 
 
Subject: long-term goals
	Pro: The Station will help us achieve a long-term commitment
		to sustained efforts in space.  This will be a basis
		for all our future research efforts.  We need a long-
		term focus like the Station to concentrate our
		efforts.  This is much better than the "one crash
		program per decade" approach we have been taking
		since Sputnik.
	Con: The Station has no long-term focus.  We're trying to build
		the Station that will make everyone happy, and the
		result is a compromise which pleases almost nobody.
		We need long-term goals before long-term commitments.
	Comments: (None)
 
 
Subject: experiments
	Pro: Many experiments would benefit from being frequently
		man-tended.  Interactive, serendipitous expts are
		possible (next expt depends on outcome of previous
		one).  Some expts can only be done with humans
		doing/overseeing them on-orbit.
	Con: Most expts would be cheaper on robotic probes.
	Comments: (None)
 
 
Subject: men in space
	Pro: Experiments on how humans live and work in space can
		only be done on humans living and working in space.
		We can take advantage of what the Russians have
		learned.
	Con: This kind of research will not be applicable until we
		seriously plan long-termed manned missions (like to
		Mars).  There's no need to invest now; let's wait
		until we have a cheaper booster.
	Comments: (None)

From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Christmas greetings from JSC
Keywords: well, poets they aren't...
Date: 23 Dec 87 18:46:33 GMT
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
 
    The following is reprinted from the Johnson Space Center SPACE
NEWS ROUNDUP. Maybe, one day, this won't be as farfetched as it sounds now... 
 
    [Editor's note {from the original}: The holiday season inspires
the ROUNDUP staff with hope for the future of humans in space. We
present the following with apologies to Clement C. Moore.] 
 
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the Space
Station Not a crewmember was stirring at that inclination 
 
The stockings were Velcroed by the microwave with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there.
 
The astronauts were nestled all snug in their sleep restraints,
While visions of Tex-Mex ran contrary to diet constraints;
 
And the Commander in her IVA, and I in my cap,
Had just settled our brains for a 6-hour nap,
 
When out on the hull there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my crew compartment to see what was the matter.
 
Away to the porthole I flew like a flash,
Switched open the shutters in the blink of a lash.
 
White-painted graphite/epoxy like new-fallen snow,
Gave the luster of midday to the trusswork below.
 
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh and eight tiny reindeer,
 
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
 
More rapid than Space Shuttles his coursers they came,
His radio crackled as he shouted and called them by name:
 
"Now Dasher! Now Dancer! Now, Prancer and Vixen!
On Comet! On Cupid! On, Donner and Blitzen!"
 
"To the top of the lab module! To the resource node!" he'd call.
"Now close the hatch! Dog the latch! Keep pressure loss small!"
 
As flight controllers monitored his craft on the fly,
When he met with an obstacle, they helped him get by.
 
So up to the airlock the coursers they flew,
With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.
 
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the bumper
The prancing and pawingof each hoof a thumper.
 
As I drew on my slippersocks, and was turning around,
In the airlock St. Nicholas floated upside down.
 
The globe of an EMU helmet he held under his arm,
And the red of his space suit added holiday charm.
 
He had a broad face and a little brown belly,
That shook when he laughed, like a bowl full of jelly.
 
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself.
 
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
 
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk,
 
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, through the airlock he rose.
 
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a sign,
And away they all flew into the Earthshine.
 
But I heard him o'er the S band, as he drove out of sight:
"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night!"
 
Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD  CI$: 71036,1603
uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay
Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.

From: willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Stofan to retire
Date: 10 Feb 88 20:22:22 GMT
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
 
    [Following are two key paragraphs from a NASA press release, in
case your local paper doesn't carry this item.  The rest of the
release was just background information and typical retirement comments.] 
 
__________________________________________________________________
Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                   February 8, 1988
 
    STOFAN TO RETIRE FROM NASA ON APRIL 1
 
    Associate Administrator for Space Station Andrew J. Stofan will
retire from NASA on April 1.  Stofan, 53, was appointed June 30, 1986,
to the position responsible for developing a permanently manned Space
Station by the mid 1990s.  Stofan directed the Space Station program
through a difficult period marked by significant progress. 
 
    Stofan says he took the job as associate administrator for Space
Station with the idea of accomplishing a set of objectives.  "I've
accomplished everything I set out to do when I came here," says
Stofan.  "We have the NASA management team in place, the development
and support contractors are on board, the international negotations
are in their final stages and the President has submitted a $1 billion
budget for the next fiscal year which will permit the program to move
into full development," says Stofan.  "The program is on track now and
its [sic] an appropriate time to retire from government." 
 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Space Station Names
Posted: 10 May 88 15:07:01 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.
 
    And now the question you've all been staying up late for:  What
the heck are they going to name the United States Space Station? 
 
    The Ames Astrogram just published a preliminary list of possible
names which follows: 
 
       Aurora                  Earth-Star
       Freedom                 Hercules
       Independence            Jupiter
       Landmark                Liberty
       Minerva                 Olympia
       Pegasus                 Pilgrim
       Prospector              Skybase
       Starlight               Unity
 
    So gang, anyone got any better ideas?  Like something original for
instance? 
 
    Mike
 
			   *** mike (Cyberpunk in training) smithwick ***
[Disclaimer:  Nope, I don't work for NASA.]

    Stepping Stone.
    
    Pat
    

From NASA SpaceLink BBS (205) 895 0028 (Huntsville, AL)
=====================================================================
 
SPACE STATION WORK PACKAGE FACT SHEET

WORK PACKAGE 1
 
     Marshall Space Flight Center is responsible for Space Station
Program Work Package 1, including responsibility for the laboratory
module, habitation module, logistics elements and fabrication of the
primary structure for the resource nodes. Marshall also is responsible
for development of the environmental control and life support system,
internal components of the audio/visual and thermal control systems,
as well as for operational capability development for users in the
laboratory module.  The Johnson Space Center, through special
provisions within the Work Package 1 contact, will exercise technical
direction for the manned space subsystems. 
 
LABORATORY MODULE
 
     The U.S. laboratory module will be cylindrical, measuring
approximately 44 feet long and 14 feet in diameter and will provide a
shirt-sleeve environment for performing laboratory functions.  The
laboratory module will be capable of supporting multi-discipline
payloads including materials research and development activities,
materials processing demonstrations, life sciences research and other
space science investigations requiring a pressurized area. 
User-provided equipment that can be housed in the laboratory module
include furnaces for growing semiconductor crystals, electrokinetic
devices for separating pharmaceuticals, support equipment needed to
carry out a wide spectrum of low-gravity experiments and applications,
and a centrifuge for variable gravity experiments in life sciences. 
 
HABITATION MODULE
 
     Facilities for eating, sleeping, personal hygiene, waste
management, recreation, health maintenance and other functions
requiring pressurized space will be provided in the habitation module.
The module will be the same size as the laboratory module and will
accommodate up to 8 astronauts. 
 
     Using the health maintenance facility, astronauts will be able to
monitor their health through vital signs, X-rays and blood samples. 
There also will be exercise equipment for daily physical conditioning.
  
LOGISTICS ELEMENTS
 
     These include elements required for transporting cargo to or from
the Space Station for the resupply of items required for the crew,
station, and payloads; and for on-orbit storage of these cargos.  A
key element will be the pressurized logistics carrier, which will
carry items used inside the Space Station modules. The other elements
include unpressurized logistics carriers used for transporting spares
used external to the Space Station modules, fluids and propellants. 
 
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL AND LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM (ECLSS)
 
     The ECLSS will provide a shirt-sleeve environment for the
astronauts in all pressurized modules on the Space Station.  A key
feature is the regenerative design employed in the air revitalization
and water reclamation systems. 
 
RESOURCE NODE STRUCTURE
 
     The resource nodes are required to interconnect the primary
pressurized elements of the manned portion of the Space Station and
also will house certain key control functions.  The equipment provided
by Work Package 1 consists of the resource node structures, berthing
mechanisms, racks, ECLSS, internal thermal control, and internal audio
and video communication systems. 
 
 
WORK PACKAGE 2
 
     NASA's Johnson Space Center is responsible for the design,
development, verification, assembly and delivery of the Work Package 2
Space Station flight elements and systems, which include the
integrated truss assembly, propulsion assembly, mobile servicing
system transporter, resource node design and outfitting, external
thermal control, data management, operations management, communication
and tracking, extravehicular systems and guidance, navigation and
control systems, and the airlocks. JSC also is responsible for the
attachment systems to the STS for its periodic visits.  Additionally,
JSC is responsible for flight crews, crew training and crew emergency
return definition, and for operational capability development
associated with operations planning.  JSC will provide technical
direction to the contractor for the design and development of all
manned space subsystems. 
 
INTEGRATED TRUSS ASSEMBLY
 
     The integrated truss assembly is the Space Station structural
framework to which the modules, solar power arrays, external
experiments, Earth- and astronomical-viewing instruments, and mobile
transporter will be attached. 
 
PROPULSION ASSEMBLY
 
     The propulsion assembly will be used to adjust or maintain the
orbit of the Space Station to keep it at the required altitude.  Work
package 2 has responsibility for the overall propulsion system. 
Technical direction for the thruster assembly elements of the
propulsion system will be provided by MSFC. 
 
MOBILE TRANSPORTER SYSTEM
 
     The mobile servicing system will be a multi-purpose mechanism
equipped with robotic arms to help assemble and maintain the Space
Station.  The contractor will build the mobile base; Canada will
provide the mobile servicing system which includes robotic arms and
special purpose dextrous manipulators. 
 
RESOURCE NODES
 
     The resource nodes house most of the command and control systems
for the Space Station as well as being the connecting passageways for
the habitation and laboratory modules.  Work Package 2 will outfit the
node structures provided by Work Package 1 to accomplish the
objectives of each node. 
 
EVA SYSTEMS
 
     Extravehicular activity (EVA) systems includes equipment such as
the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) or spacesuit, provisions for
communication, physiological monitoring, and data transmission, EVA
crew rescue and equipment retrieval provision, and EVA procedures. 
Airlocks for crewmember extravehicular activity also will be designed
as part of Work Package 2. 
 
EXTERNAL THERMAL CONTROL
 
     The external thermal system provides cooling and heat rejection
to control temperatures of electronics and other Space Station
hardware located outside the modules and nodes. 
 
ATTACHMENT SYSTEMS
 
     In addition to devices permitting Space Station docking by the
Space Shuttle and logistics resupply modules, this includes systems
for attaching experiment packages and other external hardware to the
truss structure. 
 
GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM (GN&C)
 
     The guidance, navigation and control system is composed of a core
system and traffic management functions.  The core system function
provides attitude and orbital state maintenance, supports the pointing
of the power system and thermal radiators, accomplishes periodic
reboost maneuvers, and provides Space Station attitude information to
other systems and users. 
 
     The traffic management function provides for controlling all
traffic in the area around the Space Station, including docking and
berthing operations and trajectories determination of vehicles and
objects which may intersect the orbit of the Space Station. 
 
COMMUNICATIONS AND TRACKING SYSTEM (C&T)
 
     The communications and tracking system is composed of six
subsystems:  space-to-space communications with crew members during
extravehicular activity, aboard the Space Shuttle, and with the
Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle; space-to-ground communications through
the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System to ground data networks;
internal and external voice communication through the audio subsystem;
internal and external video requirements through the video subsystem;
management of C&T resources and data distribution through the control
and monitor subsystem; and navigation data through the tracking subsystem. 
 
DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (DMS)
 
     The data management system provides the hardware and software
resources that interconnect onboard systems, payloads, and operations
to perform data and information management. Functional services
provided by DMS include data processing, data acquistion and
distribution, data storage, and the user interface to permit control
and monitoring of systems and experiments. 
 
     Crew safety is an essential consideration in the development of
the Space Station.  A major system failure aboard the Space Station,
injuries or illness may require the return of crew members to Earth
during a period when the Space Shuttle is unavailable.  NASA's Johnson
Space Center has responsibility for conducting definition-phase
studies of a Crew Emergency Return Vehicle which could be used to
supplement the Shuttle in such circumstances. 
 
 
WORK PACKAGE 3
  
     NASA'S Goddard Space Flight Center is responsible for development
of several of the Station's elements including the free-flying
platforms and attached payload accommodations, and for planning NASA's
role in satellite servicing.  Goddard also has responsibility for
developing the Flight Telerobotic Servicer which is being procured
through a separate competition. 
 
FREE-FLYING PLATFORMS
 
     Goddard will manage the detailed design, development, test and
evaluation of the automated free-flying polar platform.  This unmanned
platform will feature modular construction to permit on- orbit ease of
serviceability and flexibility for accommodating a variety of
scientific observations. 
 
ATTACHED PAYLOAD ACCOMMODATIONS
 
     The Space Station attached payloads are the instruments and
experiments designed to gather scientific data while attached directly
to the truss framework of the Space Station.  Goddard is responsible
for providing utilities such as power, thermal control, data handling,
pointing stability and other equipment needed to operate the payloads
and for insuring that the instruments are pointed at the intended
targets.  Two attachment points are provided, one of the attach points
is fixed and the other has an articulated pointing system. 
 
FLIGHT TELEROBOTIC SERVICER
 
     Goddard is responsible for building the Flight Telerobotic
Servicer.  This system will be capable of in-space assembly of Station
elements and payload servicing. 
 
     As the system is evolved, it will perform telerobotic servicing
and repair of spacecraft visiting the Space Station. In the future, a
telerobotic servicer-equipped Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle could
retrieve, as well as service, spacecraft beyond the Space Station's orbit. 
 
 
WORK PACKAGE 4
  
     Lewis Research Center is responsible for the end-to-end electric
power system architecture for the Space Station and for providing the
solar arrays, batteries, and common power distribution components to
the platforms. 
 
     The power system includes power generation and storage, and the
management and distribution of power to the final user interface.  The
electric power system is required to have the capability to deliver 75
kW of electric power with a growth potential to 300 kW. 
 
POWER GENERATION
 
     Initially, Space Station power will be provided by eight
flexible, deployable solar array wings.  This configuration minimizes
the complexity of the assembly process by taking advantage of the
technology demonstrated on Space Shuttle flights.  Each 32- by 96-foot
wing consists of two blanket assemblies covered with solar cells. 
These are stowed in blanket boxes which are attached to a deployment
canister.  Each pair of blankets is to be deployed and supported on a
coilable, continuous longeron mast.  A tension mechanism will supply
tension to the blanket as it reaches complete extension.  The entire
wing will be tied structurally to the transverse boom by means of the
beta gimbal assembly. 
 
     To provide the power needed during the period of Space Station
assembly, two solar wings and other elements of the power system are
scheduled to be carried up on each of the first two Space Station
assembly flights.  These four wings will provide 37.5 kw of power. 
The remaining four panels will be delivered on orbit after the
permanently-manned configuration is reached. 
 
     Lewis also is responsible for developing and testing proof of
concept hardware for the solar dynamic power module to prepare for the
growth phase of the Station.  In addition, sufficient preliminary
design efforts will be performed to insure that the Space Station can
accommodate the solar dynamic modules. 
 
POWER STORAGE
 
     Ni-H2 batteries will store the energy produced by the solar
arrays.  A battery pack is made up of 23 Ni-H2 cells, wiring harness
and mechanical/thermal support components.  On discharge, this
operates near 28 v which allows the flexibility to connect several
packs in series to obtain a high voltage system for the Space Station
and platforms or use of single packs as a candidate for other low
voltage applications.  Ni-H2 batteries offer minimum weight and high
reliability with minimum redundancy required for the polar platform. 
During the eclipse periods, power is supplied by the energy storage systems. 
 
POWER MANAGEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION (PMAD)
 
     The 20 kHz PMAD system is designed specifically to meet aerospace
requirements.  It is based upon rapid semiconductor switching, low
stored reactive energy, and cycle-by-cycle control of energy flow,
allowing tailoring of voltage levels.  It is user friendly and can
easily accommodate all types of user loads. 
 
     The PMAD system will deliver controlled power to many scattered
loads.  The high frequency ac power system was selected to provide
higher efficiency, lower cost and improved safety. 
 
=====================================================================
                                                       Eric

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA News
Posted: 8 Jul 88 00:41:57 GMT
Organization: Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp., Aurora, Colo.
  
  NASA News - Space Station Negotiations with Partners Successfully Completed
 
    Negotiations among the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan on
the framework for the international cooperation in the Space Station
program have been completed. 
 
    Completion of talks among the negotiators marks the end of more
than two years of complex negotiations on the design, development,
operation, and utilization of the permanently manned civil Space
Station.  Spanning decades, the Space Station will be the largest
international scientific and technological venture ever undertaken. 
 
    Cooperation in the Space Station program is the result of
President Ronald Reagan's January 1984 invitation to friends and
allies of the United States to join in the development of the
versatile facility and to share in the benefits of its use.
Subsequently, the President has addressed Space Station cooperation at
four intervening economic summits and at numerous bilateral meetings
with the partners' heads of government. 
 
    The Congress has also endorsed Space Station cooperation.  The
NASA Authorization Act of 1988 directs NASA to "promote international
cooperation in the Space Station program by undertaking the
development, construction, and operation of the Space Station in
conjunction with...the Governments of Europe, Japan, and Canada." 
 
    The international Space Station complex includes a manned base
which will be operated by an international crew beginning in the mid
1990s.  It also includes elements separate from the manned base.  The
entire complex with its diverse capabilities, will be the focal point
for free world space operations into the next century.  As an orbiting
research laboratory, the Station will increase scientific knowledge,
stimulate the development of new technology, and enable commercial
research.  Looking to the future, the Space Station also is required
as the stepping stone for the eventual expansion of human presence
into the Solar System, for example, a manned mission to Mars. 
 
    The elements comprising the Station will be provided by the United
States and its partners.  The U.S. will provide the overall Space
Station framework, operating subsystems including life support and 75
kilowatts of power, laboratory and habitat modules, and an unmanned free-
flying platform that will be placed in polar orbit for Earth observation. 
 
    Canada will provide a Mobile Servicing System which will be used
in conjunction with the assembly, maintenance and servicing of Space
Station elements.  Japan will provide the Japanese Experiment Module,
which is a permanently attached pressurized laboratory module,
including an exposed facility and an experiment logistics module.  The
European Space Agency (ESA) will provide a pressurized laboratory
module which is permanently attached to the manned base; an unmanned
free-flying polar platform to work together with the U.S. polar platform; 
and a man-tended free flier to be serviced at the manned base. 
 
    NASA has been cooperating since 1985 with its Canadian, European,
and Japanese partners in the definition of preliminary design phase of
the project.  Such cooperation has resulted in program-level agreement
on the above hardware.  The U.S. anticipates spending approximately
$16.0 billion (FY 1989 dollars) to develop Space Station hardware. 
 
    The total foreign commitment to the Space Station is in excess of
$7.0 billion.  The European hardware development program will amount
to approximately $4.2 billion; the Japanese, $2.0 billion; and the
Canadian, $1.0 billion.  Furthermore, the partners will cover more
than 25 percent of the Space Station's expected annual operating costs
throughout the 20-30 year life of the program. 
 
    The document on which negotiations have been completed are a
multilateral InterGovernmental Agreement (IGA) and three bilateral
Memoranda Of Understanding (MOUs).  The IGA contains the broad
principles and the government-level commitments for the cooperative
Space Station program.  The three separate MOU's which are between
NASA and its counterparts, provide the technical and programmatic
details for the implementation of the program.  Although substantive
agreement among the partners had been reached earlier, today's
announcement reflects the significant stage of achieving agreement
among the negotiators on the actual texts of the IGA and the MOUs. 
 
    Negotiations from all four partners have submitted the IGA and MOU
texts to their respective governments for consideration in accordance
with their internal procedures.  Signature of the agreements is
expected later this summer. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 88-74 June 8, 1988
By Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution

    President Reagan has selected the name "Freedom" for the future
    U.S. space station.  This announcement was made during the Dem's
    national convention (middle of July), so it seems to have been
    passed over by the media.  I just saw it in "Space World".

>    President Reagan has selected the name "Freedom" for the future
>    U.S. space station.  This announcement was made during the Dem's

	oh!  oh! Might this be an ominous warning.
	One can only hope humans don't bring "freedom"  and "peace keeping" 
	to other existing intelligent life forms and then "democratize" them.

	Now for a question. I have not heard this talked obout before
	but what are the dangers to the Space Station being struck
	by meteorites. Also, what happens when larger and more humongus
	structures are built. Imagine being one of the colonizers in
	space and you think things are going great until you look
	out the window and see this huge meteorite come zoooming
	head on, faster than you can say "oh %^&&*", Booooommm
	you are gonzo. On earth, we are usually protected by such events
	because they usually burn up in the atmosphere and disperse.

Re: .-1

>	oh!  oh! Might this be an ominous warning.
>	One can only hope humans don't bring "freedom"  and "peace keeping" 
>	to other existing intelligent life forms and then "democratize" them.

	I would hereby like to express my dissatisfaction with the sarcasm
contained by the last note. I do not feel that this conference is the place
for such opinions to be posted in this manner. I would be interested in
hearing a moderators' opinion on this.

    	Calling the U.S. Space Station FREEDOM (anything is better than
    the incredibly unoriginal Space Station) is just a typical propoganda
    political move, as the Soviet space station MIR can be translated
    as either "World" or "Peace" - World Peace, get it?  
    
        Everyone is entitled to their opinions, BTW.  You know the old
    Voltaire quote:  "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend
    to the death your right to say it."  The Noter in 282.34 was simply
    making an ironic comment on how we assume what is good for us is
    good for everyone.
    
    	Larry
                      

    re:.34
      Maybe the *only* useful thing that will come out of SDI research
    will be some kind of kinetic kill or laser weapon to destroy meteors
    or pieces of junk heading toward the Space Station.  Maybe the software
    to control something like that is within our capabilities, too.
    
    				Steve

>    will be some kind of kinetic kill or laser weapon to destroy meteors
>    or pieces of junk heading toward the Space Station.  Maybe the software

I'm not sure it's even good for that - for ASAT, all the weapon has to do is
make the target non-operational, not change its orbit.  If you go blasting
space junk with kinetic weapons, and perhaps even lasers, much of the debris
will still be on a collision course with the space station - and in fact,
you may have effectively increased the cross-section of the object, making a
hit that much more likely.

    re:-1
       .....Leaving SDI absolutely, completely useless.  Does that mean
    we have to vote for our governor? :-)
    
    				Steve

	Some years back there was a movie based somewhat on a study
	by MIT about 1965 or so that studied the problem of big
	chunks of asteroids, meteors etc hitting the earth and
	ways of preventing such events by using nuclear missiles
	being launched directly at the incoming chunk of matter
	and hopefully blowing it up enough so any remaining pieces
	would either be burnt up in atmosphere or even hoping to
	deflect it away. It could have been the movie METEOR (which
	incidentally had great special effects - just think you are
	on the beach when someone tells you that there is an enormous
	1000 foot tidal wave traveling 600 mph and heading towards you
	then someone yells "surfs up") in which I saw the blurb about 
	the MIT study.

	Darryl

    ref .34
    
    The probability of getting hurt by such meteorites is very,very
    small....
    
    We have hubdreds of birds flying above our heads since many years.
    Has anybody heard of such encounters?
    
    The space is so large that,even at proximity of the earth,the risk
    is almost nill though not zero.
    
    The risk is almost as to get a hit on needle in a field of one square
    mile from a distance of ten or hundred miles away.
    
    So dont worry,my friend;it might take a thousand years before you
    get a touch.
    
    Charles
    

RE:.41

>   The probability of getting hurt by such meteorites is very,very
>   small....

>   We have hubdreds of birds flying above our heads since many years.
>   Has anybody heard of such encounters?

>   So dont worry,my friend;it might take a thousand years before you
>   get a touch.

Charles,

    Seems  onw of the apollo missions (was it 11?) appeared to take a
meteroid hit with near disasterous result. Also a  weather  satellite
went  "offline"  a  couple  of years ago (unexpectedly) and debris or
meteors was suspected.

    Maybe I'll worry, just a little...

	-SES

    
>    The space is so large that,even at proximity of the earth,the risk
>    is almost nill though not zero.

	This seems like the most logical reason as far as I can see.
    
	But I can just see the headlines:

	"Disaster strikes moonbase as meteorite pulverizes it to nothing"

	"Meteorite rips through space station as scientist assure that
	 things like this don't happen much"

	It may be like tornadoes or earthquakes. We can never fully protect 
	ourselves but the odds of it happening say "wha da hell, if it's 
	going to happen, it will, oh well"

	It would be more interesting to find something more authoritative
	on the subject.

	Darryl

>< Note 282.42 by NSSG::SULLIVAN "Steven E. Sullivan" >
>    Seems  onw of the apollo missions (was it 11?) appeared to take a
> meteroid hit with near disasterous result. 

If you are thinking of Apollo 13, the one that almost blew up and had to coast
around the moon and home, the problem was not a meteoroid impact, though
that was suspected early in the investigation.
The problem was a mismatched thermostat in a gas supply cylinder that 
overheated and caused (or allowed) the tank to rupture explosively.

    Actually, the reports I read at the time (and a report which I
    subsequently presented at a school science class) stated the
    cause was due to an (oxygen, I think) tank being dropped a few
    inches off a fork lift.  A cursory external examination lead
    those responsible to believe no damage had been done.  However,
    an internal thermostat was damaged, which did lead to the rupture
    of the tank when pressure built up.
    

    Hmm, and all this time I thought it was the result of one contractor
    changing (doubling?) the supply voltage to the tank heaters.  Another
    contractor missed the change, the thermostat welded itself closed
    and overheated the tank.  I forget where this came from, but I do
    remember it as being the post-mortem result, discovered after they
    were back.  Maybe I'll check my videotapes if I get a chance...
    
    Willie

    
    Yes, the thermostat failed. It was subjected to overvoltage
    during a "dry run" or "mission exercise" several weeks
    before the actual launch. Well, it may have been an AC vs DC
    problem instead of an overvoltage problem, the ground-based
    power was different from mission power either in voltage
    or frequency. The episode during dry-run was discovered, but
    the damage it caused to the thermostat was not.
    
    Then, during the mission, the stuck flask-heater thermostat caused a
    fuel-cell gas supply tank to develop severe heat-overpressure.
    I believe what failed was not the tank, but the H.P. pipe/valve
    manifold system leading from the various gas tanks to the
    various redundant fuel cells. The result was that two of
    the three sets of fuelcells and/or gas storage flasks leaked
    off immediately and/or slowly but steadily. This deprived the
    crew of 90 or 95 % of their power, stored energy, and WATER
    too, I think, since that is a fuel cell byproduct.
    
    The rupture also blew off external panelling and minor heat shield
    surfaces, exposing crew to danger of incineration on reentry.
    
    Also, a continuing leakoff from the remaining flask's pressure
    caused reaction force, requiring continuous orbital recalculations,
    and spin, making emergency  stellar fixes very hard.
    
    Drastically reduced power budget meant restricted radio use,
    nav computer use, suit-warmer use etc etc. Spin forced use
    of lower gain omnidirectional antennas, so poorer comms to ground.
                
    
    This info came from silver-jacketed book "apollo 13 - the
    mission that failed".
    
    
                                                           

	I have some new information concerning meteorites.

	There was an incident on the space shuttle where a
	windshield was cracked due to a collision with a meteorite
	fragment. 

	Most of the meteorites tend to occur in certain regions
	and in clusters so by directing the craft towards areas
	away from these, they are less likely to run into problems.

	Also the space crafts are built very strongly to help it
	resist meteorite impacts by fragments. So the space shuttle
	wasn't in any danger.

	So it seems that staying out of the paths that most meteorites
	tend to take and the volume of space, the likely of an
	impact is quite small.

    A quote from the Apollo 13 review board:
    
      'The original 1962 specifications from North American Rockwell to
    Beech Aircraft Corporation for the tank and heater assembly specified
    the use of 28 volt dc power, which is used in the spacecraft.  In 1965,
    North American Rockwell issued a revised specification which stated
    that the heaters should use a 65 volt dc power supply for tank
    pressurization; this was the power supply used at KSC to reduce
    pressurization time.  Beech ordered the switches for the Block II tanks
    but did not change the switch specifications to be compatible with 65
    volt dc.'
    
      In other words, Beech didn't tell its switch subcontractor about the
    voltage change.  But NASA, Rockwell and Beech all missed it in the
    review of their documentation, so everybody screwed up just right to
    allow it through.
    
      The tank was also dropped 5 cm by a crane during handling while the
    tank was being tested, but there was no damage visible.
    
John

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!ames!yee
Subject: National student finalists present Space Station proposals to NASA 
Posted: 9 Sep 88 00:06:47 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Terri Sindelar                                  
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  September 2, 1988
 
Shelagh Lane
National Science Teachers Assoc., Wash., D.C.
  
RELEASE:  88-122
 
    NATIONAL STUDENT FINALISTS PRESENT SPACE STATION PROPOSALS TO NASA
  
    Seven high school students will present proposals for space
station experiments as national finalists of the 8th Annual Space
Science Student Involvement Program (SSIP).  The program, cosponsored
by NASA and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), gives
high school students the opportunity to propose experiments which
theoretically could be conducted in space.  The students will be
competing for scholarships and other awards. 
 
    In addition to these seven students, three national student
winners in separate competitions including the student newspaper
competition and the national aerospace internship competition, will he
honored during the NASA/NSTA National Space Science Symposium,
Washington, D.C., Sept. 17-21.  The key events follow. 
 
    On Monday, Sept. 19, the seven student finalists will present
their experiment proposals to a panel of scientists and educators at
the Capitol Holiday Inn, Columbia South Room, 550 C. St., S.W. Also
attending will be 10 students from each Washington-area magnet school.
 
    The students and teacher/advisors will attend a Monday evening
reception at the National Air and Space Museum.  Guest speakers will
include Capt. John A. McBride, NASA astronaut and assistant
administrator for congressional relations; Kenneth S. Pedersen, NASA
deputy associate administrator for external relations; Bill G.
Alridge, executive director of NSTA; Dr. Helenmarie Hofman, director
of SSIP at NSTA; and Dr. Martin O. Harwit, director of the National
Air and Space Museum.  Members of Congress are invited. 
 
    On Tuesday, Sept. 20, the students will tour the Capitol and meet
their congressmen. 
 
    The students will attend the awards ceremony Tuesday evening where
NSTA will announce the top national scholarship recipients. Featured
speakers will be Dr. Lemoine Motz, president of NSTA; Dr. Robert W.
Brown, director of educational affairs at NASA; and Dr. Joseph P.
Allen, a former astronaut. 
 
    Selected from over 900 proposals, the following are the proposals
of the seven national student finalists, one student newspaper competition 
winner and two national aerospace internship competition winners: 
 
                 SPACE STATION PROPOSAL FINALISTS:
     Kevin M. Chalmers, Mechanicsville, Va.  Topic:  "The Effect of 
Microgravity on Vital Lung Capacity of Human Respiratory System."
     John C. Marschhausen, Glastonbury, Conn.  Topic:  "Detrimental 
Loss of Calcium Due to Microgravity."
     Elexis Benzco, Uniontown, Ohio.  Topic:  "With the Use of 
Natural Bioluminescent Chemicals, Calcium and ATP Levels Can Be 
Related to Muscle Atrophy in a Microgravity Environment."
     P. Martin Johnson, Baton Rouge, La.  Topic:  "Frogs in Space: 
The Growing and Muscular Training of Rana Pipens in a Weightless 
Environment."
     Alison M. Cheney, Overland Park, Kan.  Topic:  "Application of 
Electrical Stimulation of Skeletal Muscle to the Problem of Disuse 
Atrophy in a Microgravity Environment."
     Kartik A. Parekh, Los Angeles, Calif.  Topic:  "Effect of 
Space Environment on the Proliferation of Resting, Activated and 
Malignant T-(213) Lymphocytes.
     Michael P. McCart, Anchorage, Alaska.  Topic:  "Increased 
Growth Rate of Penicillin Notatum in Microgravity."
 
             NATIONAL STUDENT NEWSPAPER AWARD WINNER:
     DeAnne M. Nevins, Lambert, Mont.  Article:  "Hey Student!  
It's Your Chance To Get SPACY!"
 
           NATIONAL AEROSPACE INTERNSHIP AWARD WINNERS:
     Eliah D. Novin, Sherman Oaks, Calif.  Topic:  "Control Surface 
Testing on a Forward Sweep Prototype Aircraft."
     Kenneth L. Riley, Akron, Ohio.  Topic:  "Measurement of 
Tensile Strength on Pure Water."
 
    The SSIP competition objective is to stimulate interest in
science and technology by directly involving students in a space
research program.  When space flight resumes with Space Shuttle
mission 26, two student experiments will fly aboard Discovery.  To
date, 15 student experiments have flown aboard the Shuttle. 

     "The world will always be governed by self-interest:  We should not
  try and stop this - we should try and make the self-interest of cads a
  little more coincident with that of decent people." - Samuel Butler

    From a reader only in this file:
    
    .47 and .49 are correct about the failure of a valve on the Apollo
    13 mission. I was working for Pratt and Whitney at the time and
    I was part of the team that assembled the three fuel cells that were on that
    mission. The voltage was part of the problem that caused the failure
    of the Temascal valve. I was also part of the team that inspected
    the fuel cells after the mission. It is long after the fact so I can
    say a few things about the failure. At the time, we were to keep
    quiet. What the team concluded, was that the thermostat was a contributing
    factor also. 
    
    Jim 

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!rutgers!mailrus!ncar!ames!yee
Subject: Space Station Freedom contract negotiations concluded (Forwarded)
Posted: 28 Sep 88 18:47:17 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 September 28, 1988
  
RELEASE:  88-132
 
    SPACE STATION FREEDOM CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS CONCLUDED
  
     The National Aeronautics and Space Administration today concluded
contract negotiations for full-scale development of the permanently
manned space station Freedom, scheduled to be deployed in orbit in the
mid-1990s. 
 
     In December 1987, NASA selected Boeing Aerospace Co., Huntsville,
Ala., McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co., Huntington Beach, Calif., GE
Astro-Space Division, Vally Forge, Penn., and East Windsor, N.J., and
Rocketdyne Division of Rockwell International, Canoga Park, Calif.,
for negotiation of cost-plus- award-fee contracts to design, develop,
test and evaluate, and deliver the components and systems comprising
the space station Freedom.  Today's action marks the successful
settlement of those contracts. 
 
     The 10-year contracts with these four aerospace firms have a
total value of approximately $6.7 billion, which is within NASA's
estimates for the combined value of the four work package contracts. 
 
     The Marshall Space Flight Center's contract with Boeing is valued
at approximately $1.6 billion, not including priced options for
additional work or elements that would be provided for the Phase 2, or
enhanced, space station configuration.  Under its contract with
Marshall, Boeing will develop the U.S. laboratory and habitation
module, logistics elements, structures for the resource nodes, the
environmental control and life support system, internal thermal, and
internal audio and video systems, and associated software. 
 
     The Johnson Space Center's contract with McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics Co., is valued at approximately $2.6 billion, not
including priced options for additional work or Phase 2 elements. 
 
     Under its contract with JSC, McDonnell Douglas will outfit the
resource nodes and develop the integrated truss structure, mobile
servicing system transporter, airlocks, and hardware and software for
the data management; communications and tracking; guidance, navigation
and control; extravehicular activity; propulsion, and thermal control systems. 
 
     Goddard's contract with GE Astro-Space Division is valued at
approximately $895 million, not including priced options for
additional work or Phase 2 elements.  The contract calls for GE to
provide a free-flying, unmanned polar-orbiting platform, and various
attach-point hardware, including a pointing system for accommodating
external scientific instruments on the manned base. 
 
     The Lewis Research Center's contract with Rocketdyne is valued at
approximately $1.6 billion, not including priced options for
additional work or Phase 2 elements.  Rocketdyne will provide the 75
kilowatt electrical power and distribution system for Freedom's manned
base and the electrical power system for the U.S. polar platform. 
 
     Space Station Freedom will be a permanently manned base in
low-Earth orbit for conducting scientific research, developing new
technologies, and enabling human exploration of the solar system.  The
United States, nine European countries, through the European Space
Agency, Japan and Canada are contributing elements to the program and
will share in its utilization.  A crew of up to 8 will permanently
work and live aboard Freedom, which will be designed to operate for
several decades, well into the the 21st century. 

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!labrea!agate!pasteur!ames!yee
Subject: NASA seeks proposals for telerobotic servicer (Forwarded)
Posted: 2 Nov 88 02:57:02 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    November 1, 1988
 
Michael J. Braukus
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
 
RELEASE:  88-150
 
    NASA SEEKS PROPOSALS FOR TELEROBOTIC SERVICER
 
     NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., today issued
a request for proposal which will lead to the award of a prime
contract for the design, development, testing and fabrication of Space
Station Freedom's flight telerobotic servicer (FTS). 
 
     The FTS will be a space robot with automated features that will
assist crews in the assembly, maintenance and servicing of the Freedom
station and visiting spacecraft. 
 
     Mandated by Congress, the FTS program consists of a develop-
mental flight test on the Space Shuttle in 1991, followed by a
demonstration test flight of the prototype robot on the Space Shuttle
in 1993.  The FTS is scheduled to be launched on the second Freedom
station assembly flight. 
 
     Initially, the FTS will be capable of performing such diverse
tasks as installing and removing station truss members, installing
fixtures on the truss, changing out station orbital replacement units,
mating thermal utility connectors and performing inspection tasks. 
The FTS will enhance crew safety and productivity.  Crew members
aboard Freedom will use the FTS to perform potentially hazardous tasks
and to relieve astronauts on extravehicular activities from routine tasks. 
 
     After initial deployment on the Freedom space station, the
capabilities of the FTS will be enhanced through an evolutionary
program to increase the level of autonomy used to perform tasks. In
the future, an FTS-equipped Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle could
retrieve, as well as service, spacecraft beyond Freedom's orbit. 
 
     A key element of the Freedom program, the FTS will employ
technolgies not used on previous NASA spacecraft.  Spinoffs from
robotic technologies developed in the FTS program are expected to
advance U.S. industrial automation capabilities. 

    "My dear major," J. T. Maston said, "your theory seems to
    imply that if we just make the projectile big enough, we shan't
    need any powder at all."

            - Jules Verne, FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON (1865)
 

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Moser to leave NASA May 13 (Forwarded)
Date: 12 May 89 19:47:02 GMT
Reply-To: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       May 12, 1989
  
RELEASE:  89-72
 
    MOSER TO LEAVE NASA MAY 13
  
     Thomas L. Moser, acting associate administrator for the Space
Station Freedom program, will leave NASA effective May 13.  Moser, who
was appointed deputy associate administrator for the Freedom program
last December, has been serving as the acting associate administrator
since April 30. 
 
     "My decision to leave is in no way a reflection on the status of
the program," Moser said.  "I am convinced that the Space Station
Freedom program is absolutely necessary for this country to maintain
its leadership in space and that NASA, along with the contractor team
and international partners, will make it a success given the proper
support.  I'll sincerely miss NASA, but after 26 truly fulfilling
years, I feel that it's the right time to go." 
 
     Moser served as the first program director of the Freedom
program, a position he held from October 1986 to December 1988. He
oversaw the establishment of the Space Station Freedom Program Office
located in Reston, Va., and guided the program through extensive
reviews by the Administration and the National Research Council and
through the formation of the design, development and technical support
contractor teams for Freedom. 
 
     Moser also helped put in place the structure for international
cooperation in the Freedom program, which was formally adopted by the
United States and the 11 participating countries last year. 
 
     From February 1986 until he was named to the space station post,
Moser was deputy associate administrator for space flight at NASA
Headquarters.  Prior to that, he was director of engineering at
Johnson Space Center, Houston. 
 
     Moser began his career with NASA in 1963 as a mechanical systems
design and analysis engineer.  From 1966 to 1971 he was the structural
subsystem manager for the Apollo command module. In 1972, Moser was
named head of structural design and manager for orbiter structure and
thermal protection system. 
 
     He became technical assistant to the JSC director in 1981 and was
named deputy manager, Orbiter Project Office, in 1982. 
 
     Born Aug. 12, 1938, in Houston, Moser received a B.S. degree in
mechanical engineering from the University of Texas in 1961, an M.S.
degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Pennsylvania
in 1963 and completed candidacy requirements for a Ph.D. at Rice University. 
 
     Moser has received numerous honors, including the Presidential
Rank of Meritorious Executive, the Exceptional Leadership Medal and
Exceptional Engineering Medal and is a Fellow of the American
Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics. 
 
     Moser and his wife, the former Nelwyn DeLaney, reside in Reston, Va.  
They have two children, Matthew and Meredith. 

From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Station computer system
Summary: May 15, 1989, issue of Datamation, pp. 51-54
Date: 2 Jun 89 17:39:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
 
    Since there's so much interest in the Space *Shuttle* computer
systems, I thought you all might be interested in an article on the
Space *Station* computer systems.  "A System for the 21st Century"
appears on pp. 51-54 of the May 15, 1989, issue of DATAMATION (v. 35,
#10).  Some highlights:  they're talking about thirty to forty IBM
PS/2 model 80's (*please* no religious arguments here; maybe they'll
wise up and use <insert your favorite manufacturer>'s hardware
instead), using trackballs or force-resistant hand controllers instead
of mice as pointing devices, with 4 megabytes of RAM and running
X-Windows, networked with Fiber Distributed Data Interface and perhaps
IEEE 802 (they didn't say if they meant Ethernet, Token Ring, or
StarLAN). There's also an Earth-bound system, the Software Support
Environment (SSE), for software development.  The whole deal will
require 1,500,000 lines of Ada code, including 900,000 for the SSE. 
 
    DATAMATION has occasional reports on NASA computer efforts; see
also "Is Error-Free Software Achievable" in the February 15, 1989
issue. (The answer seems to be yes, if you're willing to spend a
kilobuck per *line* of code.  Richard Feynman is quoted as saying
shuttle software was of the "highest quality".  The 500,000 lines of
shuttle code have had 0.1 errors per thousand lines of code; the norm
is closer to ten.) 
 
    Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
I'm not speaking for the company, I'm just speaking my mind.

    	In the June 1989 issue of DEC's PRODUCT INSIGHT magazine, there 
    is an article on our setting up VAX 8974 systems for Rocketdyne - a
    division of Rockwell International Corporation - for their Space
    Station FREEDOM Electric Power System project.  This is all part of
    the NETstart service.
    
    	Larry
    

VNS COMPUTER NEWS:                            [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
==================                            [Nashua, NH, USA                 ]


    Digital - More information on the NASA contract mentioned in VNS passim

   Digital announced Wednesday it has sold a $15 million office information
 system to Boeing Computer Services in support of the NASA Space Station
 Freedom program. Under the contract, Digital will provide a component of
 NASA's Technical and Management Information System (TIMS) that will connect
 all NASA sites involved in the development of the Space Station Freedom. The
 system will be used primarily for electronic mail, technical document
 exchange, electronic calendaring and electronic scheduling. Digital will
 provide up to 15 VAX 6300 computers running Digital's All-IN-1 integrated
 office and information software, VAX/VMS operating system and DECnet
 networking software. Hardware maintenance, software maintenance, and
 educational services will be included.

	{The Nashua Telegraph, 30-Jun-89, p. 17}

  <><><><><><><>   VNS Edition : 1852      Monday  3-Jul-1989   <><><><><><><>

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Finds Major Flaw in Space Station Design
Summary: Prohibitive amounts of EVA needed for maintenance
Date: 20 Mar 90 14:12:24 GMT
Reply-To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
 
    Yesterday's (3/19) NY Times reports that a NASA special
investigation team has concluded that the space station, as currently
designed, would require 2,200 hours of EVA per year for repairs and
preventive maintenance.  This figure, which amounts to about 2 EVAs
per week, is described as "alarmingly high"; an acceptable rate would
be one per month. 
 
    The maintenance findings have prompted a discussion within NASA on
whether the station in unbuildable.  Greatly increased reliability of
external parts or teleoperated repair robots were found to be
inadequate to solve the problem. 
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: More space station news.
Summary: NASA is contradicted; space station is "unbuildable".
Date: 20 Mar 90 17:36:39 GMT
Reply-To: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department
 
    Today's (3/20) NY Times has an article reporting on reaction to
yesterday's disclosure of the space station's problems.  Some tidbits:
 
    Russ Nelson, Chair of the House Space Committee, said the study
was troubling.  "It raises legitimate questions of operational cost,
and we have raised them, too."  He said NASA had a history of being
"recalcitrant to do something about these operational costs," pointing
to the space shuttle, of which the expense and complexity of operating
turned out to be "much greater than ever projected." 
 
    NASA's statement yesterday said the internal study was unduly
pessimistic and relied on a "worst-case scenario". 
 
    But the NY Times says a NASA expert familiar with the study said
it was actually too optimistic and that its estimate of 2,200 hours
was growing as researchers identify more parts as vulnerable to
failure.  He said the contractors' estimates of the reliability of
individual parts were "pretty accurate". 
 
    The NASA statement also said the space station could be redesigned
in a minor way that could reduce the maintenance problem, "without
disrupting the schedule, cost or overall architecture of the program."
 
    But the NASA expert said a radical redesign would probably be needed.
 
    "In the end, they're going to have to decide that the station as
designed is unbuildable," he said.  "It's the consensus here that
somebody let something slip." 
 
    The article quotes a Congressional aide as saying Congress does
not want to be burned again, as it was with NASA's underestimation of
the Space Shuttle's operational problems. 
 
	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

    "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." - Oscar Wilde

Gee, the Soviets don't seem to have that much trouble maintaining
their station.

Kind of reminds me of the news release late last year that said
that high powered superconducting magnets were impossible because
the magnetisim would prevent superconducting.  Only problem is
that nobody told the Japaneese.

    Re. .60
    
    I suspect that the reason for the success of the Soviet space station
    (and their space programme as a whole) is that they are prepared
    to use "old" (ie. tried and proven) technology, rather than constantly
    throwing everything away and starting from scratch. Their equipment
    may not be the best that can possibly be made, but they know it
    works and they know the costs involved.
    
    
    Dave Hazel

  Also, the U.S. design seems to depend on assembling a large structure
in space where as the Soviet system is more of a modular structure with
sections built on the ground and assembled by docking. Sort of like
prefab housing.

  I've had a bad feeling about this space station design from the word
go. The shuttle can't fly often enough to support it and it's too complicated.
Something more like SKYLAB which needed little assembly and did not need
to be constantly attended would be much more practical.

  George

Date: 2 May 90 20:14:10 GMT
From: trident.arc.nasa.gov!yee@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: NASA names Taylor Chief Scientist for Freedom Space Station (Forwarded)
 
Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                        May 2, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-4164)
  
    RELEASE:  90-61
 
    NASA NAMES TAYLOR CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR FREEDOM SPACE STATION
  
     William W. L. Taylor of TRW, Redondo Beach, Calif., has been
named Chief Scientist for the Space Station Freedom program, Richard
H. Kohrs, Director, Space Station Freedom announced today.  In this
position, Taylor will be the principal advocate for the space science
community in the space station program. 
 
     Taylor has been with TRW since 1978, most recently as Assistant
Department Manager of the Physical Sciences Department of the Applied
Technology Division.  He is the Principal Investigator of the Waves in
Space Plasmas investigation and the High Voltage Drainage investigation 
carried aboard the Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) recently 
returned to Earth by the Space Shuttle after almost 6 years in space. 
 
     Taylor also is the U.S. Science Coordinator for ACTIVE, an
international experiment on the propagation of low frequency radio
waves, and a co-investigator on the Space Experiments with Particle
Accelerators investigation.  He is working with TRW on the proposed
Neutral Environment With Plasma Interaction Monitoring System for the
Freedom space station. 
 
     Prior to joining TRW, Taylor worked with NASA where he was
Program Scientist for Spacelab 1.  Taylor is the third person named to
the 2-year chief scientist post for the Freedom program and the first
to come from industry.  Previous appointees were Dr. David Black,
formerly of the Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., and now
Director of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, and Dr.
John-David Bartoe with the Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
 
     Taylor holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Redlands
and a master of science and a doctorate from the University of Iowa. 
 

Japan's Agency of Industrial Science and Technology may build a
robot for Space Station Freedom, according to Reuters news
service.  The Japanese government will decide this August whether
to develop, build and launch a $130 million mechanical "handyman"
scheduled for the year 2000.  The robot would be used to assemble
structures and repair machinery in space.

Courtesy of NASA Headline News...


From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: NASA Headline News for 06/05/90 (Forwarded)
Date: 5 Jun 90 16:27:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation,clari.news.top
Date: 9 Jul 90 20:09:27 GMT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- In yet another blow to the nation's beleaguered
space agency, a study has found the proposed space station may require
too many risky spacewalks for routine maintenance, a published report
said Monday.
	The proposed $30 billion space station Freedom would require six
spacewalks each week for routine repairs, raising questions about the
station's practicality, according to the weekly newspaper Space News.
	The estimate is in a draft copy of a report prepared for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration by astronaut William
Fisher and robotics expert Charles Price at the Johnson Space Center in
Houston, Space News said.
	Neither Fisher nor Price could be reached for comment. NASA
spokesman Jim Cast said officials would not comment on the report until
a final version had been reviewed, which is expected to begin next week.
But Cast added that ``drafts tend to change from draft to finals.''
	NASA is already under fire because of a serious defect in the $1.5
billion Hubble Space Telescope and a fuel leak that has grounded the
space shuttle fleet.
	Congress is considering a request for $2.6 billion for the space
station in fiscal year 1991. NASA hopes to begin building the space
station in 1996 or 1997 as an orbiting outpost where astronauts can
conduct scientific experiments and stage exploration into the solar
system.
	Fisher and Price raised questions about the station's design in
March when they released a preliminary estimate that the station would
require 2,284 hours of spacewalks each year for routine maintenance.
	That translated into the equivalent of more than three spacewalks
each week, which would mean that astronauts would have to spend an
inordinate amount of time outside the station replacing batteries,
valves and pumps and doing other maintenance.
	NASA officials asked Fisher and Price to continue their analysis
and predicted the final report would produce a lower, more realistic
estimate of the number of spacewalks needed.
	But Space News said ``several NASA officials'' told the newspaper a
draft copy of the final report concluded the station would require an
estimated 3,800 hours of spacewalks each year, or about six each week.
	``Each spacewalk requires six hours to complete. There will be
eight crew members at the station, and two would have to spend most of
their working hours on space walks doing maintenance chores,'' the
newspaper stated.
	The newspaper also reported NASA planned to issue a set of
recommendations with the report on how to reduce the number of hours
needed for spacewalks to 400, which would be considered practical.
	``NASA managers said the recommendations will reduce drastically
the amount of spacewalks needed and deflect criticisms that the station
design will require too much maintenance,'' the newspaper reported.
	A team led by William Simon of the Johnson Space Center will
propose increasing the amount of robots used to maintain the station,
building simpler and more reliable components and combining maintenance
tasks, the newspaper said.
	``Some pieces of hardware also could be placed inside the modules
to make them more accessible to the crew. These measures would reduce
the requirement for spacewalks to less than one per week by two crew
members,'' Space News said.

    Hmmm...

    Fisher & Price?  "Baby's First Space Station," only $2 billion...

	Re: .66  Fisher & Price...

	I wish, Fisher & Price toys seem to rarely break!  ;-)

								-c

  There needs to be some common sense applied to the space station idea. It's
another disaster waiting to happen. There's no way that the shuttle, in it's
current state can support this thing. It's too big, too complicated, and will
require more manned flights than the shuttle can handle, even if they develop an
unmanned booster based on shuttle hardware. 

  The entire idea should be scrapped and they should go back to a modular
design like the soviet system or Skylab in which pieces can be launched and
require little more than deploying solar cells to get them running. It should
be expected that they will be unmanned much of the time and should have plenty
of automatic systems that don't require manned presence so that simple things
could be done when it was unmanned to prepare for advanced work when it was
manned. 

  One shuttle accident and this thing is going to be sitting up there for 2 or
3 years unattended. I don't think that anyone will be sympathetic if it is
designed such that it gets damaged or destroyed if (or rather when) people
can't get to it for a 2 or 3 year period. 

  George

One annoying aspect of .68's point (which I'm beginning to agree with) is
that such plans exist.

The Industrial Space Facility, designed by Max Faget and his longtime
associate Caldwell Johnson (I think that's his name), comes very close to
that type of design.  Faget wanted to have a space station that goes up
operational and then you build on it.

Several people who have seen the plans for the ISF call it an elegant
achievement in space station design.  Perhaps the only thing wrong with
it is that it comes from a private company and not NASA.  NASA wouldn't
let that get in the way, would they? 


- dave

	Re: .68

	I have to agree entirely with George.  Besides the probable massive
budget and schedule overruns that is likely to incur (is occuring?), NASA
simply cannot guarantee that they'll be able to fly up and service it and/or
retrieve the astronauts that are on-board.

	NASA is in a Catch-22 with the Shuttle: they have to fly them often
to make them cost-effective, but such an accelerated schedule makes it tough
to do the required level of maintenance/testing/etc for something that complex
that is carrying people.  Either they don't fly it and it looks bad (have they 
*ever* met a launch-rate that they gave Congress at budget time?) or else they
fly it with known problems and risk the bad publicity of losing another one.
Having the space station rely on the Shuttle as the "space truck" as it was
first advertised seems to be like building a tall skyscraper on shifting mud.
They (we...) _will_ lose another shuttle sometime.  Has NASA planned on what
would happen after that?  Sad to say, I doubt it.

	First get a delivery system working reliably, and _then_ rely on it.
Not the other way around.  (And KISS, NASA, please.)

							-craig

    Unfortunately, the KISS principle has been largely lost to
    American engineering when it is applied to aerospace matters.
    Perhaps it is an extension of the McNamara syndrome which tried
    to make the F-111 into a do-it-all aircraft with lots of bells and
    whistles. It seems to me that we too often try to add function at
    the expense of simplicity.
    
    I was always taught that it is better to have a good plan well executed
    than to waste time (and money) trying for a perfect plan.
    
    Pick a simple design and go for it. Make it modular so it can be
    expanded if it proves successful, but not so complex and expensive
    that we can't say "Well, THAT didn't work. Lets try again."
    
    Unfortunately for NASA, if the too-complex doomsayers about the
    Space Station win and overturn funding it is doubtful that we would
    see any significant major projects funded again. The Space Station
    design is too far along and NASA is too committed to it to survive
    massive cuts. 
    
    The KISS principle MUST be applied at the START of the conceptual
    phase of the project. It should be applied to our return-to-the-moon
    and Mars efforts. 
    
    On another subject, I don't feel that the ENTIRE Shuttle fleet would
    HAVE to be grounded after an accident. Yes, an investigation would
    have to identify the point(s) of failure, but steps COULD be found
    to eliminate the danger of recurrence. For example, after the 
    Challenger accident I believe it was found that the weather was
    a major contributory factor in the failure of the O-ring. That
    factor could have been avoided by tighter weather restriction.
    (Please correct me if I am wrong about the weather factor.)
    Similarly, the failure of a part due to age (fatigue) could be avoided
    by earlier replacement (or consistently using a new part).
    
    John B.
    

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.aviation
Date: 13 Jul 90 23:00:10 GMT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Under current designs, the proposed space
station Freedom weighs about 113,000 pounds too much and needs too much
power to operate, NASA officials said Friday.
	Revealing yet another problem for the beleaguered space agency,
space station director Richard Kohrs said current designs call for the
space station to weigh nearly 625,000 pounds while specifications call
for it to weigh only 512,000 pounds.
	If the space station weighs too much, it would require too many
space shuttle flights to be built.
	In addition, current designs call for the station to require more
than 56 kilowatts of power for each hour of operation while designs call
for it to require only 45 kilowatts of power.
	However, Kohrs said analysts had made significant progress in
reducing the weight of the station and power needs, and he was confident
they would reduce the station to specifications by the end of the year.
	``It's a lot of work. There will be some tough decisions but I'm
confident we'll get them (weight and power needs) down,'' Kohrs said.
	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has come under
fire within the past month because of a defect in the $1.5 billion
Hubble Space Telescope and fuel leaks that have grounded the space
shuttle fleet.
	The space station's weight can be reduced through measures such as
using different, lighter types of metals for certain components, Kohrs
said. Energy needs can be reduced by eliminating redundant electrical
components, he said.
	The space station, which NASA hopes to begin building in 1996 or
1997, is envisioned as an orbiting outpost where astronauts can conduct
scientific experiments and stage exploration into the solar system.
Congress is currently considering a request for $2.6 billion for the
station in fiscal year 1991.
	Meanwhile, Kohrs would not comment on the status of work aimed at
assessing the maintenance needs of the station.
	Preliminary results of a NASA study in March indicated the station
would need 2,284 hours of spacewalks each year for routine maintenance --
a level that would require astronauts to spend too much time outside the
station in risky spacewalks to replace batteries and do other
maintenance.
	At the time, NASA officials predicted the final report would
produce a lower, more realistic estimate of the number of spacewalks
needed.
	But published reports this week said the study had instead found
the station would require even more spacewalks -- an estimated 3,800
hours each year, or about six spacewalks each week.
	Kohrs said top administrators are reviewing the final report and
would reveal the contents within the next two weeks.
	NASA analysts are reportedly studying ways to reduce the need for
spacewalks, such as adding more robots or redesigning certain
components. Kohrs said such changes would not increase the weight or
power needs.

    Oh good, eliminate redundant electrical components.  That sounds like
    an intelligent decision.  I'm beginning to become really disenchanted
    with this turkey.  Does anyone think there's hope for "Freedom"?

  No. It was a turkey from day one.

  It was designed to be supported by the Shuttle back when people still
believed that 4 shuttles would fly with 2-4 week turn around time resulting
in 40 or more flights per year. In reality, they will be lucky in any year to
hit double figures in launches.

  With the 1st flight of the Space Plane a decade away and "production" flights
of the Space Plane 15 to 20 years away at best, there is no way that the
Shuttle will support the lift requirements of the "freedom" station.

  And they still haven't designed the escape system. What happens when (not
if) someone gets sick on board while NASA is puzzling over sticky LH valves?

  George

	Re: .72

	There is a *very* strange comment in that NASA statement.  I first saw
it several notes ago and was going to reply, but got too busy.  .72 mentioned
it again...

>        Preliminary results of a NASA study in March indicated the station
>would need 2,284 hours of spacewalks each year for routine maintenance --
>a level that would require astronauts to spend too much time outside the
>station in risky spacewalks to replace batteries and do other
>maintenance.
>        At the time, NASA officials predicted the final report would
>produce a lower, more realistic estimate of the number of spacewalks
>needed.

	Let me see if I got this right -- NASA gets its technical experts to
study something, didn't like the numbers in the preliminary report and thus
the "NASA officials" (which sounds to me like non-techy bureaucrats) predicted
that "the final report would produce a LOWER, MORE REALISTIC (emphasis mine)
estimate...".  This strikes me as the NASA officials wanting a low number, were
unhappy that they didn't get it (even if the higher number was valid from the
technical side) and have already made up their mind that the final report
*will* state a lower number.  Or, this could be interpreted that the NASA
officials understand the technical details so much better than their technical
experts, that they can dismiss the "experts" findings so quickly.  Personally,
I find either interpretation as eventually leading to major problems.

							-craig

Along with the diet (weight reduction) and energy measures they are redesigning 
some of the ORUs to be accessable from INSIDE rather than the outside. What they 
are doing now that they know what will fail and how often is that they are 
redesigning interior access to the more mundane maintainance tasks.

Why go out for a stroll when you can access it from inside. There's a lot of 
"walk preparation" time factored in that would be eliminated.

They are also looking at combining trips since the original report was a 
separate walk for each function (that is how they can cut back the time needed 
without the redesign). Even with the work being done from inside, it sounds like 
they're going to be kept busier with the more mundane things than they should.

With this number of ORU swaps they're going to need a Progress-M type of supply 
ship to complement the Shuttle "Fleet"

  Problem is, once they factor in reality they will have to face the fact that
it will be too dangerous to leave people up there once the shuttle returns and
too expensive to support regular non-shuttle returns with an escape capsule. 

  Thus, the station will be manned for perhaps 5 to 10 weeks/year tieing up a
shuttle in orbit by about 5 people who will be pressed to do 3 or 4 space walks
a week of an hour or so each. That comes to about 20 to 80 hours a year
available for outside repairs. 

  Add in the fact that once a decade the station will have to go a year or two
without a visit due to the shuttle program being grounded and you find that the
entire concept is in a lot of trouble. 

  George

I wonder if the NASA 'officials' who would like to see a "..lower, more 
realistic estimate..." for the space station "... by eliminating redundant 
electrical components..." are the same ones who suggested that the HST mirrors
didn't need testing in tandem ..........:-)

Lance

    	I remember reading a report summarising the dangers of "space junk"
    	and how they might effect the space station. However I can't remember 
    	what the conclusions were. Have NASA incorporated anything into the 
    	design plans in case the station gets hit by flecks of paint, water 
    	droplets or any of the other junk that's whizzing around up there ? 

    							Andy

    	P.S. I suppose this will cover meteorites as well.

From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Date: 1 Aug 90 21:03:08 GMT

  Mark Hess
  Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
  (Phone: 202/453-4164)                             Aug. 1, 1990


  Patricia Phillips
  Kennedy Space Center, FL.
  (Phone: 407/867-2468)


  KSC RELEASE 137-90


  KSC OFFICIALS RELEASE BID PACKAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF  NEW  SPACE
  STATION PROCESSING FACILITY

       Kennedy  Space  Center  officials have reached a major mile-
  stone in preparations for Space Station Freedom work at KSC  with
  the  release  of  a bid package for construction of the new Space
  Station Processing Facility (SSPF).

       The solicitation package details the requirements  a  bidder
  must meet in the construction of the new facility.  The SSPF will
  be built in a "phased construction"  plan  extending  over  three
  years.

       As  part  of  its annual Construction of Facilities request,
  NASA will ask for a total of $88 million for  the  facility.  The
  SSPF, which will be be located in KSC's Industrial Area, has been
  designed  especially  for the processing of Space Station Freedom
  manned base hardware components.

       To accommodate items from unpressurized  hardware  to  pres-
  surized   modules,   the  SSPF  will  include  both  a  high  and
  "intermediate" bay,  and various  laboratories.  In  addition  to
  Space  Station  Freedom  manned  base  hardware  components,  the
  facility will also process scientific payloads  from  around  the
  world.

       "The completion of design and the issuance of the invitation
  for bid marks a big step forward in KSC Space Station work," said
  Dick Lyon,  Manager, KSC Space Station Projects Office. "A lot of
  hard work has gone into moving toward this step, and we are look-
  ing forward to seeing the actual construction get underway."

       Prospective bidders have until Oct. 15 to respond.  Procure-
  ment  officials anticipate an award by Jan.  2,  1991,  with con-
  struction to begin soon thereafter.

       A pre-bid conference for prospective  bidders  is  scheduled
  for 10 a.m. Sept. 6 in the KSC Training Auditorium. A tour of the
  SSPF location will be included. Companies interested in obtaining
  the bid package or attending the conference should write to NASA,
  SI-PRO-31, Kennedy Space Center, Fl, 32899.

    
    Copied without permision from:
    
    Aviation Week & Space Technology
    October 8, 1990
    
    SPACE STATION REDESIGN LIKELY; CONTRACTOR HIRING FREEZE ORDERED
    
    James R. Aker/Washington
    
    
        Challenges to NASA's plans for a U.S./international space station
    appear to be mounting.  As Congress considers deep cuts to the programs
    budget, some influential members of the aerospace community are
    criticising the project.
        Significant developments include:
    o A NASA directive to station contractors to defer planned buildup of
    their workforces.
    o A finding that NASA's plans to increase the use of remote systems to
    reduce astronaut extravehicular activity present "unacceptable risks."
    o Renewed questions about the stations reliance on the space shuttle.
        The shuttle was a chief concern of a group of aerospace leaders who
    met here privately to critique the space station.  They were largely
    skeptical about the design, schedule and cost of the manned base.  Many
    participants said they doubt the station, now estimated to cost $37
    billion, could be assembled by the year 2000 - even if the shuttle were
    not to suffer another major accident.
        Bruce Murray, a former director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    who chaired the meeting, said, "Space Station Freedom's problems have
    grown large enough and NASA's means of coping with them sufficiently
    marginal that we are looking at three possible outcomes."
        One possibility, Murray said, is "outright cancellation," anothre
    is "a progressively less interesting, more costly and more delayed U.S.
    space station."  The third outcome he said is to recognize that the
    plans are overly ambitious and either "de-scope the [station] to fit
    into something like 12 [shuttle] flights rather than 28," or put
    current space station hardware efforts on hold and begin development of
    a new heavy-lift launch vehicle.
        NASA's top space station officials acknowledge they will have to
    consider redesigning the station if the project's funding is cut as
    little as 8%.  That is the best the station is likely to fare in
    Congress, as proposed cuts to the 2.451 billion NASA wants for the
    fiscal year that began Oct. 1 range from $195 million in the House to
    $864 million in the Senate.
        Associate Administrator William B. Lenoir said either amount would
    force NASA to reexamine the station's capabilities and construction
    schedule.  Life sciences experimenters might have to make do with a
    smaller centrifuge; materials scientists might not be guaranteed the
    same degree of microgravity, Lenoir testified before the House space
    committee.
        Asked by the panel's chairman, Rep. Bill Nelson (D.-FLA), if that
    might mean another new configuration, Lenoir said, "I think, yes
    indeed, it would look different."
        One option under consideration at the Marshall Space Flight Center
    is splitting the two U.S. modules into four.  Such a change would allow
    the smaller modules to be launched fully loaded with equipment, rather
    than be outfitted in space, and it would make stretching the assembly
    schedule easier.
        NASA also would consider postponing staffing the station with
    astronauts, now set for mid-1997.  But the agency keenly wants to
    adhere to the schedule of begining assembly in March, 1995.  Officials
    view the specter of delaying "first element launch" as extremely
    threatening politically, to the future of the project.
        Were NASA forced back tot he drawing board, it would be betterly
    ironic for the space stations current management.  The station effort
    has had a rocky history punctuated by management and design changes
    (AW&ST Mar.12,p.16).  But it is now on schedule, having completed 80 of
    100 engineering assesments leading to a preliminary design review of
    the entire station this December.
        Space station director Richard H. Kohrs said the process will yield
    a new assembly sequence; power and weight allocations; baselines for
    maintenance and use of telerobotics, and a plan for verifying that
    hardware will function as intended.  But Kohrs said if the funding is
    not cut, the station will look and work much as planned today.
        Outside the agency, there are still fears that the current design
    lacks sufficient "margin" of important resources, and that the program
    is proceeding with too little reserves of the essential elements for
    building and operating the orbital base NASA envisions.  Knowledgeable
    observers picture scenarios in which NASA simply runs out of one or
    more precious commodities - money, time, shuttle payload availability,
    electrical power, astronaut work hours - before the project bears
    fruit.
        For example, a highly visible concern has been the stations
    potential excess use of astronaut extravehicular activity (EVA) to
    maintain equipment (AW&ST Mar.26, p.25).  Lenoir and Kohrs said
    hardware and procedural changes mean astronauts are now likely to don
    space suits to repair the station less than once a week and the effort
    is to whittle the expected frequency to less than once a month.
        Jack L. Kerrebrock, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
    who chaired a panel overseeing EVA, generally endorses NASA's new
    numbers. But he said the panel is uncomfortable with the degree of
    reliance on remotely operated devices, which members view as less
    adaptable to unexpected tasks.  On balance, the EVA and telerobotics
    plan presents "unacceptable risks," Kerrebrock told Congress.
        Kerrebrock's group would like to see development of a new, hard
    space suit which would cut astronauts' "pre-breathing" time.  NASA
    would too, but with the cost estimated at $352 million for 21 suits and
    seven backpacks, the agency decided to forgo them last year.
        The closed-door meeting to critique the station was called Sept 19
    by the Planetary Society.  It included veterns of space programs from
    industry and government as well as acadimicians, congressional
    staffers, and officials of the U.S., European and Japanese space
    agencies.
        The society strongly supports manned space exploration but is more
    interested in the Moon and Mars.  At least two of the 38 who attended
    the meeting beleived participation was "stacked" against the space
    station.
        No participant laid blame for the program's troubles entirely on
    NASA's doorstep; several chastised Congress.  Ian Pryke, the head of
    the European Space Agency's Washington office said, "The United States
    currently has a budget process that is highly inefficient in supporting
    long-term, high cost initiatives."
        Participants highlighted the station assembly schedule's
    vulderability to disruption.  Former astonaut John Fabian pointed to
    the shuttle's "continuing inability to reach anticipated flight rates."
    Lenoir, who was not at the meeting, said while it is true that NASA is
    basing its station plans on a still unreached shuttle flight rate of
    10-12 missions a year, only four or five are required for station
    assembly.  He said he anticipates interruptions in the shuttle program,
    and the station program can tolerate the shuttle "being down" for
    periods of a few months.
        A theme of the critique was that the space station program is not
    sufficiently flexible, because the interests of so many potential users
    have been so intertwined and they sometimes conflict.  "One glitch
    tends to ripple through all the other program elements," Albert R.
    Wheelon, a former head of Hughes Aircraft, said.
        Because of the "highly coupled" nature of the program, some said,
    the program cannot adapt to changing requirements without major
    redesign work.  They pointed to significant events that have occurred
    since space station planning began:
    o The near-term market potential for processing materials in orbit now
    appears to lie more in microgravity research, not full-blown
    space-based manufacturing.
    o The end of the Cold War suggests possibilities for U.S./Soviet
    cooperation in manned spaceflight that once would have been rejected
    out of hand as hopelessly naive.
    o President Bush's call for astronauts to establish a permanent base on
    the Moon and then venture to Mars by 2019 has shifted the focus of U.S.
    manned space plans.
        Teledyne Brown Engineering's Owen Garriott, a former astronaut,
    said, "The first step, it should be clear, is to reexamine the
    justifications and requirements for the space station design."
        He said some at the meeting suggested deleting materials processing
    from the station's list of missions and moving such equipment onto
    free-flying platforms, while others suggested that NASA conduct life
    sciences investigations on the Soviet Unions Mir space station.  At
    least one participant suggested using the Soviet Energia heavy booster
    to launch station hardware.
        One of those who advocated a free-flier for materials research,
    Edwin E. Aldrin, said the primary role of the U.S. station should now
    be a transportation node for flights to the Moon and Mars.  The
    ex-astronaut offered a new design that would place the currently
    planned modules at the center of a truss work taht would define a
    polyhedron.
    	Some participants offered the view that the U.S. space station
    effort is, as one put it, "not quite as bad as some would have us
    think."  McDonnell Douglas' Charles D. Walker, who has flown on the
    shuttle, presented a vigorous defense.
        Space Station Freedom is on track, a difficult track, yes.  But it
    is making excellent progress," Walker said.  "Perhaps it is time to
    focus our reviews and critiques on a more serious issue, the ability to
    make a commitment and have the confidence to be a leader when it is so
    much easier to turn back and think it over."

From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Date: 28 Dec 90 05:12:38 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
 
Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.               December 26, 1990
(Phone:  202/453-4164)
 
 
RELEASE:  90-165
 
SPACE STATION INTEGRATED DESIGN REVIEW COMPLETED
 
     The Integrated System Preliminary Design Review (ISPDR) for 
the Freedom space station, a major milestone leading to the 
construction, launch and assembly of the station, was completed 
on schedule this week marking the end of a year-long assessment 
of Freedom's preliminary design by the NASA centers, their prime 
contractors and the international partners involved in the space 
station project.
 
     Over the course of the last 13 months, over 80 separate 
design reviews were conducted at NASA centers and contractor 
facilities to ensure Freedom's preliminary design could satisfy 
requirements for safety, physical and functional compatibility 
and for its ability to be built, integrated with other hardware, 
and tested.  During this time, every major component, subsystem 
and system, which together comprise the space station, were 
examined.
 
     "We did it," said Marc Bensimon, Deputy Manager for 
Freedom's Program and Operations Office, Reston, Va., who headed 
the ISPDR effort.  "We established the schedule for the PDR last 
April and we met every milestone as planned."
 
     "This was an outstanding effort," said Robert Moorehead, 
Deputy Director for Space Station Freedom Program and 
Operations.  "Not only did we accomplish the PDR on schedule, we 
made the schedule despite having to devote a lot of time and 
attention to other issues, like weight and power and EVA 
(extravehicular activity) resources."
 
     Preliminary figures for Freedom's weight as of June 1990 
were 143,000 pounds higher than the allocated limit of 512,000 
pounds for the total space station, and housekeeping power 
exceeded the maximum 45 kw available by nearly 15 kw.  An 
intensive summer-long resources scrub reduced weight estimates by 
130,000 pounds and reduced the housekeeping power by 13 kw.  
Users will receive 30 kw of power to conduct their experiments.  
 
     Despite the added rigors of the ISPDR review progress, 
weight and power levels have remained stable.  "What this means 
is that the design is maturing and converging," said Bensimon.  
"While a PDR is typically conducted with the hardware only 10 
percent designed, I was impressed with the detail of the 
preliminary design and the knowledge our systems managers 
displayed with respect to expected performance of their systems."
 
     While hardware was a major focus of the ISPDR, space station 
managers also reviewed and baselined ground processing 
procedures, computer software specifications and pre-flight 
verification plans for Freedom.  They also approved design 
modifications such as those suggested by Dr. William F. Fisher 
and Charles R. Price, Co-chairman of the External Maintenance 
Task Team.  In the EVA systems area, program managers approved a 
change that would provide a handle on all external orbital 
replacement units so that those components could be replaced by 
robots as well as humans.  
 
     Both Moorehead and Bensimon acknowledge the current 
restructure assessment (begun in November as a result of a 1991 
fiscal year budget shortfall of more than $550 million along with 
a Congressional mandate to significantly reduce out-year 
spending) will have an impact on the design but are confident 
that the ISPDR has laid a firm foundation for the restucturing.  
 
     "Certainly there will be design changes," said Moorehead, 
"but I think that from a systems and subsystems standpoint, the 
ISPDR configuration provides us with an excellent baseline to 
work from for the restructuring.  Afterall, regardless of what 
Freedom will look like from an overall configuration standpoint, 
we will still have to have systems like power, thermal control, 
data management and guidance and control.  I anticipate being 
able to use a significant proportion of those systems in the 
station that comes out of our restructure assessment."
 
     Bensimon said the next major milestone in the development 
process will take place next spring.  By then, engineers will 
have completed incorporating the design changes that come out 
of the restructuring and can begin a series of stage design 
reviews that carefully examine the configuration at various steps 
along the assembly sequence.  At each stage, engineers must 
make certain the station can function like an independent 
spacecraft, with all the necessary backups, to ensure overall 
mission success. 

    Hmmmm. Doesn't say if they reduced the high level of maintenance that
    seemed to be required just to keep the place running....
    
    Anyone know?
    
    				-**Ted**-

    If you are referring to the EVA numbers (3200 hours / year) that were
    raised in the Fisher & Price report:
    
    Fisher and Price stated the EVA time could be reduced to 500 hours if
    their recommendations were implemented.  Another JSC team found that
    their recommendations would require 485 hours per year.
    
    It is unclear if all these recommendations have been entered into the
    design, but it is clear that they have ways to reduce the hours to
    something that NASA refers to as "manageable".
    
    - dave

=== Augustine Report Reflects NASA's Actions ===

	Although Space Station Freedom's restructure assessment will bring few
concrete changes before January's end, the three-month assessment gave NASA a
jump start on implementing the recommendations of a blue-panel study, said Dr.
William B. Lenoir, Office of Space Flight associate administrator.

	In essence, Lenoir said, the Presidential Advisory Committee on the
Future of the U.S. Space Program, also known as the Augustine Committee, told
NASA to lessen the complexity and cost of Freedom, a task station managers have
been working on feverishly since December.

	"The only difference between what we have said and what they are
telling us is that we place a slightly higher priority on microgravity
research than they do," Lenoir said.

	Space Station Freedom remains a critical and integral part of the U.S.
space program, the Augustine Committee said, because learning more about how
the human body operates in space is essential for human space exploration.

	"We do not believe that the Space Station Freedom, as we know it, can
be justified solely on the basis of the (nonbiological) science it can
perform, much of which can be conducted on Earth or by robotic spacecraft for
less cost," the committee said in the report. "Similarly, we doubt that the
space station will be essential as a transportation node -- certainly not for
many years.

	"However, the space station is deemed essential as a life sciences
laboratory, for there is simply no Earth-bound substitute .  The space station
is a critical next step if the U.S. is to have a manned space program in the
future.  At the same time, the space station can provide a capability for
important microgravity research, and for practical experience in manufacturing
under low-gravity conditions," the committee said.

	"Given these conclusions, we believe the justifying objectives of the
Space Station Freedom should be reduced to two: primarily life sciences, and
secondarily microgravity experimentation.  In turn, we believe the Space
Station Freedom can be simplified, reduced in cost, and constructed on a more
evolutionary, modular basis that enables end-to-end testing of most systems
prior to launch, and reduces extravehicular flight requirements along the
lines NASA is now considering."

	One step station managers have already taken to reduce cost,
complexity, and extravehicular activities is to shorten the habitation and
laboratory modules, Lenoir said.

	"Since we're still in the middle of our work, I can't talk too much
about what's going on, but I can tell you that we do plan to go with shorter
modules," Lenoir said.

	Before budgetary constraints and a congressional mandate forced station
managers to begin the space station restructure assessment, the two modules
were designed to be 44 feet long.  Now station managers are planning to trim
that size to about 27 feet long , and eventually the program plans to send up
four modules to increase living and research space, Lenoir said.

	"We decided to shorten the modules so we can stuff them and send them
up full, rather than launch empty and stuff them in orbit," Lenoir said. "This
will save risk because we don't have a lot of experience with on-orbit
integration.  It also will save crew time, so they can make observations and do
experimentation, rather than build hardware," Lenoir said.

	Another option designers are researching is moving toward a
preintegrated truss, "so we don't have to build it one stick at a time.  It may
not pass muster, but we're reviewing it," Lenoir said.

	Program managers still are trying to delete content, and move hardware
around in an attempt to stay near the first element launch time frame of March
1995, although that date is looking less likely, Lenoir said.

	"We've got all of the options on the table, and we're picking and
choosing, mixing and matching, trying to put things together.  Right now, we
think it will probably look similar to the station we have today, but it will
be smaller and somewhat less capable.  We continue to work toward a phased
approach," which is in line with the Augustine recommendations, Lenoir said.

	"It will be after the first of January before the design begins to gel,
and then it will probably take another month beyond that to sand some of the
rough edges," he said.

	Meanwhile, Space Station Freedom managers last month wound up the
program's Integrated System Preliminary Design Review (ISP DR) , an exercise
that analyzed the acceptability of Freedom's integrated design.

	The ISPDR, which culminated at a Dec. 20 board meeting at Level II in
Reston, Va., took precedence over the restructure assessment, because any
structure deviation must come from the ISPDR baseline, said Space Station
Freedom Director Richard Kohrs.

	"We are not going to start over," Kohrs said. "We are going to work as
much as possible with the existing development."

	Hundreds of Freedom engineers and designers leafed through thousands of
pages of documentation to analyze the acceptability of Freedom's integrated
design.

	Goals for the ISPDR were to ensure that the design actually reflects
the program's requirements; to verify the safety and operational adequacy of
the integrated design; to confirm the compatibility of the physical and
functional relationships; and to assess the preliminary design for its ability
to be produced, integrated, and verified.

	The ISPDR's requirements review also updated program requirements for
stage content and milestones.

	Reviews such as this are conducted during the hardware development and
 mission phases to guarantee the integrity and program success, Kohrs said.


=== NASA Slates Freedom Test Flights on Space Shuttle Fleet ===

	Within the next two years, Space Station Freedom designers expect to
 fly at least three experiments aboard the Space Shuttle fleet.

	This April, astronauts will float out of Space Shuttle Atlantis'
 airlock, 243 nautical miles above Earth, for the first NASA space walk in more
 than five years.

	After the Gamma Ray Observatory is lofted into space, astronauts will
perform an extravehicular activity, or space walk, to find the best ways to
construct Space Station Freedom's truss on orbit, Dr. William B. Lenoir said at
a December press briefing.  The next Freedom experiment to fly aboard the
Shuttle Discovery in July will be the Space Station Advanced Heat-pipe Radiator
Element II (SHARE II), which is the station's cooling system.  This flight
test will assess the heat-pipe's improved design, Lenoir said.  The first
generation SHARE flew on the side of Discovery's cargo bay in April 1989.

	Once engineers gathered all of the in-flight data, they were able to
pinpoint what they think caused the original SHARE to operate only
sporadically during its flight test.  With that knowledge, Lenoir said, they
were able to modify SHARE's design so it will work properly.

	"We think we've got the problem corrected, so now we want to check it
out in flight," Lenoir said.

	In May 1992, a year after the new orbiter, Endeavour, is unveiled,
engineers will test the Crew Equipment Transfer Aid (CETA), which will
transport astronauts during space walks along the station's length, Lenoir
said.  During that flight, he said, NASA plans to test the astronauts'
capability of completing three consecutive space walks with three different
space walk teams of two.


=== Lunar Lettuce Update: The Tomatoes Did It ===

	SUNNYVALE, November 15, 1990 -- The company that gave the world "lunar
lettuce" has added "cosmic carrots" and "extraterrestrial tomatoes" to its
garden -- and is giving space mystery buffs plenty to chew on.

	The tomatoes are the culprits.  They're killing off the lettuce, and
researchers at Lockheed Missiles & Space Company want to know why.

	It's a clear case of cosmic vegicide.

	Dr.  Steven Schwartzkopf is the chief scientist and space farmer in
this ambitious gardening experiment.  He hopes his work eventually will
provide fresh produce for veggie-hungry astronauts and planetary explorers.
His research team began last year by investigating hydroponic lettuce.  They
grew the plants in a water-based solution to test several nutrient systems.

	The results were excellent. "We found that we could grow the lettuce
two or three times faster in hydroponics than in soil, " Schwartzkopf reported.

	The team then began experimenting with polycultures, to see which
plants would grow well together.  The first combo: lettuce and tomatoes.  One
experiment ran three lettuce harvests consecutively in the same nutrient
solution as one crop of tomatoes.  The tomatoes thrived, but the lettuce did
not fare so well. "The first crop did fine," Schwartzkopf said, "but the second
showed inhibited growth, and the third was even worse."

	Schwartzkopf says the tomatoes definitely are the villains.  They are
either taking in too much of a nutrient that the lettuce needs, or putting out
a toxic substance that is killing it.

	"In either case," he said, "we're on to something here, and solving the
 mystery will make a good contribution to agriculture -- on Earth and away from
 it." The research is giving space scientists valuable information on
 companion-planting, which will enable them someday to produce food crops on
 Space Station Freedom, the Moon and Mars. That some plants are compatible and
 others aren't is nothing new.  With trial and error, most backyard gardeners
 learn which species get along with each other and which don't.

	"What we don't know is why," Schwartzkopf said, "and we need to find
out so we can manage crops efficiently when we move to distant planets.  Trial
and error isn't good enough in space."

	Reliable, quantitative data on plant polyculture will not only benefit
 space gardeners, he claims, but perhaps could produce larger crop yields and
 better disease control here on Earth. "We hope to learn the best
 combinations," he said. "Maybe we'll find species that actually protect other
 plants or even improve their growth."

	At Lockheed, investigation into the tomato mystery continues.  Next on
the agenda: some fancy detective work on the deceased veggies.  As each crop
was cultivated, the team dried and saved the plants.  They are now analyzing
the lettuce to learn why it died and perhaps find a way to protect future
crops. "This is like an episode of 'Columbo,'" Schwartzkopf said. "We know the
tomatoes did it, but we have to figure out how." "The Case of the Killer
Tomatoes" is just one of the dramas unfolding in Schwartzkopf's lab.  The
researchers also are trying to learn why their hydroponic carrots look so
funny.

	"The idea of growing carrots in water instead of soil was challenging,"
 Schwartzkopf said. "Would they grow at all?  If so, would they look like
 carrots or, without soil and the force of gravity, would they take on some
 strange shape?"

	The answers: "Yes and yes -- sort of." The carrots do grow in water.
To date, the team has tested six varieties, with mixed results.

	"Three did well, one was fair, and two didn't do well at all,"
Schwartzkopf reported, "and the plants that grew did look like carrots -- with
a twist.  The tops of the plants grew normally, but the roots tended to curl
up.  We don't know why yet.  Maybe it was the motion of the nutrient solution
or maybe the lack of soil.  Whatever the cause, they have that funny curve."

	"Who knows?" he joked, "Maybe in space, with little gravity, these
things will grow into salad-ready carrot curls.  In any event, they taste
great!"


=== A Garden in Space ===

	The average person consumes approximately a pound of food,
three-quarters of a gallon of water, and over 800 liters of oxygen per day.
These provisions are not available in the barren environment of space and so
must be stored in the cramped quarters of a spacecraft.  So far in the manned
space program, life-support systems have relied on a sufficient storage of
food, water, and oxygen placed aboard the spacecraft before launch.  Waste
products have to be stored for return to Earth. Storing food has worked for
short-term visits to space such as Shuttle missions.  However, putting man on
the Moon and Mars will require a system that can operate for very long periods
of time without a resupply from Earth, one that can grow food and recycle
waste.

	A life-support system based on recycling can be based on physical and
chemical processes, can be biological in nature, or can be a combination of
both.  Chemical systems are more easily designed than biological systems, but
provide little flexibility or adaptability to changing needs.  A life-support
system based solely on physical and chemical methods would also be limited
because it would still require resupply of food and some means of waste
disposal.

	A bioregenerative life-support system incorporates biological
components in the creation, purification, and renewal of life-support
elements.  Plants and algae are used in food production, water purification,
and oxygen release.  But, while the interactions of the biomass with the
environment are very complex and dynamic, creating a fully closed ecological
system--one that needs no resupply-- is possible.  Life scientists have called
a system involving a combination of chemical and biological processes a
Controlled Ecological Life Support System (CELSS).

	The CELSS Flight Program is designed to meet the science community's
requirement for extended duration space research.  Sponsored by the Life
Sciences Division in the Office of Space Science and Applications, the program
is part of the division's plan for biological research on Space Station
Freedom: the Space Biology Initiative.

	Like many pressurized experiments to be flown on the space station, the
CELSS Test Facility will use hardware concepts that have first flown on the
Space Shuttle.

        The four "precursor" flight tests on the Shuttle are the Nutrient
Delivery  Systems Test and Evaluation (NDS), Gas/Liquid Interaction Tests
(GLI), Water Condensation and Re-cycling Tests (CRS), and Germination Screening
(ROOT).  The NDS is designed to test how well selected nutrient delivery
systems operate in a low-gravity environment.  The objective of the GLI is to
identify potential problems in a plant's fluid management system in low
gravity, since it is essential to provide plants with enough surface area for
gas exch ange without limiting access to nutrients.  The CRS will evaluate
water condensation, collection, and recycling technologies in a plant growth
system.  Finally, ROOT will look at issues involving the germination and
sprouting process in young plants.

       The purpose of the CELSS Test Facility (CTF) on Space Station Freedom
is to provide NASA with a test bed to develop advanced life-support systems
based on biological systems.  Occupying two space station racks, the CTF will
be composed of a plant growth chamber about the size of an average closet.
The long on-orbit time gives scientists the capability to study plant
populations throughout complete life cycles and over many generations in a
controlled microgravity environment.  All of the monitoring and environmental
control of the experiment will be fully automated, including a robotic arm for
specimen handling.

	CTF results will be used to identify candidate crops for future CELSS,
to determine how well the experiment's subsystems work, and to pinpoint plant
growth techniques that yield the highest quality and quantity of crops.  The
CTF's experiments will determine the best combinations of environmental
factors such as lighting, humidity, temperature, and plant growth area.  The
amount of plant growth area needed is particularly important given the limited
quarters on the station.

	Developing CELSS technologies will have significant benefits on Earth.
The knowledge gained from these intensive plant growth studies will lead to
better methods of growing terrestrial crops.  Using the strides gained in CELSS
research, humans may be able to live for even longer periods of time in harsh
climates such as the Antarctic. Studying the carbon dioxide/oxygen and water
cycles in the controlled environment of the space station will lead to a
better understanding of these cycles as they operate regionally or globally on
Earth. The technology developed to support CELSS will also be applicable in
urban areas to improve techniques of wa ter purification and waste processing.

	Because it will take many years of research to create a system in space
that imitates--at least in some degree--the way biological cycles work on
Earth, the development and testing of CELSS technologies need to begin now.  We
need to begin now to support the advanced mission of the future, missions that
may take man to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.


=== International Science Forum Meets in Rome ===

	The International Forum for the Scientific Uses of the Space Station
(IFSUSS) met in Rome, Italy, in October 1-4, 1990, to discuss and explore
international science opportunities and concerns.  The first two days of the
forum included scientific discussions on topics such as exobiology, protein
crystal growth, Earth observations, and space plasma science.  The last two
days of the forum were devoted to general discussions and developing
recommendations, which were subsequently delivered to the Office of Space
Science and Applications' Space Station Science and Applications Advisory
Subcommittee meeting, Nov. 28-30, 1990.

	The four principal recommendations generated at the meeting covered a
broad range of current user concerns.  The first recommendation resulted from
a consensus that there is a need for a more formal mechanism for international
science community input to sp ace station science planning and operations.  The
proposal recommended the creation of International Science Working Groups
(ISWGs) formed in three discipline areas: Life Sciences; Materials, Fluids, and
Combustion Sciences; and Observing and Sensing Sciences. These science working
groups would become the "work horses" of the Forum.

	The second recommendation was that payload operations be conducted with
a discipline rather than a national focus to maximize the scientific return
from the space station.  The intent of this recommendation is to organize and
electronically link investigators together by science discipline so that the
first line of scientific input on payload operations during the execution phase
is made within disciplines at the investigator level.

	While applauding the significance of the March 1990 Tokyo agreement on
 standardizing the experiment racks, the third IFSUSS recommendation stated
 that the agreement should be broadened so that most of payloads can be
 accommodated within all laboratory modules.  The final recommendation
 emphasized the importance of the attached payloads in the overall successful
 utilization of the space station.  IFSUSS is concerned about the "perceived
 softening in support" for attached payloads by all partner agencies,
 especially NASA. The recommendation encouraged the Space Station Freedom
 program to continue to support selected attached payloads, and suggested that
 any future budget considerations regarding this program be made only after
 consultation with the international science participants.

	IFSUSS is comprised of members of the four space station partner
science advisory committees: NASA's Space Station Science and Applications
Advisory Subcommittee, ESA's Space Station User Panel, the Japanese Science
Advisory Group, and the Canadian Advisory Committee on the Uses of Space
Station. The group is dedicated to the goal of enhancing the quality of
international science that can be conducted on the space station.

	The nature and emphasis of IFSUSS has evolved over the years from a
predominantly scientific meeting to one including partner agency
representatives, addressing a broad range of utilization topics and
programmatic issues directly affecting science users.  IFSUSS meetings are held
twice yearly.  One meeting continues the focus on scientific issues,
encompassing all disciplines involved in the utilization of the station and is
conducted as a workshop to address science issues.  The other predominantly
emphasizes accommodations and resources provided by the space station, its
configuration, evolution, and planned research programs.

	IFSUSS serves to promote cooperative and collaborative science
utilization planning at the international level to identify requirements for
hardware commonality and to propose strategies for small and rap-id response
payloads.  Its value lies in its providing an arena for the input of
experienced space scientists, enriched by international experience,
unencumbered by formal program responsibilities, and independent of the
partners.

	IFSUSS has become a sounding board for the evaluation of new ideas
about station operations, planning, future development, and management.  It
represents a resource for the station partner agencies to use to obtain
information on the needs and aspirations of the international space community.
This input helps science program offices determine appropriate utilization of
the station, and in guiding station design and development in a manner
consistent with broad scientific utilization.

	The next IFSUSS meeting will be hosted by ESA the week of May 6, 1991.
For more information on IFSUSS, call Bob Rhome, Assistant Associate
Administrator for Space Science and Applications, (202) 453-1425.


=== Space Station Freedom Passes First Vacuum System Test ===

	As a major subcontractor to Boeing Aerospace & Electronics on the Space
Station Freedom program, Teledyne Brown Engineering is well into the design of
several U.S. Laboratory module systems.

	One of these is the vacuum system, which allows experiments access to
the vacuum of space.

	This vacuum service is designed to be routed throughout the laboratory
module, serving 22 user experiment facilities.  As part of the design process,
several tests will be conducted on prototype components of the vacuum system.

	These tests check out various design concepts and gather data needed to
perform design calculations.  The first test conducted on vacuum system
components was completed on July 25.  This test was designed to determine if
the structural integrity and perfor mance of the vacuum system piping
connections would be affected by the shuttle liftoff vibration environment.

	An 18-inch shaker table at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville was used to simulate vibrations of shuttle lift off for the flanges
(pipe connections) of the vacuum system.

	It was the first test of its kind for the vacuum system, and TBE
engineers were pleased that the test sample was not adversely affected by the
liftoff simulation.

	Each flange connection is sealed with a "c" ring made of gold-coated
inconel (a high-nickel alloy).  Two types of clamps designed to hold the
flanges together were tested in this liftoff simulation.  These included a
steel ring clamp (or marmon clamp) and a stainless steel chain clamp that
surrounded the flange and was tightened at the top by a screw.  Both types of
flange connections passed the liftoff simulation test by maintaining their
structural integrity and performance.  The actual acceleration levels induced
by the vibrations were as high as 140 g's, or 140 times the normal force of
gravity.  Varying levels of vibrations were applied to simulate environments
in the module utility runs and end cones during shuttle liftoff.

	Helium was pumped inside the two pipe sections.  A leak test was
conducted by TBE technicians between each 90-second application of the liftoff
scenario.  Boeing personnel were on hand to measure stresses in the pipe
section caused by the vibrations.  These data were collected by a series of
sensors, called strain gauges, attached to the test sample.

	TBE engineer Jim Shepherd labeled the test a success because it showed
that the vacuum piping was not structurally damaged when faced with the
vibration forces of liftoff, and no loss in vacuum level occurred.


=== Flight Telerobotic Servicer Industrial Briefing Deemed a Success ===

	To meet a congressional directive that the Flight Telerobotic Servicer
(FTS) program should enhance United States expertise in the fields of
automation and robotics, and thereby contribute to the nation's economic
competitive advantage, NASA and Martin Marietta held a three-day FTS
Industrial Briefing in December in Denver, Colo.

	Some 79 individuals attended including 18 NASA and Martin Marietta
personnel.  The 61 people seeking information represented more than 40
organizations, including large corporations, smaller companies, other
government agencies, and universities.

	The afternoon of the first day featured a tour of the Martin Marietta
facility, nestled in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains.  The tour focused
on the robotics lab, simulators, computer facilities, and clean rooms, where
the robots are assembled and tested.  On the second day, a variety of speakers
from NASA, Martin Marietta and several subcontractors briefed participants.
The detailed presentations covered a full range of subjects. "The briefing
exceeded our expectations," says Kevin Barquinero, Space Station Freedom
program, NASA Headquarters. "The event was very well attended and the
participants were pleased with the information they received."

	Companies were free to set up confidential "one-to-one" discussions
with Martin Marietta personnel on the third day of the conference, so subjects
of particular interest could be pursued.  K. Z. Bradfordof Martin Marietta said
several companies did opt for these private follow-up sessions.

From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Date: 19 Feb 91 04:31:35 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

Mark Hess
HQ, Washington, D.C.                                                                         
February 15, 1991 
(Phone:   202/453-4164)


John J. Loughlin II
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
(Phone:   301/286-5565)



Release No. 91-27

GODDARD ANNOUNCES CONTRACT TERMINATION 

     Officials at NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., have 
announced the termination of the contract held by the General Electric 
Company, Astro-Space Division, Princeton, N. J., for the design, 
development and test of the Attached Payload Accommodation 
Equipment (APAE) element of Space Station Freedom.  The contract, 
valued at approximately $555 million, was signed in 1987.

     The APAE was deferred indefinitely from the space station during 
the early phases of a Congressionally-mandated 90-day restructuring 
review of the Freedom program.

     Goddard officials termed the termination for the convenience of the 
government.

From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Date: 19 Feb 91 21:11:16 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

          Mitch Varnes                                    Feb. 19, 1991
          407/867-2468

          KSC Release No. 18-91

          SPACE STATION PROCESSING FACILITY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED

          KENNEDY SPACE CENTER,  Fla.  -- NASA's Kennedy Space  Center  has
          awarded Metric Constructors,  Inc.  of Tampa,  Fla. a $56,215,000
          contract to  construct  the  Space  Station  Processing  Facility
          (SSPF).

          Under the terms of the fixed price contract,  Metric Constructors
          will build the 457,000-square-foot facility to  be  used  as  the
          central  pre-flight  checkout and processing point for Space Sta-
          tion Freedom elements.

          The SSPF, which will be located in the KSC Industrial Area,  just
          east  of  the  Operations  &  Checkout  Building,  will be a KSC-
          operated facility occupied by about  1,000  NASA  and  contractor
          employees.   The three-story SSPF will include communications and
          electrical control areas, laboratories,  logistics staging areas,
          operational  control  rooms,  office areas and a cafeteria.   The
          SSPF will have over  63,000  square  feet  of  dedicated  payload
          processing space, which includes a high bay and intermediate bay.
          A  5,000-square-foot  airlock  will  be  adjacent  to the primary
          processing area.   Both the airlock and processing area  will  be
          100,000 parts-per-million-rated clean rooms.

          A  visitor  viewing window,  which will allow NASA tour guests to
          view Space Station Freedom's pre-flight operations, has also been
          designed into the building's processing area.

          "This is the biggest new construction facility undertaken at  KSC
          since  the  Apollo  era,"  remarked  SSPF  Project  Manager  Walt
          Stampley.   "The design of this building makes  it  a  remarkable
          facility,"  Stampley  continued.    "The  fact  that  all  of the
          processing area's work stands will be air-bearing compatible  and
          that  there will be no fixed objects on the floor gives us almost
          infinite flexibility."  Air-bearing systems allow for easy  move-
          ment and positioning of large work stands and structures.

          KSC's  Space  Station  Program Manager Dick Lyon was pleased with
          the contract award announcement.   "This is a real milestone  for
          Space  Station Freedom and America's future in space," said Lyon.
          "We've been working hard developing what we feel is a  solid  and
          viable program,  and the announcement of this  construction award
          is definitely a big step in the right direction."

          Construction of the SSPF is set to begin on  or  about  April  1,
          1991, and the building should be ready for occupancy within 1,080
          days of the SSPF ground breaking.

    {Copied without permision -
     Aviation Week & Space Technology, Feb 25,1991}
    
    NASA to Propose Scaled-Back Station With Simpler Assembly in Space
    
    by James R. Asker/Washington
    
    Nasa is nearly ready to present President George Bush and Congress with
    plans for a space station to be assembled and tested as much as
    possible on the ground rather than in space.
    
        After three months of redesign work, the agency expects by
    mid-March to propose a simpler and smaller space station with reduced
    power, data and experiment capacity and a crew of only four astronauts
    when it is permanently manned near the year 2000.
    
        The previous plan had been to assemble a U.S./international orbital
    base capable of housing a crew of eight by mid-1997. But lst fall,
    Congress cut $6 billion from NASA's station spending proposals through
    1996 and ordered the agency to adopt a new design philosophy (AW&ST
    Nov. 12, 1990, p.26).
    
        The redesign, which the agency calls "restructuring," is the latest
    of several overhauls since 1984 in a program that NASA says has
    suffered unusual instability (AW&ST Mar. 12, 1990, p.16). Last week,
    associate administrator William B. Lenoir said the agency is convening
    an in-house panel to review the redesigned station's cost and schedule
    as a White House/NASA advisory committee had suggested (AW&ST Dec. 17,
    1990, p.19).
    
        The new station, which NASA intends to begin building in space in
    1995, twor or three months later than planned, will have smaller
    laboratory and habitation modules and a shorter truss extending in a
    singe tower to support three collections of solar power arrays.
    
    LESS EVA TIME
        Although the new station initially will not reach the one-time goal
    of an average 75kw. of total power, the 30kw. promised for experiments
    will be available, as "housekeeping" power requirements have diminished
    in the smaller station.
    
        The number of on-board computers will be reduced by a third. And a
    decision to use a Ku-band antenna similar to the shuttle's, will reduce
    the maximum data rate from 300 to 50 megabit/sec.
    
        Speaking of the change in design philosophy, Lenoir said, "In the
    past, we designed a space station and then worried about how to get it
    into orbit. Now, we've taken all the pieces and we're assembling small
    spacecraft, if you will.... I now have bigger pieces."
    
        Space suited astronauts will no longer be called upon to put together a
    truss piece by piece. Instead, 45-ft-long "pre-integrated" sections of
    hexagonal truss structure with avionics, thermal controls, and solar
    power arrays already attached will be carried on the first four space
    shuttle flights to build the stateion. Construction that would have
    required 36 hr. of astronaut extravehicular activity, is now expected
    to be accomplished easily in a single 6-hr. EVA by two shuttle crew
    members, according to space station director Richard H. Kohrs.
    
        The fifth space shuttle flight would carry a node, one of the
    connectors for the main modules which also contain computer work
    stations and other station utilities.
    
        Flight six is slated to carry a 27-ft-long U.S. laboratry module.
    The module would be launched with its 24 double experiment racks fully
    loaded, provided the space shuttle has available the payload enhancing
    Advanced Solid Rocket Motors now under development.
    
    	At that point, scheduled for late 1996, the station would be ready
    to begin "man-tended" operations. Two or three shuttle flights per
    year, growing from 16- to 28- day and perhaps even longer missions,
    would be conducted with the shuttle orbiter attached to the station.
    Once the station is ready for permanent staffing, it will be equipped
    with an emergency crew return vehicle.
    
        A decision to drastically reduce the  station's capacity for
    external payloads has already led to the cancellation of a major
    contract. The Goddard Space Flight Center terminated a 1987 pact with
    General Electric Co.'s Astro-Space Div. valued at 555 million.
    
    	The redesign means other large station contracts, such as those
    with Boing in Huntsville, Ala., McDonnell Douglas in Houston and
    Rockwell International Corp.'s Rocketdyne Div. in Cleveland are likely
    to be renegotiated, Lenoir said.
    
        The fate of NASA's Reston, Va., space station program office and
    its prime contractor, Grumman, should be decided in March, Lenoir said.
    But he said no quick major change in Reston's role is likely.
    
        The move to split the old 44-ft-long modules in two was in the
    works before the redesign was ordered. However, NASA is not committing
    itself to launching both the resulting pairs of 27-ft. modules for
    either the U.S. lab or astronaut quarters.
    
    	Theoretically, the station could still grow to a grand outpost of
    the sort NASA once envisioned, supporting myriad scientific and
    industrial payloads on outside attachments and nearby free-flying
    spacecraft. Someday, facilities might still be added for servicing
    satellites and assembling and receiveing spacecraft bound to and from
    the Moon and Mars.
    
    EVOLVING NEEDS
    	But while such ideas have not been abandoned, work on plans has
    been shelved for five years or more. Lenoir said efforts to map out
    additions to the station beyond "permanent manned capability" are not
    fruitful now, because they only have to be redone when budgets or
    technologies change.
    
        Moreover, he said, the agency hopes to eliminate the concept of the
    station assembly ever becoming "complete". Instead, NASA wants the
    station to be seen as a long-term facility that will evolve with the
    experience and needs of it's users.
    
        Similarly, Lenoir eschews counting the total number of shuttle
    flights for the station, prefering to look at flights per year.
    However, he said the restructured program will call for "maybe
    two-thirds" of the shuttle missions last planned. (The Nov 14, 1989,
    program baseline called for 28 flights, including 10 for logistics
    resupply, before reaching "assembly complete.")
    
        Kohrs said station developers must ocntinue striving to keep down
    the weight of the components and the amount of power they draw.
    However, the issues will now be managed with respect to each shuttle
    flight rather than by each of the four space station "work packages"
    contractors and their respective NASA field centers.
    
    	Astronaut EVAs deemed necesary to maintain the station have
    decreased substantially, to one every three or four weeks, Kohrs said.
    A truss-mounted work platform and a positioning system for EVA
    astronauts have been eliminated.
    
    	Annual operations costs for a permanently manned station, once
    figured at $1.5 billion for a crew of eight, excluding space shuttle
    transportation costs, are now expected to fall by about 20%, Kohrs
    said.

Re: .88

Hmmm..  Was there any mention (in sidebars or captions) about the European
or Japanese involvement or reaction?   It sounds like NASA has left them
hanging - again.

- dave

    Re:.89
    
    Dave,
    	There was no mention about European or Japanese reaction in this
    particualr article. On a similar note, however, there was an article
    about how ESA members would like to decrease the manned spaceflight
    funding possibly by stretching out the Columbus and Hermes programs. A
    delay in Freedom's assembly schedule may just play perfectly into ESA
    plans after all.
    
    				Drew
    

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (WILLIAM HARWOOD, UPI Science Writer)
Date: 21 Mar 91 19:04:51 GMT

	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (UPI) -- NASA's smaller, more down-to-Earth space
station Freedom will need half the spacewalks to build as once expected,
but full-time operations will not begin until 2000 and the lab will
still cost $30 billion, officials said Thursday.
	Formally unveiling the new space station design for the first time,
William Lenoir, NASA's associate administrator for space flight, said
the scaled-back orbital laboratory will provide an ``excellent forum to
support our space sciences.''
	``We have come up with a space station that we can be proud of, that
we can do, we know we can do it,'' Lenoir said. ``We now need the
(funding) stability in the program in order to be able to turn it into
reality.''
	After years of debate, skyrocketing cost estimates and diminishing
expectations, Congress late last year ordered NASA to chop $5.7 billion
from the space station budget through 1996, forcing the agency to
sharply scale back the station's size, complexity and scope.
	Prior to the redesign effort, NASA expected Freedom to cost some $38.
3 billion to build, including development, on-orbit operations and
shuttle transportation. The project now is expected to run some $30
billion, Lenoir said, which includes $4 billion already spent.
	Under the new plan, part-time, ``man-tended'' operations are
scheduled to begin in mid-1997 after six space shuttle construction
flights, about a year later than had been planned.
	Full-time, permanently manned status, using four astronauts instead
of eight as originally envisioned, is now scheduled for 2000. It had
been set for 1997 or 1998.
	Lenoir said the number of spacewalks required to build and maintain
the station, a major question mark in recent months, had been cut in
half by a decision to shorten the station's laboratory modules from 44
to 27 feet, allowing them to be launched aboard space shuttles fully
outfitted with lab gear.
	Likewise, the bridge-like truss forming the backbone of the station
also will be launched in smaller, already assembled and checked out
sections requiring fewer spacewalks for assembly in orbit.
	The length of the truss has been reduced from 493 feet to 353 feet
and only three of four planned solar arrays will be in place by 2000,
providing 65 kilowatts of power instead of 75 kilowatts as originally
planned.
	Critics, including the National Research Council, have charged that
the science possible with the new design will not justify its cost.
	The smaller laboratory modules mean fewer experiment racks can be
accommodated and less power will be available for those that are. But
Lenoir said NASA plans to add the fourth power array later and that
Freedom ultimately will live up to the expectations of the science
community, providing an orbital laboratory for an eight-member crew.
	``The permanently manned configuration in the year 2000 should not be
seen as the end,'' Lenoir said. ``It is the end of the beginning phase.
But it's really the beginning of probably a couple of decades of space
station utilization and it will continue to grow. The majority of the
investment will have been made at that time.''
	How NASA's international partners in the project -- Japan, Canada and
the European Space Agency -- view the new design is not yet clear. NASA
has agreements with Japan and ESA to supply two laboratory modules,
which presumably now will have to be smaller than previously planned.
	Vice President Dan Quayle, who heads the National Space Council,
Wednesday endorsed the new design and authorized NASA Administrator
Richard Truly to forward it to Congress, where it received a positive
initial reception.
	A permanently manned space station was first proposed by President
Reagan during his 1984 State of the Union address. At that time, NASA
advertised a much more ambitious international laboratory with a price
tag of just $8 billion.
	But that figure did not include related costs such as shuttle
transportation and as engineers struggled to turn the dream into
reality, the cost steadily rose and NASA was forced to scale back the
station's capabilities. This time around, Lenoir said he was confident
the final design was in place.
	``I personally think we took way too big a first bite,'' he said. 
``We're close enough now that we really do think that this is the last
update and we have enough reserves, in our weight, in our schedules, to
make this one work. It would have been nice if we'd gotten there sooner.
We didn't.''

rom: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 21 Mar 91 17:02:52 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                                  March 21, 1991
(Phone:  202/453-4164)

RELEASE:  91-45

SPACE STATION FREEDOM RESTRUCTURING PLAN COMPLETED

	NASA today delivered the "restructuring" report to the Congress,
outlining an extensive redesign of the Freedom space station.  The new design
is cheaper, smaller, easier to assemble in orbit and will require fewer Shuttle
flights to build.

	Major new features of the redesigned space station - shorter U.S.
laboratory and habitat modules that can be outfitted and verified on the ground
and a pre-integrated truss that can be assembled on the ground and tested with
all of its subsystems intact - will significantly reduce intravehicular
activity (IVA) and on-orbit extravehicular activity (EVA) needed to build and
maintain Freedom.

	"This new design for Space Station Freedom accomplishes every major
goal we set for ourselves when we kicked off this effort last November," said
William B. Lenoir, Associate Administrator for Space Flight.  "We took the
directions from Congress and the Augustine Commission recommendations to heart,
and the program we are announcing today addresses each and every one of their
requirements.

	"We've cut costs, simplified the design and reduced the complexity of
the project.  At the same time, Freedom will be a quality facility, providing a
research laboratory unsurpassed in the world for life sciences and microgravity
research, and a stepping stone into the future, enabling NASA to conduct the
research and planning necessary for human exploration of the solar system.  And,
we have maintained our international commitments," he continued.

	A 1991 fiscal year budget shortfall of more than $550 million, along
with Congressional directions to significantly reduce out-year spending,
prompted NASA to begin the restructuring of Freedom.  Congress told NASA to
expect no more than 8 to 10 percent growth over the next 5 years
(FY 1992-1996), with peak spending for Freedom not to exceed $2.5-2.6 billion.
The budgetary ground rules, including the cut for FY 1991, represent a $5.7
billion shortfall from what NASA had planned to spend for Freedom over that
same time period.

	NASA directed the review in November 1990 with instructions to the
Freedom project team to:  develop a phased approach with quasi-independent
phases; protect life and materials science; maintain international agreements
and capability; limit assembly flights to no more than four annually; and
achieve first element launch, man-tended capability and permanently manned
capability as early as possible.

	The restructured program calls for the first element launch of the
space station to be made in the second quarter of FY 1996 (January -
March 1996), and man-tended capability to be achieved in the third quarter of
FY 1997 (April-June 1997).

	In the man-tended phase, astronauts brought up to Freedom by the
Space Shuttle will be able to work inside the U.S. laboratory for periods of 2
weeks.  They will return to Earth with the Shuttle.  At this stage, one set of
Freedom's solar arrays will generate about 22 kw of power with a minimum of
11 kw available to users.  Six Shuttle flights will be required to achieve
the man-tended configuration.

	Freedom will achieve a permanently manned configuration in Fiscal Year
2000.  This configuration will consist of the U.S. laboratory and habitat, as
well as the European and Japanese laboratories; the Canadian Mobile Servicing
System; accommodations for a live-in crew of four; and three sets of solar
arrays furnishing 65 kw of electrical power, with a minimum of 30 kw going to
the users and the remainder to housekeeping chores.

	A new requirement before permanently occupying the station will be the
availability of an Assured Crew Return Vehicle to return space station crew
members to the Earth in an emergency.  Seventeen Shuttle flights will be needed
to build the permanently manned configuration.

	Provisions to expand the space station have been maintained.  The
follow-on phase of the Freedom program will include another solar array to
achieve 75 kw, provisions for 4 additional crew members and could include
additional capabilities such as a second preintegrated laboratory and
additional nodes.  This phase would use the new launch system for launch and
assembly if the launch system is available.

	The redesigned U.S. lab and hab modules are 27 feet long and 14.5 feet
in diameter, about 40 percent shorter than the previous design.  The smaller
size allows the modules to be fully outfitted and tested on the ground prior to
being launched into orbit.  The U.S. lab module will hold a total of 24 8-foot
wide racks, 15 of which initially are devoted to scientific work.  At
permanently manned capability, 28 experiment racks will be available to U.S.
investigators: 12 in the U.S. lab, 11 in the ESA lab and 5 in the Japanese lab.

	The redesigned truss segments will be built, preassembled and checked
out on the ground.  Formerly, the truss was to have been assembled, like a
massive erector set, by astronauts performing space walks.  NASA estimates the
pre-integrated truss will cut assembly EVA by more than 50 percent.

	While work on the Attached Payload Accommodations Equipment (APAE)
suitable for large external payloads has been stopped, utility ports for small
external payloads will be placed along the truss.  The overall width of the
station has been reduced from 493 feet to 353 feet.

	Complexity of other station systems also has been reduced and where
possible, hardware already flying on the Space Shuttle will be used in place of
developing new hardware for the station.  Also called for in the plan is the
transfer of the Flight Telerobotic Servicer to NASA's Office of Aeronautics,
Exploration and Technology.  This, together with the deferral of the APAE, has
eliminated the Goddard Space Flight Center's Work Package 3 from the Freedom
program.

	In addition to changes to the flight hardware, a number of changes to
ground facilities are planned.  The Space Station Processing Facility to be
built at the Kennedy Space Center will not be fully outfitted, and a new
hazardous processing facility has been deleted in favor of using an existing
facility.  The size of planned facilities at the Johnson Space Center - the
control center and crew training facilities - have been scaled back.  Payload
facilities at Marshall Space Flight Center are being deferred and existing
facilities will be used in the interim.

	Due to funding cutbacks and hardware changes in the program, some
layoffs of prime and subcontractor personal have already taken place, and more
are expected.  At Work Package 1, no layoffs at the prime contractor, Boeing,
are expected, but more than 500 people will be reduced from the subcontractor
roles, some of which will be accommodated through transfers and attrition.

	At Work Package 2, prime contractor McDonnell Douglas has already
reduced its work force by about 160, with half that number being layoffs.
Major subcontractors to McDonnell Douglas will be reduced by about 470, with
layoffs accounting for approximately half of that, and another 200 will be
reduced from supporting development, with about 65 of that total coming from
terminations.  At Work Package 4, no layoffs are expected, but as many as 40
people in support jobs at Lewis Research Center will be reassigned.  Layoffs
of about 30 percent of the work force at the Space Station Engineering and
Integration Contractor, Grumman, were announced earlier this month.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | 
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | Change is constant. 
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | 
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | 

From: baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke)
Date: 22 Mar 91 07:31:45 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA.

SPACE STATION FREEDOM WORK PACKAGES


Mike Simmons	March 21, 1991
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville
(Phone:  (205)544-0034)

SPACE STATION FREEDOM WORK PACKAGE ONE

        NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center (Work Package 1) has responsibility
for:  the design and construction of Space Station Freedom's pressurized
laboratory and habitation modules, the working area and living quarters for
Freedom's crew members; the logistics modules, used for resupply and storage;
node structures, which connect the laboratory and habitation modules; and
certain subsystems internal to the pressurized modules, including the
environmental control and life support, thermal control, electrical
distribution, communcations and audio/video systems.

UNITED STATES LABORATORY AND HABITATION MODULES

	The U.S. Laboratory Module and Habitation Module will each be 14.5 feet
in diameter and 27 feet in length.  These dimensions allow the modules to be
built, outfitted, integrated and tested on the ground and then transported into
Earth orbit in the Space Shuttle cargo bay and connected to the nodes and other
space station structures.

	The U.S. Lab will include 15 experiment racks and 13 systems racks.
During the station's Man-Tended Capability (MTC) phase, this orbiting
laboratory will serve as the site for microgravity research and will be capable
of conducting that science in both a manned mode, when astronauts are visiting
the station via the Space Shuttle, and in an unmanned mode.  When station
construction reaches Permanently Manned Capability (PMC) and four astronauts
remain onboard for extended periods, life sciences research will be conducted
to learn more about the affects of living in space and to help prepare mankind
for returning to the Moon and exploring the planets.

	With the addition of the Habitation and International Laboratory
modules, the station's module racks will expand to as many as 45.  When
station construction reaches PMC and the Hab Module is added, Freedom's
environmental control and lifes support systems will provide closed-loop water
recycling capability.  The crew's food and other supplies will be carried to
the station via a logistics module which is transported in the Space Shuttle's
cargo bay.  During the Man-Tended Capability phase, astronauts visiting Freedom
will live on the Shuttle.


Kyle Herring
Johnson Space Center, Houston
(Phone:  (713) 483-5111)

SPACE STATION FREEDOM WORK PACKAGE TWO

	NASA's Johnson Space Center (Work Package 2) Space Station Freedom
Program Office (SSPO) is responsible for the design, development, verification,
assembly and delivery of the Work Package 2 flight elements and systems, which
include: the pre-integrated truss assembly; propulsion assembly; Mobile
Servicing System transporter; resource node design and outfitting; external
thermal control; data management; communication and tracking; extravehicular
systems and guidance; navigation and control systems, and the airlock.

	JSC SSPO is also responsible for the attachment systems required by the
Space Shuttle for periodic visits.  In addition, JSC SSPO provides technical
direction to the Work Package 1 contractor via the Marshall Space Flight Center
for the design and development of all manned space subsystems.

PRE-INTEGRATED TRUSS ASSEMBLY

	The pre-integrated truss assembly is the Space Station Freedom
structural framework to which the modules, solar power arrays and mobile
transporter will be attached.

PROPULSION ASSEMBLY

	The propulsion assembly will be used to adjust or maintain the orbit
of Space Station Freedom to ensure it remains at the required altitude.  Work
Package 2 has responsibility for the overall propulsion system.

MOBILE TRANSPORTER SYSTEM

	The Mobile Servicing System will be a multi-purpose mechanism equipped
with a transportable robotic arm used to help assemble and maintain Space
Station Freedom.  The Work Package 2 contractor will build the mobile
transporter; Canada will provide the robotic arm and a special-purpose
dexterous manipulator.

RESOURCE NODES

	The resource nodes house most of the command and control systems for
the Space Station as well as being the connecting passageways for the
habitation and laboratory modules.  Work Package 2 will outfit the node
structures provided by Work Package 1 to accomplish the objectives of each
node.

EXTRAVEHICULAR ACTIVITY SYSTEMS

	Extravehicular activity (EVA) systems includes equipment such as the
extravehicular mobility unit (EMU) or spacesuit; provisions for communication;
physiological monitoring and data transmission; EVA crew rescue and equipment
retrieval provision and EVA procedures.  An airlock for use by crew members
performing EVA will also be designed as part of Work Package 2.

EXTERNAL THERMAL CONTROL

	The external thermal system provides primary cooling and heat rejection
to control temperatures of electronics and other Space Station hardware located
throughout the facility.

ATTACHMENT SYSTEMS

	In concert with the Orbiter Projects Office, Work Package 2 is
responsible for the development of systems which will permit Space Shuttle
mating with the Space Station.

GUIDANCE, NAVIGATION AND CONTROL SYSTEM

	The GN&C system is composed of core system and traffic management
functions.  The core system function provides attitude and orbital state
maintenance; supports the pointing of the power system and thermal radiators;
accomplishes periodic reboost maneuvers, and provides Space Station attitude
information to other systems and users.  The traffic management function
provides for controlling all traffic in the area around the Space Station,
including orbiter mating operations and trajectories determination of
vehicles and objects which may intersect the orbit of the Space Station.

COMMUNICATIONS AND TRACKING SYSTEM

	The communications and tracking (C&T) system is composed of six
subsystems: space-to-space communications with crew members during space walks
(EVA); aboard the Space Shuttle, and with visiting vehicles such as the
European Space Agency man-tended free-flyer; space-to-ground communications
through the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) to ground data
networks; internal and external voice communication through the audio
subsystem; internal and external video requirements through the video
subsystem; management of communication and tracking resources and data
distribution through the control and monitor subsystem; and navigation data
through the tracking subsystem.

DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

	The data management system (DMS) provides the hardware and software
resources that interconnect onboard systems, payloads, and operations to
perform data and information management.  Functional services provided by DMS
include data processing, data acquisition and distribution, data storage, and
the user interface to permit control and monitoring of systems and experiments.

ASSURED CREW RETURN CAPABILITY

	Crew safety is an essential consideration in the development of the
Space Station to the permanently-manned configuration.  A major system failure
aboard the Space Station, injuries or illness may require the return of crew
members to Earth during a period when the Space Shuttle is unavailable.  NASA's
Johnson Space Center has responsibility for conducting definition-phase studies
of an Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) which would be used to supplement the
Space Shuttle in such circumstances.

WORK PACKAGE TWO CONTRACT

	McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company's Space Station Division heads
a team completing the work for Work Package 2.  Major subcontractors include
GE Aerospace Government Communications Systems Division, Honeywell Space
Systems Group, IBM Federal Sector Division, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company
and Astro Aerospace.  GE is producing communications and tracking, Honeywell is
working on stabilization and controls, IBM is designing the data management
systems, Lockheed is developing thermal control, power management and
distribution, and extravehicular activity systems, and Astro is responsible for
the mobile transporter system.


Mary Ann Peto
NASA Lewis Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio
(216/433-2902)

SPACE STATION FREEDOM WORK PACKAGE  FOUR

	NASAUs Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, is responsible for the
end-to-end electric power system for the Freedom space station.  This includes
defining the system architecture and providing the solar arrays, batteries, and
power management and distribution hardware and software.  The power system
includes power generation and storage, and the management and distribution of
power to the final user interface.   The electric power system is required to
have the capability to deliver 22 kW of electric power for a man-tended
configuration, and 65 kW for a permanently manned configuration with growth
to 75.0 kW.

POWER GENERATION

	Initially, power for Freedom will be provided by flexible, deployable
solar array wings.  This configuration minimizes the complexity of the assembly
process by taking advantage of the technology previously demonstrated on Space
Shuttle flights.  Each 39-by-122 foot wing consists of two blanket assemblies
covered with solar cells.  These are stowed in blanket boxes which are attached
to a deployment canister.  Each pair of blankets is to be deployed and
supported on a deployable mast.  A tension mechanism will supply tension to
the blanket as it reaches complete extension.  The entire wing will be tied
structurally to the pre-integrated truss by means of the beta gimbal assembly.

	In order to provide the power needed during the period of space station
assembly, two solar wings, the energy storage system and electronics components
are assembled into a power module scheduled to be carried up on the first space
staion assembly flight.  These two wings along with engergy storage will
provide 22 kW of power.  The remaining power modules with two solar array wings
per module will be delivered on oribit after the man-tended configuration is
reached.

POWER STORAGE

	Nickel Hydrogen (Ni-H2) batteries will store the energy produced by
the solar arrays.  A battery pack is made up of 76 Ni-H2 cells, wiring harness,
and mechanical/thermal support components.  On discharge, the battery provides
power to the primary bus for eclipse periods.  Ni-H2 batteries were selected
for low weight and high reliability.

POWER MANAGEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION (PMAD)

	The 160/120 volt DC PMAD system is designed specifically to meet the
high electric power system requirements of the space station.  It is user
friendly and can accommodate a wide variety of user loads delivering controlled
power to many scattered loads.  The high voltage DC power system was selected
to provide high efficiency, low cost, and safe operations.
      ___    _____     ___
     /_ /|  /____/ \  /_ /|      Ron Baalke         | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov
     | | | |  __ \ /| | | |      Jet Propulsion Lab | 
  ___| | | | |__) |/  | | |___   M/S 301-355        | Change is constant. 
 /___| | | |  ___/    | |/__ /|  Pasadena, CA 91109 | 
 |_____|/  |_|/       |_____|/                      | 

STATION BREAK  March 1991

 
NASA Presents 1992 Budget Request for Space Station
  
	NASA last month unveiled a $2.028 billion 1992 budget request for
the Space Station Freedom program, a 7 percent increase over the $1.9
billion 1991 appropriation. 
	The requested increase is in line with the 1991
Congressional-mandate that told station managers not to expect more
than a 10 percent increase for each budget year over the long haul. 
Congress also told station managers that program funding cannot exceed
$2.6 billion in any year over the next five years. 
	"Space Station Freedom is the cornerstone of America's  space
exploration program.  Freedom will be the most advanced and capable
facility ever deployed into space," said NASA Administrator Richard
Truly at a February press briefing.  "It will be able to meet its
priority user requirements: life sciences and microgravity research." 
	This budget request and the newly restructured space station are
"within the Congressional budgetary guidelines and consistent with
stated programmatic objectives and our international commitments,"
Truly said. 
	What was lost because of budget constraints and the restructure
assessment "is quantity, not quality," said Dr. William B. Lenoir,
Office of Space Flight associate administrator.  "Quantity is the
easiest thing to buy back in later years," so the program has
concentrated on building a solid program that can grow. 
	As a means of reducing program risk and cost, the station's new
design features a pre-integrated truss and shorter pre-integrated
modules (see Restructure story, page 1).   
	Where possible, station managers will incorporate and build
existing and tested Space Shuttle hardware, rather than research and
build unique advanced technology for Freedom, said Lenoir.  This does
not mean NASA is abandoning advanced technology research, Lenoir said. 
However, it does mean slowing the pace, and shrinking upfront research
dollars for projects like the Environmental Closed Loop Life Support
System -- a system that will make station life support systems (water,
oxygen, etc.) relatively self-sustaining once built. 
	Another money-saver for the Freedom program entails transferring
research and possible development for the Flight Telerobotic Servicer
(FTS) to the Office of Exploration, Aeronautics and Technology.  
	According to President Bush's 1992 budget request, "FTS was
intended to be one of several systems that would provide early robotic
assembly and servicing capability to the space station.  However, the
space station design review has revealed that the importance of having
FTS available in the earliest stages of space station operations has
been greatly diminished. 
	"FTS no longer represents a 'critical path' item.  Even so, the
FTS robotic technologies, particularly the end-effector technologies,
are of great importance in the long-term for the space station and the
space program generally.  Therefore, the budget proposes $55 million to
focus the FTS project on technology development, and proposes to the
Space Research and Technology area as part of a broader Automation and
Robotics activity," the budget stated. 
	"The overwhelming majority of this budget, 99 percent, supports
programs that have already been approved.  The level of funding sought
by the administration is absolutely essential to keep existing programs
on track, to maintain program efficiency, and to fully realize the 
benefits of space exploration," said Truly.   
	"It is also required to begin implementing the recommendations set
forth last December by the Advisory Committee on the Future of the U.S.
Space Program, chaired by Norman Augustine.  NASA strongly supports the
overall goals of the advisory committee's report, and we have
undertaken an aggressive review of its specific recommendations.  A
number  [of recommendations] have already been implemented by NASA and
others will follow," Truly said. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Restructure Update 

Designers Examine Space Station Pre-Integrated Truss, Shorter Modules 

	In a letter to Congress on March 1, NASA Administrator Richard
Truly asked for a 34 day extension to April 8 for submission of the
Space Station Freedom (SSF) restructure assessment study, and he also
requested $200 million in funding for that time.   
	"This extension is required to give the Vice President and the
National Space Council (NSpC) adequate time to review the proposed NASA
SSF restructuring plan.  Based on my discussions with the NSpC, the
final plan would be submitted to the Subcommittee [on Veteran's
Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies] as soon as possible, but not later than April 8, " Truly
stated in the letter. 
	"NASA has made substantial progress since November 1990 in the
restructuring of the SSF, and I am convinced the final proposal will be
affordable; simplify the assembly and operation; reduce the size and
complexity, the number of Space Shuttle launches, and the extrave 
hicular activities; meet its principal users' requirements (life
sciences and microgravity research) and maintain overall safety," Truly
said. 
	Although the Space Station Freedom program's restructure
assessment is still ongoing, two key features of the modified design
are a pre-integrated truss and shorter, pre-integrated U.S. modules,
Dr. William B. Lenoir, Office of Space Flight associate administrator,
said at a press briefing last month.  Because of federal budget
constraints, this intensive Congressionally-mandated restructure
assessment seeks to cut $6 billion out of the program over the next six
years.   
	The newly restructured program would provide a facility that could
be visited by Space Shuttle crews for at least 13 days at a time
beginning in late 1996 and support a permanent crew of four by 1999,
said Richard Kohrs, Space Station Freedom program director. 
	This balanced design approach minimizes the delay of the first
element launch, man-tended capability, the international partners,  and
permanently-manned capability, while keeping the ability to conduct
high-power microgravity and life sciences experimentation in the
initial years and long-term life sciences research later on.  "We have
balanced our technical approach against the budget constraints," said
Robert Moorehead, Space Station Freedom Program Office manager . 
	"A lot of engineering is behind this [restructure assessment].  We
have taken several months to make sure it would work," said Lenoir.   
	"We are not changing what we can provide. We will still be able to
support materials sciences and life sciences.  We will have both power
and people  available.  There will be less capability initially, but,
over time, we can grow," Lenoir said.  
	The goals of the Space Station Freedom program would continue to
expand to meet future exploration needs, and hardware would be designed
to allow orderly, efficient growth, he said. 
	NASA had asked for $2.45 billion for the 1991 budget year, but
Congress trimmed that budget by $550 million to $1.9 billion.   
	Station managers also were told by Congress not to expect more
than a 10 percent budget increase over the long haul, with a peak of
$2.6 billion per year.  This meant trimming $6 billion out of the
program over the next six years. 
     "It will be tight.  This is a tough job. Getting $6 billion out of
the program is not easy," Lenoir said. 
	Besides meeting the Congressional-mandate not to exceed these
budget constraints, the restructured program also would incorporate
recommendations made by the Presidential Advisory Committee on the
Future of the U.S. Space Program, said Lenoir.   
 	One of the Committee's recommendations was for NASA to reduce the
complexity of Freedom's assembly and maintenance -- a task station
managers continue to pin down during the restructuring exercise, Lenoir
said. 
	Two of the most significant steps station managers plan to take to
reduce cost, complexity, and EVAs is to shorten the habitation and
laboratory modules, outfit them on the ground, and to design
pre-integrated truss segments. 
	The move toward shorter modules was based on earlier decisions  
made after last summer's weight and power scrub (see August 1990
Station Break), so it makes sense to pull that recommendation into the
restructure assessment, Kohrs said.   Before the summer-long weight and
power scrub and  the current restructure assessment,  the two U.S.
modules were to be 44 feet long, launched virtually empty, and
outfitted in space.   
	As a result of  last summer's weight and power scrub and the
restructure assessment,  station managers plan to build 27-foot-long
modules.  This way the modules can be launched completely outfitted,
Lenoir said.  This would mean the complex jigsaw puzzle of the
station's subsystems, such as wires, pipes, and computer systems that
once were to be connected in space, would be put together on the ground
using a system similar to Spacelab processing and outfitting. 
Spacelab, which flies in the Shuttle's cargo bay, is a laboratory
dedicated to sciences research in space. 
	Realizing the difficulty of assembling Spacelab's complex systems
on the ground, Lenoir said, "There's no way we'd want to do that
on-orbit with the space station."  Building the larger module shells
and then trying to outfit them in space was an overly ambitious and
complex design, Lenoir said.  With the prior design, Lenoir said, "We
were relying too much on EVAs.  People were assuming that EVAs are
easy, but they are not." 
	Another major change for the program would call for a
hexagon-shaped, pre-integrated truss structure.  This move alone,
Lenoir said, would significantly reduce program risk. 
	Rather than build the truss stick by stick, which would take more
time and would be bounded by the number of EVA hours available,
managers decided to build, integrate and test the truss  
on the ground, said Lenoir. 
 
 
 
Distributing Gaseous Nitrogen Aboard Station 

	Space Station Freedom will provide a unique opportunity for
extended laboratory research in microgravity conditions.  With
microgravity, NASA is faced with a new challenge of controlling
experimental substances and disposal of labora-tory waste. 
	Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE), as a subcontractor to Boeing
Aerospace & Electronics, is developing a system of supplying space
station laboratory racks with nitrogen gas.  While this system may not
be used in the initial years, it is likely that it will be added later
on.  This gas will be used for various purposes including control of
experimental chemical reactions, and purging the user racks of unwanted
substances. 
	TBE is developing the Gaseous Nitrogen Distribution System (GNDS)
for supplying nitrogen gas needs.  A number of user racks aboard the
Space Station Freedom U.S. Laboratory eventually will be equipped with
access to the gas for experimental use. 
	"Many experiments will need nitrogen gas," said GNDS project
engineer Scott Spearing.  "If it is not supplied, it would have to be
brought from Earth by each user. 
	"Much of the weight and room aboard the space station will be
saved by having nitrogen gas plumbed into the system."	The system first
receives nitrogen gas from the Fluid Management System (FMS) in the aft
cone or rear section of the module.  At this point, the gas will have a
temperature of between 60 and 80 degrees F.  A manual shut-off valve
will be in place to isolate the system for maintenance. 
	Next is the Pneumatic Manifold Assembly.  This unit is composed of
pressure transducers, a filter, latching solenoid shut-off valves,
pressure regulators and a flowmeter.  The pressure transducer will  
measure the pressure of the nitrogen gas, while the filter removes any
particles which may cause damage to the system.  The latching solenoid
valve permits isolation of the pneumatic manifold assembly from the
fluid management system in the event of a component failure downstream
of the valve. 
	After the nitrogen gas passes through a second pressure
transducer, pressure and flowrate are controlled and monitored by a
pressure regulator and a flowmeter.  After passage through a third
pressure transducer, the nitrogen branches into the waste gas
management subsystem and the three utility standoffs which are
connected to the GNDS.  Latching solonoid valves and pressure
transducers are located in each of the three laboratory distribution
lines.  These units are important for maintenance or in times of
mechanical failure.  The distribution consists of floor utility
standoffs in the port and starboard sections of the module, and a
starboard ceiling utility standoff. 
	A fourth distribution (complete with a solenoid valve) feeds into
the waste gas management system is accessed to depressurize the Gaseous
Nitrogen Distribution System for maintenance. 
	The nitrogen gas will flow through the system in stainless steel
tubing with an outside diameter of 3/8 inches.  The wall thickness will
be 0.035 inches.  The gas then branches from the system through
T-fittings and into flex hoses, which deliver the gas to the user racks
in the laboratory.  The user can monitor the nitrogen gas pressure,
temperature and flowrate.  The nitrogen gas distribution pressure will
be between 90-100 psia, with a temperature between 60 and 80 degrees F. 
The flowrate will be .50 pounds per minute. 
	Check valves and quick disconnects are now part of the path to the
user racks.  The quick disconnects are located at each user rack
connecting point, and have an internal shut-off feature.  This allows
the nitrogen gas supply to be disconnected when a rack is being rotated
away from the wall up to 55 degrees for service, or is removed. 
 
 
Science Users Meet to Discuss Space Station Restructuring, Other Issues

	The Office of Space Science and Applications recently sponsored
the first 1991 meeting of the Space Station Science and Applications
Advisory Subcommittee (SSSAAS).  The theme for this meeting, held
February 27-March 1, focused almost entirely on the ongoing
restructuring of the Space Station Freedom program and its impact on
the space station users. 
	This meeting was key for the U.S. science users, since it followed
the last in a series of major changes to the space station program in
the last year.  It was also the first time that the SSSAAS and the
Space Station Science and Applications Advisory User Board  
(SSSAUB) working group have met together.  The SSSAUB will coordinate
all the utilization plans of the U.S. federal science organizations
that have an interest in the space station.  The SSSAUB itself has not
met in over a year due to the long series of changes in the Space
Station Freedom program. 
	Restructured station capabilities were discussed for each science
discipline area--microgravity sciences, life sciences, and the
observing and sensing disciplines that intend to someday make use of an
attached payload capability.  Another major topic the group discussed
was the effect of possible changes to the Space Station Freedom data
management system (DMS).  The DMS is a major system to the users
because it packages and transports all data obtained from experiments
onboard the station, as well as captures all instructions relayed from
ground-based stations. 
	Other discussions centered on ground payload processing and
integration, with special reference to comparison of Spacelab and space
station processes, on progress in establishing a Small Rapid Response
(SRR) Project Management Office at Johnson Space Center, and on
planning for a second International Science Operations Workshop and the
1991 SSSAAS Summer Workshop. 
 
 
Ultrapure Water System 

	NASA has been challenged to develop future capabilities for
extended manned missions into outer space, and Space Station Freedom's 
subcontractor engineers are researching and developing systems for
conducting efficient laboratory experiments in microgravity conditions.
	Space Station Freedom experimental work will be divided into two
areas:  life science and material science.  Life science experimental
work will involve human, animal and plant subjects, while material
science experiments deal with inorganic substances. 
	As a subcontractor to Boeing Aerospace & Electronics, Teledyne
Brown Engineering (TBE) is developing the Ultrapure Water System (UPWS)
to purify water as a future station capability to be used in laboratory
experiments.  These experiments will need water free of contaminants
that could cause an unwanted reaction.  Ultrapure water has been
cleaned of minerals, organic contaminants, ionic substances, and
pyrogens.  Pyrogens are substances that could cause a fever if injected
directly into the bloodstream of a human or other animals. 
	Ultrapure water will have only one to two parts per billion of
such minerals as copper, chloride and sodium.  The amount of organic
chemicals is expected to be 50 parts per billion and no more than 10
bacteria per liter.  Ultrapure water will be deionized, having low
conductivity.  	 
	"This is something that has never been done before," said to
project engineer Richard Hamner.  "There has never been a high-purity
water reclamation system in space.  Both Skylab and Spacelab took the  
water amounts that were needed for the missions.  However, the Russian
space station does reclaim humidity condensate for use as drinking
water. 
	"There are great improvements that could be made in the areas of
weight, power, and volume, but volume is the greatest problem we have
at this time." 
	The UPWS design requirements are divided into two basic
categories:  the water purification subsystem and purity maintenance. 
The principle factors involved in the process of making ultrapure water
are:  organic removal, deionization, filtration, and sterilization. 
	A reclamation water line collects the waste water that can be
recycled.  Once in the rack area, the water passes through a shutoff
valve, check valve, and primary filter.  Free gases and vapors are
removed by a liquid gas separator (or phase separator), and sent on to
the waste vapor line.  The phase separator also doubles as a pump to
send feed-water to the storage tanks.   Here, the cleaning process
involves the use of heat and ultraviolet light. 
	The water goes through a distillation process for the removal of
undissolved particles.  Three methods of removing these particles are
being studied:  air evaporation, hollow fiber membrane (HFM) diffusion,
and vapor-compression distillation (VCD). 
	Air evaporation uses a wick to soak up contaminated water while
warm, dry air is forced through it.  The water and other volatiles are
evaporated off the wick and sent downstream to a condenser.  Studies
are being conducted for TBE on this  diffusion method,the feed-water is
pumped through a bundle of Nafion tubes.  The water is heated, then
routed into the tube network, where the water diffuses through the tube
walls and is then allowed to evaporate on the outer surface.  HFM
distillation studies are being conducted for TBE by Hamilton Standard
Division of United Technologies, located near Windsor Locks, Conn. 
	In VCD, the liquid water is forced to the inside wall of a
rotating centrifuge.  Water is evaporated and compressed, causing the
water temperature and pressure to rise.  The warmer vapor is then
condensed and collected on the outer wall of the centrifuge,
transferring the heat back into the remaining contaminated water.  The
VCD technology is being tested for TBE by Life Systems, Inc., of
Cleveland, Ohio.  This process and the HFM process are also being
studied by Boeing and NASA for use in the Urine Processing System. 
	After the distillation process is completed, the water enters a
sterilization component.  Here the water temperature is raised to 250
degrees F (121 degrees C) for a period of about 20 minutes.  As a
result, only sterile water will be sent downstream to the remaining
processing steps.  Most of the heat will be retained by a regenerative
counterflow heat exchanger, needing only between 25 and 50 watts to
raise the water to sterilization temperature. 
	Elevated-temperature catalytic oxidation processes are now being
studied for organic removal, and are producing encouraging results. 
Ultraviolet light oxidation testing (with and without a catalyst) has
been effective on a wide range of organics up to about 3 ppm
concentration.  A process of carbon absorption is also being
investigated.  Pure microbial digestion of organic contaminants is also
being studied. 
	Deionization, or the removal of electrically-charged ions will
follow the other purifying steps.  This is because some of the organic
removal processes will convert organics into acids and other ionics
species if the process does not go completely to carbon dioxide and
water.  These ionic species can be removed in this  
system by ion exchange. 
	There are two types of deionization being investigated: 
specially-tailored ion exchange resin beds and Electrodeionization
(EDI).  EDI would have the advantage of using low amounts of power and
energy.  Studies on these two types of deionization are being studied
by Sterimatics, Inc., of Bedford, Mass., a division of Millipore
Corporation. 
	With the purification process now completed, the water is sent on
to the ultrapure loop.  The loop keeps the water circulating to reduce
growth of bacteria in the lines and to maintain water purity.  The
recirculation pump sends the water through a UV sterilizer, destroying
any bacteria which passes through  
it.  Next is the polisher, with func-tions similar to the
postprocessing steps of deionization and filtration.  In this way,
water is cleaned to ultrapurity each time it enters the polisher. 
	Makeup water for the UPWS will come from two sources:  hygiene
water from the environmental control and life support system (ECLSS),
and water from Space Shuttle power cells.  These cells produce water
and electricity by the chemical reaction of hydrogen and oxygen. 
	Teledyne Brown Engineering is helping NASA stay at the forefront
of science and technology by providing this and other subsystems for
Space Station Freedom. 
 
 
Operating Payloads Requires Intense Planning 

	How do a limited number of laboratory scientists operate an
unprecedented number of on-orbit experiments and at the same time help
run the space station itself?  In preparing for an orbiting laboratory,
planners must take into account many things that may be taken for
granted on Earth.  In an Earth-based laboratory, facilities can be set
up so that a number of researchers can access them easily and quickly. 
There may be few restrictions on space resources, supplies, and
equipment maintenance.  And scientists in an Earth lab are generally
only concerned with maintaining the research equipment, not the lab
itself. 
	On the space station, however, not only is interior space limited,
but crew time dedicated to science operations also is limited by the
time the crew must spend on daily station operations.  And Freedom will
require the regular operation of up to ten times the number of
equipment racks currently operated on Spacelab, with only slightly more
crew at best.  Limited resources must be carefully scheduled and
managed.  Since Spacelab missions are relatively short (usually six to
ten days), it is feasible to gather all the investigators into one
payload control center for the duration of the mission.  With the space
station, however, payload experimentation may go on for a number of
days, months, or years.  It is, therefore, more efficient and
productive for investigators to manage experiments from their home
institutions. 
	The Office of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) has just
released an "operations concept" that outlines the objectives and
approaches to be used to keep experiment operations running smoothly. 
The overall objective of this strategy is to provide a cost-effective
and mission-effective operations structure that will accommodate a
number of science users around the globe.  Additional objectives that
support this major strategy are:  to promote an integrated science
planning interface with the space station program; to allow scientists
to effectively participate remotely in real-time operations; and to
provide a flexible structure to accommodate the natural evolution in
individual user operations capabilities. 
	The OSSA science operations concept is composed of three main
elements:  an Integrated Science Operations Center (ISOC), science
discipline operations support elements, and the science investigators. 
Within this framework, operating elements have the flexibility to
define their own levels and manner of operation. 
	The ISOC provides a unified interface to the station program for
U.S. science operations, coordinates OSSA's remote scheduling and
operations activities, and provides varying levels of assistance to the
investigators.  The ISOC interfaces directly with the station program's
Payload Operations Integration Center (POIC).  The POIC will integrate
all space station payload operations, including those of international
users. 
	Discipline Operations Support is support for on-orbit operations
of individual science discipline instruments or facilities, with
primary responsibility for scheduling, instrument/facility operations,
and managing related data and communications flow. 
	Investigator facilities are those distributed institutional
locations from where science investigators can monitor and control
experiments; communicate with the onboard crew; receive, process, and
analyze data; and support the planning and scheduling process for
payload operations. 
	During the initial use of Freedom, science operations will be
conducted from a limited number of major operations facilities.  As
with other aspects of science utilization planning, this initial
configuration will evolve as the space station matures and as OSSA
builds and operates more payloads. 
 
 
 
NEWS BRIEFS 

Flight Test    

     In April, astronauts will step out the Space Shuttle Atlantis'
door 243 nautical miles above Earth for the first NASA space walk in
five years. 
	Shuttle mission crew members will conduct the Crew and Equipment
Translation Aid (CETA) flight experiment in the Orbiter's payload bay. 
The two crew members will try three different methods of propelling a
small cart along rails in the bay in an effort to identify the best way
to move on the exterior of Space Station Freedom. 
	CETA is a small cart that runs along a track that can be built
into the Space Station Freedom truss.  Astronauts would ride prone on
CETA, and could pull equipment along behind them.   
	But how to propel the cart, how much stress the various methods  
of movement would put on the  truss and the astronaut, and how fast it
can be comfortably and safely moved are questions to be studied on the
April mission. 
	The cart will be mounted on a track in the payload bay, skirted by
two handrails for half of the bay and by one rail. 
	The astronauts will move the cart in three different fashions:
lying prone, one crewman will pull himself along the track hand over
hand; with the astronaut angled upward slightly, the cart will be
changed to accommodate a lever that can be pumped to move it up and
down the track, much like an old railroad handcar; and also with the
crewman at about a 45-degree angle, the cart will be propelled by
hand-pushed pedals similar to a bicycle -- the pedals will generate
electricity to drive the cart. 		

Contract   

     NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., last month awarded Metric
Constructors, Inc., Tampa, Fla., a $56.2 million contract to build the
Space Station Processing Facility (SSPF). 
	Under the terms of the fixed-price contract, Metric Constructors
will build the 457,000-square-foot facility to be used as the central
preflight checkout and processing point for Space Station Freedom
elements. 
	The three-story building will include communications and
electrical control areas, laboratories, logistics staging areas,
operational control rooms, office areas, and a cafeteria. 
	Construction of the processing facility is set to begin on or
about April 1 and the building should be ready for occupancy within
1080 days of the SSPF groundbreaking.

Sounds like they're on the right track, I may even get to see the
headlines before I go out feet first...

Questions: the space station sounds like a rather large complex,
comparable to the shuttle anyway.  If they're planning to bring
the components into orbit using the shuttle, won't this be in too
low an orbit for a permanent facility?  This would mean that the
entire station will have to be periodically boosted back into its
orbit (like the Soviet station)?  Wouldn't it be better in the
long run to increase the shuttle performance for a higher
orbit?

My crystal ball says that by the time the station gets
operational, we will severely need the zero gravity research and
production facilities to stay competitive.  I suspect that the
"rent" of these facilities to such agencies as Japan and the ESA
will provide a substantital portion of the operating costs of the
station.  What I'm thinking of is the new processes for
fabricating the semiconductor chips that will feature
superconductivity and high component density.  These new
components will require very high purity materials to operate
practically.

I can't help wondering what parts we will be saying that "they" stupidly
saved money on back in 1991 after the Freedom disastor of 2009?

Burns

From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Date: 27 Mar 91 20:06:42 GMT
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                            March 27, 1991
(Phone:  202/453-8455)


RELEASE:  91-47

NASA TO FEATURE SPACE STATION FREEDOM AT PARIS AIR SHOW


	The Space Station Freedom will highlight the NASA exhibit at
the 39th Paris Air Show, Le Bourget, France, June 13-23.  The
centerpiece of the 7,000 sq. ft. exhibit will be a full scale mock-up
of a Space Station Freedom module.

	Visitors will enter a module that combines the space station's
habitat and laboratory facilities into one.  They will view the crew
quarters, the personal hygiene and exercise facilities and the galley.
In the laboratory portion, there will be a furnace facility, protein
crystal growth facility, modular containerless processing, life support
system "salad machine" and gas grain simulation facility on display.

	Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency are partners with
NASA in Space Station Freedom. 

	Other NASA programs featured in the exhibit are Mission to
Planet Earth and aeronautics research.  The NASA exhibit also will
commemorate 30 years of manned U.S. space flight with a large mural at
the exhibit's entrance.

	On June 14, NASA Administrator Richard H. Truly will hold a
press briefing in the U.S. Pavilion.  On June 17, Astronaut Daniel C.
Brandenstein, Chief, Astronaut Office and Commander of the first
Endeavor Space Shuttle mission, will meet the press.

	NASA has been a major participant at the Paris Air Show since
the mid-1960s.  

  Regarding altitude, the shuttle is capable of going up as high as the bottom
of the Van Allan belt which starts at about 350 miles MSL. That's where they
put the HST. Even at that altitude, orbits decay and reboost is needed. The
next few thousand miles are not usable due to radiation and above that is too
high up for practical access. 

  As a result, the only thing that makes sense is to provide for reboost and
put it in low earth orbit.

  I still think it's too complicated. Why should it require any planed
spacewalk activity at all? Why can't it just be deployed the way the Soviet
station is with spacewalk being used for unexpected repair only? 

  They just can't bring themselves to build anything that's really simple.

  George

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROB STEIN, UPI Science Editor)
Date: 16 Apr 91 21:08:43 GMT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- NASA officials acknowledged Tuesday they had not
included money for an astronaut escape system and other key items in
their new proposal for the $30 billion space station Freedom.
	Under sometimes frustrated questioning by Sen. Al Gore Jr., D-Tenn.,
space agency officials said they had not included more than $2 billion
in costs, in part because they did not yet have firm cost projections.
	``Maybe it's just me, but I have trouble with this,'' Gore said
during the first congressional hearing on the new space station plan.
	``I do not think it is acceptable to talk about a $1 billion to $2
billion system (and other items) and assume some of them are essential
and pretend that it doesn't cost anything,'' Gore said.
	NASA Administrator Richard Truly and other officials said the systems
would not be essential until after the space station became permanently
occupied by astronauts after the year 2000.
	Space agency officials specifically brought the matter to the
attention of congress because they had not completed estimates of the
costs, Truly said.
	Among the systems not included in the new proposal are an ``assured
crew return system,'' which would cost between $1.5 billion and $2
billion and enable astronauts aboard the station to return to Earth
safely in an emergency.
	Also not included were costs for a fourth solar panel to provide
extra power for the station, which could cost about $200 million, and a
second module to provide room for four more astronauts, which would cost
between $300 million and $400 million, officials said.
	``I'm a little concerned about whether the authorizing committee can
get a firm grasp on what you're proposing if some of the costs are not
included in the proposal even though they are important parts of the
program,'' said Gore, who chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation.
	The committee also heard testimony from a variety of scientists,
including representatives from the National Academy of Sciences, The
Planetary Society and the Federation of American Scientists, who raised
questions about the proposed station's scientific usefulness.
	NASA sent the proposal to Congress in March after redesigning the
station to be smaller and less expensive after questions were raised
about the feasibility of the earlier proposal.
	NASA reduced the cost of the proposal by $5.7 billion -- to $30
billion -- reduced the number of astronauts who would permanently occupy
the outpost from eight to four and cut the size and scope of the
station.
	The station is envisioned as an orbiting outpost where astronauts
could conduct scientific experiments and perhaps use as a staging base
for flights to the moon and Mars.
	Under the new plant, part-time ``man-tended'' operations are
scheduled to begin in mid 1997 after six space shuttle construction
flights -- about a year later than had been planned. Full-time,
permanently occupied status is now scheduled for 2000 instead of 1997 or
1988.
	While the new proposal was endorsed by the White House, scientists
questioned whether the station would be worth the cost because the
smaller scale would sharply limit the amount of science that could be
conducted.
	Some of those concerns were answered by NASA's decision to add a
centrifuge for experiments. But Gore questioned whether the money for
that, also, had been included in the final proposal.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROBERT SHEPARD)
Date: 2 May 91 19:53:16 GMT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The House voted Thursday to continue funding for
NASA's proposed space station Freedom, but called for an independent
review of the costly program.
	The vote followed release of a report Wednesday that eventual costs
of the station could be as high as $118 billion to $180 billion, well
over NASA's projected $84 billion price tag.
	The bill, passed on a 361-36 vote and sent to the Senate, authorizes
$43.7 billion over three years for all space programs, which is $488
million less than the administration requested. It provides the full $2
billion requested for the space station program during 1992, but does
not contain authorization for the program in 1993 and 1994.
	The bill as presented by the House Science, Space and Technology
Committee directs the National Academy of Sciences to submit a report
with an independent engineering review of the space station. In
addition, the House adopted an amendment requiring the academy to report
on whether the station's research goals can be achieved through other
means.
	The Government Accounting Office report Wednesday concluded it would
cost at least $40 billion to build the station and make it suitable for
permanent occupancy by four astronauts in 1999.
	In addition, GAO calculated it would cost another $78 billion to
operate the space station through the year 2027.
	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration estimated it would
cost $30 billion to build the station and about $2 billion a year to
operate the orbiting outpost -- for a total of about $84 billion.
	Rep. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chaired the House Government
Operations subcommittee hearing where the report was released, said her
subcommittee estimated the costs could be even higher -- as much as $51.8
billion for the initial construction and $180 million for the station's
lifetime.
	Boxer told the House the science academy review is needed needed 
``just so we know what it is we are doing here.'' She denied suggestions
she wanted to halt the program.
	Rep. Dick Zimmer, D-N.J., who offered the amendment for further
review the research plans by the science academy, said it would 
``enhance our ability to use the taxpayers dollars most effectively.''
	NASA Administrator Richard Truly opposes such a study. The plan has
already undergone exhaustive reviews and another examination may only
cause further delays that would hinder the troubled project, Truly has
said.
	But Zimmer said it would provide ``an evalution of all our options
for conducting space-based research and will confirm whether the space
station as currently conceived is the best and most cost-effective
approach''
	Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., questioned the validity of the GAO
report and urged that the space station program go forward. ``We ought
to make up our mind to go ahead because any further delay and any
further clouding of the issue is just going to run up the cost more and
then there's nobody to blame but ourselves,'' he told the House.
	Rep. George Brown, D-Calif., chairman of the science committee, said
the station is ``the linchpin for all our plans in space...and
absolutely essential if we plan to maintain our world leadership
position in space.''
	NASA wants to build the station as an orbiting outpost where
astronauts can conduct scientific experiments and possibly prepare to
return to the moon and explore Mars.
	Congress ordered NASA to redesign the station's plans to make it
cheaper and more realistic after questions arose about the feasibility
and true costs of the station.
	The more modest plan submitted in March won praise from the White
House and many members of Congress. But some scientists questioned the
smaller station's usefulness, saying the quality and quantity of
research may not be worth the high cost.

RE:             <<< Note 282.100 by PRAGMA::GRIFFIN "Dave Griffin" >>>
>From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROBERT SHEPARD)

>...operate the space station through the year 2027.

Wow, that'll mean about a 30 year lifetime! This seems awfully long to me,
considering the erosion and degredation of materials that occurs in LEO.

>	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration estimated it would
>cost...about $2 billion a year to operate the orbiting outpost.

$2B a year. Gee, that's like a new Shuttle orbitter every year for 30 years.
Does anyone know how this cost is figured? Is it mostly the cost of some number
of shuttle launches per year to support the station? 
						-- Tom

Just heard from someone here in the halls: the House approporiations 
subcommittee with responsibility for NASA has zeroed space station funding for 
FY92 to put more money into HUD.

The United States is fast becoming the Portugal of the Space Age.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Subject: Bush to fight for space station funds
Date: 16 May 91 19:41:48 GMT
 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The administration will fight to restore money
that was cut from the space station program by a House Appropriations
subcommittee, White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said Thursday.
	The space station is the administration's top priority in the space
program and Fitzwater said President Bush was disappointed by the
subcommittee action Wednesday.
	``We're very concerned about that,'' said Fitzwater. ``It's of course
a disappointment to the president because he had made a decision to
proceed with the space station. We think it's important to the future of
the space program.''
	The subcommittee voted 6-3 to cut all but about $100 million of the
$2 billion sought by NASA for the space station program during 1992. The
$100 million would be used to close down the program and study
alternative space science projects.
	The panel allocated the bulk of the $2 billion savings to other
science programs.
	Fitzwater said, ``We will work to get that reinstated. We think it
hurts the overall R&D effort as well as the long-term objectives of the
space program.''
	``I'm sure there will be a fight over it but we intend to try to get
it back,'' he said.
	Rep. Bob Traxler, D-Mich., subcommittee chairman, said the panel's
action ``reflects the fact that our federal government's budgeting has
hit a dead end. We simply can no longer afford huge new projects, with
huge price tags, while trying to maintain services that the American
people expect to be provided.''
	Another appropriations subcommittee voted for a 19 percent cut in the
funds Bush requested for the superconducting super collider, but even
with the cut the program would increase in 1992 by almost two-thirds to
$433 million.

From: dbm0000@sei_4.lerc.nasa.gov (Dave McKissock)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Summary of 5/20 Space News (Fred Funding)
Date: 24 May 91 12:20:40 GMT
Organization: sei

The May 20-26, 1991 edition of SPACE NEWS has two front page articles
about Fred Funding. Below are some excerpts from the two articles:

Rep. Bob Traxler (D-Mich), chair of the House  Appropriations 
submittee that oversees NASA, says a decision by members of the House
of Representatives to press NASA to stop work on the station would
follow a debate about the program on the House floor, whick likely will
take place around June 4. 

If the House approves the panel's recommendation to change the Station
1992 funding from $2 billion to $100 million, Traxler says they will
direct NASA to use the remaining 1991 funds to terminate the effort.
The $100 million in 1992 funding would go for leftover termination costs
and [Guess what :)] new studies on a more modest orbiting facility.

Senate & administration officials say they will not allow the House
to unilaterally dismantle the Station program. Press secretary for
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Mich, chair of the Senate panel that oversees
NASA appropriations), says a decision on Station will affect the space
program for the rest of the decade, and must be a bicameral decision.
[My dictionary says "bicameral" means based on two legislative chambers.]

By deleting most Station funding, they were able to put $1.2 billion
into housing, environmental, vetrans medical care and other programs.
Even the National Cemetary System would receive an additional $5 million.
The remaining $800 million goes to other NASA programs, primairly
space science projects. One House staffer said a barrage of letters
from the space science community before the markup was a factor in
the decision to kill Station & give space science efforts the money
requested for 1992.

By naming specific winners in canceling the Station, the panel created
powerful forces in favor of the program's demise, say congressional
staffers & NASA managers.

In a separate article (Mixed reaction to Cut), it's reported that many
space scientists were upbeat about the House vote.  They argued the
action will force NASA to reorient the design to better serve science
[Question: How does one reorient something that has been cancelled].

On the other side of the fence, Ray Williamson (analyst with 
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment), said canceling Station
could be seen as a "vote of no confidence" for space programs, which 
could decrease support for exploration missions.

Jerry Grey, director of science & technology for AIAA, says if NASA
started all over again, they might end up with something cheaper, but
not if you include the cost of the $5 billion already spent.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave McKissock              sakissoc@mars.lerc.nasa.gov
NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Ohio.
Opinions expressed herein probably bear absolutely no resemblance to
the official NASA position.

From: sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken  Sheppardson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee Appropriations
Date: 23 May 91 13:08:15 GMT
Organization: The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Posted without comment:

===============================================================================

Statement of the Honorable Bob Traxler, Chairman, VA, HUD, and Independent 
Agencies Subcommittee, House Appropriations Committee -- May 15, 1991

"Today's action of the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee, in accepting my recommendation to terminate funding for the
development of NASA's Space Station Freedom, reflects the fact that our Federal
Government's budgeting has hit a dead end. We simply can no longer afford huge
new projects, with huge price tags, while trying to maintain services that the
American people expect to be provided.

The Fiscal Year 1993 scenario is also dismal. Under last year's budget
agreement, the Subcommitee does not expect any increase beyond the percentages
in this year's allocation; 5.4% in budget authority and 5.6% in outlays.
Furthermore, prior-year appropriations will produce increased outlays that will
adversely impact the Subommittee's ability to fund the various agencies within
its jurisdiction. In brief, if we cannot afford to fund the space station this
year, there ss no way that we would be able to fund it next year.

The budget crunch this year requires us to terminate development of the space
station; if we stay on the same budget course, we will soon be faced with the
prospect--even the necessity--of making more awful decisions in the years
ahead.

The VA-HUD Subcommittee funds a range of important human needs programs: VA
hospitals, housing for the poorest in our society, environmental clean-up
programs on which the health of ourselves and our planet depend, education and
basic research programs on which our fuure economy depends, and, yes, our
civilian space program with which we address another basic human need-- the
need to explore.

In terminating; funding for the space station, we have been able to provide
nearly full funding for other space science research efforts and we have
provided full funding for the research and education programs of the National
Science Foundation. We have provided a much needed increase for the VA hospital
system, which I wish could have been more, in order to help keep our nation's
medical services for veterans in operation. We have provided generous funding
for our nation's environmental programs. Finally, we have maintained our
nation's commitment to housing for the poor and the homeless."


===============================================================================

All number are in millions of $

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            = Overall VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations =


                     Sample Distribution of 1992    Sample Distribution of 1992
                      VA-HUD-Indep Agencies Bill     VA-HUD-Indep Agencies Bill
                    without Spact Station Funding    with Spact Station Funding

                           Budget                          Budget
                          Authority    Outlays           Authority    Outlays
 
Med Care                   +  175       +  151            +   50       +   43
Med Care Equip Delayed        ---       -   32               ---       -   32
Med Research               +   10       +    7               ---          ---
Construction               +   77       +    2            +   77       +    2
Annual Contributions       +  847       +   11            +  847       +   11
Operating Subsidies(1)     +  250          ---            -  250          ---
HOPE                       -  765          ---            -  765          ---
HOME                       -  500       -   10            -  500       -   10
HUD Homeless                  ---          ---            -  100       -   20
CDBG                       +  345       +   14            +  280       +   11
EPA Operating              +  162       +   56            +   75       +   28
Superfund                  -  100       -   15            -  150       -   23
Construction Grants        +  325       +   11            +  225       +    7
FEMA Homeless              +   34       +   32.64            ---          ---
NASA                       - 2068.5     - 1065            - 1251       -  730
NSF                           ---       -   17            -  250       -  125
Other Non-NASA/NSF Accts   +    5       +    4            -   10       -    8
                           --------    --------           -------      -------

TOTAL                      - 1203.5     -  850.36         - 1222       -  846

Section 6028 Allocation    - 1207       -  845            - 1207       -  845

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           = NASA Appropriations =

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT                       Station-Out        Station-In

Space Station.................................   - 1928.9
Space Flight Capability Development
    New Launch Systems........................      ---             -  175
    General Reduction.........................   -   10             -   50
Space Science and Applications
    General Reduction.........................      ---             -   35
    SETI......................................      ---             -    7
    SIRTF & OSL Phase B's.....................      ---             -   25
    LIFESAT...................................   -   10             -   15
    Life Science (Space Station)..............   -   25             -   25
    AXAF......................................      ---             -   50
    EOS.......................................      ---             -   75
    CRAF......................................      ---             -   45
    LANDSAT...................................   +    5                ---
    Microgravity..............................   -   11.5              ---
    Remotely Piloted Aircraft.................   -    5             -    5
    SAR.......................................   +   10                ---
    Classroom of the Future...................   +    1.5              ---
Information Systems...........................   -    5             -    5
Commercial Programs
    Commercial Applications and Enhancements..   -    5             -    5
    Commercial Transportation.................   -    5             -   25
Aeronautics & Space Technology
    Aeronautics Research General Reduction....   -                  -   10
    NASP......................................   -                  -   25
    Exploration Technology....................   -   10             -   52
    Space Automation and Robotics (FTS).......      ---             -   50
    Exploration Mission Studies...............   -   10             -   15
    General Reduction (Space Technology)......      ---             -   25
Academic Programs.............................      ---             -    9
General R&D Reduction.........................      ---             -   25

              TOTAL NASA R&D..................   - 2003.9           -  753


SPACE FLIGHT

Space Transportation Production and Operations
    General Reduction.........................      ---             -  200
    Assured Shuttle Capability................      ---             -   75
    Structural Spares.........................      ---             -   75
    ASRM......................................   +  175             +  175
    Tracking..................................   -   25             -   50
Expendable Launch Vehicles
    TDRSS LAUNCH VEHICLE......................   -   39             -   39
    Titan IV CRAF/CASSINI Vehicle.............   -   35             -   50
    Mobile Satellite..........................   -   24             -   24
    General Reduction.........................   -   10             -   10
       
              TOTAL NASA SPACE FLIGHT........    +   42             -  348


R&PM

    General Reduction From Fund Source III....   -   13             -   75
    General Reduction From Fund Source I & II.   -   12             -   25

              TOTAL NASA R&PM.................   -   25             -  100

CONSTRUCTION
    ASRM (Transferred to Space Flight Account)   -   50             -   50
    Space Station Processing Facility.........   -   35                ---
    CEISIN Facility...........................   +    3.4              ---

                                                 --------           --------

              TOTAL NASA......................   - 2068.5           - 1251


--
===============================================================================
 Ken Sheppardson                                  Email: kcs@sso.larc.nasa.gov
 Space Station Freedom Advanced Programs Office   Phone: (804) 864-7544
 NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA         FAX:   (804) 864-1975
===============================================================================

Article        13878
From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Good for the Japanese
Date: 28 May 91 17:53:44 GMT
Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
 
  Today's (May 26) contains a story headlined
 
     Japan Threatens Science Projects if U.S. Cuts Back on Space Station
 
     Tokyo, May 27 - The Japanese Government, angered that its
     participation in the American space station is threatened by
     Congressional budget cuts, has issued an unusually blunt and
     direct warning that it may refuse to contribute bilions of
     dollars to American-led "big science" projects in coming years 
     unless plans to build a vast outpost in space remain intact.
 
     The warning caps months of increasingly bitter exchanges
     between Japan and the United States overr the repeated
     reductions of the space station's size and capabilities.
     Those efforts have been opposed by Japan, which at American
     urging made the space station the center of its own space
     plans over the next two decades.  Japan is building a
     critical $2 billion space laboratory, the Japan Experimental
     Module, that will be attached to the station and has already
     sunk roughly $300 million into the project.
 
     If it refused to participate in other American-led projects,
     Japan could cripple a number of tremendously expensive
     programs that the United States saays it cannot afford on
     its own.  Chief among them is the giant superconducting
     supercollider, scheduled ... .
 
This is only the latest occasion on which the U.S. has backed out of
agreements to take part in scientific projects.  The problem seems to
be that Congressmen don't want to take responsibility for long term
financial commitments but likes to juggle them each year and make
deals according to the advantage of the moment. Other countries would
be better off if collaboration agreements took the form of treaties
which have to be ratified by the Senate.  Our record in living up to
commitments embodied in treaties is somewhat better. 
 
The era in which Congress can forget commitments to foreign countries
with only minor flak is passing, and the Japanese deserve credit for
forcing the issue in connection with the space station.  It also
offers some hope that the exploration of space will be put on a
genuine long term basis. 
 
In this particular case, the scientific community, especially the
physicists, deserve a substantial part of the blame, and it is good
that the Japanese have chosen to focus their possible retaliation on a
project dear to the heart of many physicists. 

BTW, in this week's AWST, it is claimed that the administration has more or
less given up on the House, (i.e. it expects the full House to support the
appropriations subcommittee) and is concentrating its efforts on the Senate,
in the hopes that if the Senate strongly supports the station they can force
the issue in a conference committee.

What I don't quite understand (and never have) is why there is a conference
committee for appropriations.  I thought the House had sole control of the
pursestrings.

What I really resent about this is the way that NASA is more-or-less arbitrarily
stuck in a subcommittee which deals with Veterans and HUD.  I mean they really
have a lot to do with one another, right?  But that means that in making
tradeoffs, in order to increase NASA, they have to decrease housing for the
homeless etc.  As a "bleeding-heart liberal" I find this unacceptable.  But
there is no way for the appropriations committee to tradeoff, say SDI vs
civilian space.

BAH.

Burns

    re: .107
    
    Appropriations have to start in the House, but they must be passed by
    both houses of Congress and signed by the president, like any law.
    
    The full House, or the conference committee, can trade off SDI against
    civilian space, etc.
        John Sauter

  John is correct, Article I, section 7 of the Constitution says the following:

Section. 7.  All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of 
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on 
other Bills.

  It then goes on to talk about how the President must sign them into law,
over riding vetoes, conferences, etc.

  This case should, but of course won't, lay to rest all of those arguments
about how the manned space program takes money away from unmanned space
exploration. It doesn't. If the manned space program were dropped completely,
the money would go to many other things besides unmanned space research. NASA
should fight like crazy to keep their manned programs.

  George

  It could be that the problem here is with the Space Station itself. I
remember feeling quite some time ago that the Freedom Space Station was a plan
that didn't seem like it was going to work. It was designed at a time when
people felt there would be 24 shuttle launches per year and grew from that. 

  The redesign cut things down to the realm of reality, but confidence in the
system may have been badly shaken by NASA's insistence on sticking with such a
complex design instead of trying to start with something much simpler. 

  I'm still having problems understanding why they can't launch the thing in
complete sections that are designed to start working upon arrival. This approach
worked with Skylab and with both Soviet Stations. True, all of those systems
required maintenance once in space, but since they were designed to work
after launch, the outside work was minimal and was aimed at fixing things
that broke. Freedom is being designed as a maintenance problem from day one
since the design requires assembly in space.

  The MIR station, by contrast, has been launched in sections, each of which
was designed to work as soon as it arrived and was docked with the sections
already there. That approach, along with U.S. technology, would be really easy
to deploy and would put minimum requirements on the shuttle fleet in both
frequency and length of deployment flights. 

  Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see them go ahead because to me any space
program is better than no space program at all, but I've felt really irritated
from day one with the complex Freedom design. Even if it gets approval, which
is somewhat in doubt, the complexity could cause further embarrassments to
NASA which will further cut into the dwindling funding for all space programs.

  George

RE:                     <<< Note 282.111 by 25415::MAIEWSKI >>>

>...with both Soviet Stations.

More like, "...with all eight or so Soviet Stations." There have been five or
six or seven Salyut/Cosmos series stations, plus Mir.

>...but I've felt really irritated from day one with the complex Freedom
>design.

Me too. And I'm a very pro-space person; been interested in it all my life and
would pay a little more taxes if it could be channelled to the space program.

I recently read a book on the history of the soviet manned space program (which
I had never really studied). By the time I was through I was sick/jealous of
their accomplishments. Chapter after chapter of "well, in 198x the Salyut 1 was
launched, visited by y crews for zzz days. In 198x, the next Salyut was
launched, visited by y crews for another zzz days. And another, and another,
and another, and another, and another etc. up through Mir which has now had
close to five YEARS of almost continuous occupation.

There is a LOT to be said of assembly-line, expendable components. My hats off
to what they have accomplished.
						-- Tom

Tom,

I generally agree with your comments.  Since you've done a little reading
on the topic (and I haven't), would you care to comment (if possible) on
the affect of Soviet budgeting practices vs. US - and how that might have
affected their accomplishments over the past 20 years?

While I don't condone many of the paths that NASA has taken - especially
with regard to the space station, I feel that they were often forced into
the current situation by fickle congressional (and public) support.   This
lack of support cancelled a rather ambitious program of Saturn launches in
the late '60s and early '70s - and I believe forced the shuttle program upon
us (the NASA budget was SLASHED in 1969).

The Soviets had both public support and, I believe, a closed budget (they
probably had public support BECAUSE of the closed budget!).  This allowed
the space agency (cies?) in the USSR to pursue a simple but constant pace
of exploration - because their funding wasn't changing from year to year.

Now, with the turmoil in the USSR, there appears to be a withdrawl from the
support of their space program as well -- it happens to have a good deal of
inertia however.   Is Glavcosmos just a NASA waiting to happen?


- dave

RE:             <<< Note 282.113 by PRAGMA::GRIFFIN "Dave Griffin" >>>

I don't know much of anything about how much the soviets have spent on their
space program. I would be surprised if they've spent significantly more than
the US has, but that's based on speculation.

>...because their funding wasn't changing from year to year.

I agree this is very important (assume it's true, which seems believable).
NASA/government contractors have certainly been hurt, and had to spent much
more because of, uncertanties in the budget. Long-lead-time items can't be
purchased in bulk, thus greatly increasing their piece-meal cost for example.
						-- Tom

re .108:  (It's not clear to me exactly what "originate" means, but regardless...)

I think that while it is true the full House or conference committee can trade
off defense vs civilian space, the lion's share of the work gets done in the
subcommittees.  One may shift around a few bil (:-) in the higher level
committees, but the people the the knowledge and interest are generally members
of the small committees which do things of interest.  Thus the real fights
between motivated, knowledgable people truly do come between proponents of
civilian space and proponents of elderly housing.  By the time the larger
groups  get to it, it's just political twiddling.

Regarding the Soviet space program:  I'm not sure it DOES have that much popular
support.  That is one thing that is happening now that there are fewer
restrictions on free speech:  People are criticizing it!

There are things to be said for a closed system when you want to get something
done.  The problem is making sure it is the right thing.

Burns

6/6/91: TRULY RESPONSE TO HOUSE FLOOR VOTE ON SPACE STATION

Release: 91-88

        Richard H. Truly, Administrator of NASA,
issued the following statement today following
action by the House of Representatives to continue
development of Space Station Freedom:

        The totally bipartisan vote in the House of
Representatives to continue development of Space
Station Freedom was a big victory for all America.
It was a vote...

        ...to remain the leader in space exploration,

        ...to inspire and challenge our young people
to do better.

        ...to reassert our technological leadership,.

        ...to make an investment in America's future,
and set the stage for discovery and breakthroughs in
medicine, materials, transporation and energy.

        I am confident that Freedom will win support
in the Senate.

        Much work remains to be done to provide a
final FY 1992 budget for NASA that is well balanced
between science, manned space flight and
exploration, aeronautical research, earth
observation and technology development. I remain
committed to work toward that end.

    

    I watched some of the hearings of the House subcommittee on Science
    and Technology (or something like that) regarding Space Station's
    cancellation -- it was rather interesting since the congressional
    members there are generally in favor of it.  One congressman from 
    New Jersey took the devil's advocate view and asked Truly some rather
    pointed and very relevant questions - which were promptly not answered
    by Truly (if he wasn't a bureaucrat when he was an astronaut - he
    certainly is one now).
    
    A comment that was made in passing, referring to earlier testimony, was
    that the House subcommittee thought that the NASA budget was an odd
    bedfellow with HUD and VA.   I'm certain this will be rectified within
    the next century...
    
    - dave

6/7/91: SPACE STATION WATER RECYCLING TASTE TESTS SCHEDULED

N91-43

        Living in space turns an act as simple as drinking a glass of water
into a technological challenge.  One of the major technology development goals
of designing and constructing Space Station Freedom is the development of a
closed-loop water recycling system that will enable astronauts to reuse the
water on board.

        Working to accomplish that goal, NASA and contractor volunteers this
month are scheduled to participate in the first taste tests of water processed
by the equipment being developed to reclaim the 200 pounds of water Freedom's
four crew members will use each day.

        The tests will be conducted at the Marshall Space Flight Center,
Huntsville, Ala., which has responsibility for devising and building the water
recycling system as part of its overall role to develop a total Environmental
Control and Life Support System for the space station.  The recycling
technologies formulated for the station will also pave the way for life support
systems that will make possible a long-term lunar base and exploration of Mars.

        Current plans call for the development work to proceed to the taste-
testing stage on or about Thursday, June 13.  Test engineers and volunteers
will be available to answer reporters' questions about the program.

            The volunteers participating in the test will be tasting and
washing in reprocessed water that other volunteers have "donated" to the
program over the past several months in a special facility at the Marshall
Center built to simulate conditions on Freedom. The waste water is being
generated daily by volunteers participating in strenuous exercise (to generate
water vapor in the form of respiration and perspiration), washing their
exercise clothing and showering.
    

There's been some talk about the cost of the space station in USENET's
sci.space.  This message seemed to have more heat than flame...


From: eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Freedom Cost
Date: 11 Jun 91 13:54:24 GMT
Organization: Boeing AI Center, Huntsville, AL

[Citations on prior flames and/or budget assumptions made by other authors
 deleted.  -dg]


Having been on the Space Station Program from a month after Boeing
was awarded the Work Package 1 contract, and having been the person
responsible for the life cycle cost numbers at the time (I am no longer
with the Space Station program), Per haps I can shed some light on
this discussion.

The wide range of numbers quoted for the Space Station may all be
correct, because they refer to different costs.  Here are the
different types of cost:

Life Cycle Cost: The total cost of a program, including everything.
It is defined as Development Cost+Production Cost+Operations Cost.

Development Cost: All costs which are non-recurring, through the
first flight-ready unit.

Production Cost: Costs which recur on the 2nd through nth units.
Depending on the part of the space station, this varies in extent,
for example there will be about 200 equipment rack frames built,
so this item has lots of production cost, but the life sciences
glove box is a unique item, so it is all developmental, with no
production.

Operations Cost: Everything that happens after Development and
Production, i.e. launch, assembly in orbit, and use.  Most of
the life cycle is incurred here.

The above costs include everything associated with the program.
Now we come to costs which are defined by NASA accounting methodology
(i.e. which have no necessary connection with physical reality)

Program Funding: Those costs which appear as line items in the
NASA budget under the heading "Space Station".  This item excludes
NASA personnel salaries and costs of running the basic centers
(office realted costs).  Those costs appear under "Research and Program
Management".  This item also excludes the cost of launches, which
is under the "Space Shuttle" budget line.

Contracted Cost: This is the smallest number, it is the dollar value
of contracts let to prime contractors and support contractors
specifically for Space Station harware and services.  Contracted cost
is a subset of Program Funding, the difference being an internal
'tax' the NASA centers assess each program to cover the cost of
general purpose research and development equipment.  Examples of
such are: neutral buoyancy tanks, vacuum chambers, and test stands.
These items are used by multiple projects, so they are each assessed
a share in the cost of operating them.

Now for some examples:

Initial development cost quoted to Congress in 1984: $8 billion
Budgeted development cost in 1988, in 1984$:	$10 billion
Budgeted development cost in 1988, in
	then-year dollars (dollars spent
	in future years adjusted for expected
	inflation)				$16.5 billion
Program Funding over life of program
	(includes 30 years of operations)
	Development	$16.5B
	Production	1-2B
	Operations	$50B
	Total					$68 billion
Life Cycle Cost
	Program Funding	$68B
	Launch costs (160 shuttle launches
		@ $340M each=$54.4B
	NASA personnel costs @ 20% of above
		= $25B
	Total					$147.4 billion

Percentage of total NASA budget attributable to Space
Station: $147.4/40years=3.685billion/year = about 25% of total
NASA budget (at present levels).

Dani Eder
Advanced Civil Space Systems

SEPTEMBER 1991 STATION BREAK
SPACE STATION FREEDOM NEWSLETTER

House, Senate Vote For Station Funding

A House-Senate Conference Committee is expected to have difficult
discussions at the month's end over differences between their two
separate Space Station Freedom 1992 funding bills.  NASA's overall
budget of about $15.8 is contained in an $81 billion funding bill
that funds Housing and Urban Development, Veteran's Administration,
and numerous independent agencies.
     At July's end, the Senate voted 64 to 35 to continue station
funding at $2 billion for 1992, a slight increase over the 1991 level
of $1.9 billion.
     After a passionate debate on June 6, the full House voted 240 to
173 to approve a $1.9 billion 1992 fiscal year budget for space
station.
     During the day-long House debate, space station advocates
pointed to past exploration achievements, and warned opponents that
killing Space Station Freedom would be tantamount to killing NASA's
manned space program.
     Opponents of the program argued that the money could be better
spent on other programs, as well as arguing that the station is the
wrong next step for future space exploration.
     Urging his colleagues to approve funding for space station,
Congressman Norman Mineta, D-CA, said, "It is time for Congress to
stop playing with the future and start building it."  Mineta is on
the House Committee on Space Science and Technology.
     NASA Administrator Richard Truly said the House vote "was a big
victory for all America."
     Space Station Freedom Director Richard Kohrs agreed, "This is a
good sign.  We had a lot of good support on the House floor.  It was
a good vote for NASA. We will keep pushing full speed ahead on this
program."
     Truly said, "This is not an issue of being for or not for the
space station; it's an issue of being for or not for the space
program."
     The House vote rejected the unexpected House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Veteran's Administration, Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies' earlier recommendation to kill
the station program.  The VA-HUD & Independent Agencies
appropriations subcommittee had excluded funding for Freedom in its
overall fiscal year 1992 $81 billion spending bill, H.R. 2519.
     President George Bush has requested $2.028 billion for the 1992
station budget, a 7 percent increase.  The House's $1.9 billion mark
would freeze the station at its current fiscal year level.
     A bipartisan-sponsored amendment to the overall spending bill
restored funding to the program.  This amendment, sponsored by Reps.
Jim Chapman, D-TX, and Bill Lowery, R-CA, achieved funding for
Freedom by freezing other program funds within NASA at the 1991
spending level, as well as some programs within the VA-HUD &
Independent Agencies' jurisdiction.
     Speaking on the House floor, Chapman said, "With Space Station
Freedom, there can be no serious debate that we will make scientific
discoveries.  We will make medical breakthroughs, we will improve
technologies, and we will, by virtue of those discoveries and those
advancements, improve not only our country, our future, our youth,
but yes, in fact, all mankind."
     Begging the question of canceling Freedom, Lowery asked, "Do we
now erase the dream?  Do we stop here and tell our children: it was a
good idea but we are not going to conquer the next frontier?  Do we
tell them to be content to watch science fiction and count the
satellites that are successfully launched?
     "Our children are falling behind most other countries in test
scores in math and science.  The Soviet Union is graduating five
times as many engineers as the United States, while Japan, with only
half of our population, now outproduces the U.S. in many critical
science education ideas," Lowery said.
     In support of the Chapman amendment, Congressman George Brown,
D-CA, was greeted with a round of applause after a moving speech.
     "One of the most profound emotional experiences of my life was
when we had the first Moon shot, and I took my father, who was then
nearly 80, and one of my neighbors, who was 10, down for that event.
Throughout the life of my father, who recently passed away, he said
that that was one of the most significant moments of his life,
watching that first vehicle leave the Earth and go to the Moon.  My
nephew has said the same thing for over these past 20-odd years.
     ". . . So my emotional attachment to the space program, which is
lifelong, has not gone away, but it has been replaced by a solid,
pragmatic economic and political analysis that our future as a leader
in the world, the economic health of this nation, and the ability of
our children to expect a higher standard of living depends on our
willingness to commit ourselves to the support of this program.  I
promise you the space station means, if we lose it, that from now on
we see a 10 percent per year decline in our investments in space, and
that will be reflected in the health of this nation."
     Rep. Mel Levine, D-CA, said, "But there is far more at stake
with Space Station Freedom than the romance of manned space travel.
Let me remind my colleagues that the money used to build the space
station is not being sent into orbit.  It is being spent here on
planet Earth -- creating highly skilled jobs -- 78,000 of them so
far, and putting money into communities in 40 states."


Protein Study Helps Researchers Understand Our World

     Hovering around a computer screen, several biochemists are
intent on a full-color simulation of a protein found in the human
body.  The simulation, something like a roller-coaster ride over the
protein molecule, is helping the scientists envision the
three-dimensional structure of the molecule in their efforts to map
its features.  This is no whimsical excursion across a multicolored
terrain, but the result of nearly a century of careful research into
the structure and behavior of proteins.
     The molecule under scrutiny is human purine nucleoside
phosphorylase (PNP), a protein that destroys some anti-cancer drugs.
The architecture of the PNP molecule may provide researchers with the
key to designing a therapeutic drug that is not vulnerable to human
PNP.  This particular molecule comes from a protein crystal that was
grown in the low-gravity environment of space where quiet conditions
allow the three-dimensional crystals to form.
     These and other crystals have been grown on nine Space Shuttle
experiments flown since 1985.  Sponsored by the Microgravity Science
and Applications Division (MSAD) of the Office of Space Science and
Applications, along with the Office of Commercial Programs, protein
crystal growth experiments will fly frequently in the next five
years.  Then in 1997, using the information gathered from flying
these experiments for over a decade, MSAD will launch the Advanced
Protein Crystal Growth Facility (APCGF) to the station.  Researchers
will use the long-duration microgravity on Freedom and the APCGF's
advanced tools to improve the quality of their protein crystals.
     Investigators expect that the microgravity environment available
in low-Earth orbit will allow them to grow highly ordered protein
crystals.  These crystals can be analyzed using X-rays to map their
structures.  Once the protein's structure is understood, researchers
can identify active sites on molecules where the actual work of the
protein is performed.  If these sites can be located, it may be
possible to develop procedures to influence protein functions.
     Proteins are present in all forms of life.  They are large,
complex compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and
sometimes sulfur that are essential to all biological functions.
Animals, including humans, depend on proteins to form, grow, and
repair tissues, to reproduce, and to combat disease.  Each protein is
a very specific arrangement of amino acids, and the work each
performs is determined by its arrangement.  The human body can
manufacture thousands of different proteins simply by changing the
order of the amino acid chains, but the body cannot synthesize all of
the amino acids essential for life; some are available only through
food products.
     Scientists know that the analysis of crystalline forms of
proteins can reveal much about how they work.  Although some
substances, like table salt, form crystals quite readily, proteins
require specific conditions of temperature and chemical concentration
in which to crystallize.  Protein crystals grown on Earth under the
influences of sedimentation and convection are often so highly
disordered that their structures cannot be analyzed.  In space, with
the force of gravity greatly reduced, crystals can grow relatively
unperturbed.
     In experiments designed for the low-gravity environment of the
orbiting Space Shuttle, where the effects of sedimentation and
convection are nearly eliminated, scientists are attempting to grow
well-ordered crystals of important animal and plant proteins.  One
experiment recently flown in the Shuttle middeck was designed to grow
crystals of the protein canavalin, a readily available protein food
source found in high concentrations in jack bean seeds.  If a
high-quality canavalin crystal can be grown and its molecular
structure better defined, scientists may be able to improve the
nutritional value of the jack bean through protein engineering.
Current flight experiments grow protein crystals by the vapor
diffusion process, a technique based on the behavior of different
amounts of proteins and precipitating agents (typically salts) in
water.  Solutions of proteins and precipitating agents are held
separately in double-barreled syringes located within small chambers.
The chambers also contain absorbent reservoirs saturated with
precipitant solutions in higher concentrations.
     The experiments begin as a crew member turns a handwheel to
unplug all the syringes.  With the handwheel in another position, the
crew member operates pistons in each syringe that push the protein
and precipitant solutions out of their respective barrels.  The
solutions mix and form a droplet on the tip of each syringe.
     Because the water content is greater in the droplet than in the
reservoir, water vapor will move from the droplet to the reservoir,
thus increasing concentrations of both the protein and the
precipitant in the droplet.  When these concentrations reach a
certain level, the protein molecules begin to align, forming crystals
suspended in the droplet.  Growing well-ordered protein crystals is a
slow process.  Often taking weeks or months to grow in Earth-based
laboratories, these crystals have only a few days to grow onboard the
Shuttle.  Freedom will allow researchers to grow  protein crystals
over much longer time periods, and will allow them to use a variety
of crystal growth technologies.
     At the end of each Shuttle mission, the protein crystals are
withdrawn back into the syringes for return to Earth.  Once in
ground-based laboratories, scientists bombard the space-grown
crystals with X-rays to study the diffraction patterns produced by
electrons in individual crystals.  These patterns, called electron
density maps, resemble topographic maps and suggest the contours of
the protein.  The information from the maps is analyzed by computer
to generate images of the protein molecule's three-dimensional
structure.  From computer models, scientists identify the positions
and kinds of amino acids that make up a protein.
     Many researchers believe that low-gravity protein crystal growth
experiments can make significant contributions to the fields of
biochemistry and molecular biology.  The results from space
experiments to date have been encouraging.  Several protein samples
have generated crystals that are better than the best crystals grown
on Earth.  These space-grown crystals have been used to significantly
improve the models of their protein's structure.  As we improve the
quality of our space experiments we expect to grow even better
protein crystals.
     The improved understanding of protein structures from crystal
growth experiments may create benefits in a number of biotechnology
applications.  Analysis of crystal structures gives researchers a
systematic approach for designing proteins used as industrial
catalysts, agricultural products, and pharmaceuticals.
     For example, plant geneticists have bred improved food crops for
years, but it is a time-consuming task, often based on
trial-and-error.  If a protein engineer could determine whether a
different arrangement of amino acid chains in a plant protein might
enhance the nutritional value or stamina of a crop, more
pest-resistant and energy-efficient varieties might be developed
faster and cheaper.
     What we learn through protein crystallography also may broaden
our understanding of how the human immune system operates.
Theability to develop a detailed understanding of the factors that
can inhibit or enhance the function of a protein may prove to be the
tool that researchers need to understand auto-immune diseases (such
as rheumatoid arthritis), tissue transplants, cancer and viral
diseases, and other human ailments for which there are no cures.
     For further information on the Advanced Protein Crystal
Facility, call Joel Kearns, APCGF Program Manager, at (202) 453-1490.


Truly, Darman Defend Station, Exploration

     Just days before the full House voted  to restore 1991-level
funding for Space Station Freedom, Office of Management and Budget
Director Richard Darman and NASA Administrator Richard Truly told a
House authorization panel that killing Freedom could devastate
America's space program.
     First and foremost, Darman told the House Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology, "The practical reality of the moment is this:
A failure to fund the redesigned station Freedom will effectively
postpone manned exploration by at least a decade.  If one is serious,
the time to commit is now."
     "It is difficult to discern any satisfactorily defensible logic
in a vote to kill Space Station Freedom at this point," Darman said.
"The arguments for cancellation simply do not withstand inspection."
     Emphasizing that point, Truly said, "America has a great deal to
lose as a nation if those budget deliberations result in the
cancellation of Space Station Freedom."
     " . . . Development and assembly of Space Station Freedom is our
commitment to furthering America's leadership in space.  To turn our
back on funding Freedom would eliminate a permanent American presence
in space and put our space program in great jeopardy.
     "It also would put at risk our role as a world leader in science
and high technology, our ability to compete in the world marketplaces
of today and the emerging markets of tomorrow, and our ability to
make and fulfill international commitments," Truly said.
     "Despite what the critics say, investment in Space Station
Freedom does not sacrifice domestic programs; Space Station Freedom
is a domestic program of the utmost importance to our people," Truly
said.
     If the Freedom program is canceled, Truly said, "We would
undercut a major U.S. market area of world-class competition --
aerospace.  Aerospace is one of the United States' most important
industries, and it is one of the few areas in which we still enjoy a
favorable balance of trade, nearly $28 billion in 1990 . . . Space
Station Freedom will drive advancements in aerospace that will
maintain our leadership in this important technology area."
     Setting Freedom aside also would mean abandoning efforts to
conduct basic scientific investigations in materials science and
biotechnology in a premier space laboratory for extended periods,
Truly said.  Not only will America abandon its technological and
scientific efforts in space, but the nation will lose its credibility
for cooperating in large-scale international endeavors, he said.
     "Fourth, cancellation of Space Station Freedom would mean a
total disruption of America's manned space endeavors.  This action
would have a devastating impact upon the unique and highly refined
institutional base resident at NASA and its contractor/university
teams.
     "For those of us who have spent a lifetime working in the space
program, space is more than a job -- it is the realization of our
nation's destiny.  I realize there are people out there who think
that the space program is a frivolous adventure with no real payoffs,
something that can be put off until tomorrow.  But these people have
failed to learn the lessons of history and fail to appreciate the
power of ideas and the value of exploration," Truly said.
     Hitting that point home, Dar-man said, "America did not rise to
this remarkable position on the strength of votes for the status quo.
America will not preserve its position -- or fulfill its historic
responsibility -- with short-sighted votes of retreat," Darman said.
     "The moving concept, 'the American Dream,' has never been static
or closed or merely material.  Our culture has defined itself as
uniquely open, expansive, courageous, risk-taking, and
forward-looking -- not intimidated by limits, but challenged by them;
not crowded by technology, but determined to use it to advance man's
highest aspirations," Darman said.
     "And so it will be, one day, with the vast resources of space:
Future generations will be delighted to have developed them -- and
may even take them for granted," Darman said.
     Darman said each of the major arguments against building Space
Station Freedom represents "a curious fallacy."
     First, "The Deficit-Reduction Fallacy.  From a fiscal
perspective, the failure to appropriate $2 billion for Space Station
Freedom would not 'save' a dime.  Under the budget agreement, total
discretionary spending is set.
     "What is at issue is the allocation, not the total.  Indeed, the
appropriations committee has already proposed to reallocate and spend
every single penny that would otherwise go to Freedom," he said.
     Failure to fund Freedom would  reduce related jobs in 24 states,
and it would break international commitments to Canadian, European,
and Japanese partners.   Second, "The There's-gotta-be-a-better-way
Fallacy. . . Looking forward, one can confidently predict that there
will be better approaches than the current design, which may be used
in the future.  That is the nature of progress from a progressive
perspective, it is close to trite to note that there may be a better
way . . . Progress does not come without beginnings.  And if the rule
were never to proceed if better alternatives might be conceived,
there would be no beginnings.
     "A decision to wait for the 'better way' to space would be a bit
like telling the 19th-century wagon masters who led Americans west,
'Don't go to California now.  Wait a century and your descendants
will be able to fly to San Francisco by air,'" he said.
     Third, "The Spend-the-'savings'-on-science Fallacy.  There is a
group of well-meaning scientists and science advocates who favor
Freedom's cancellation in order to allocate the 'savings' to purer
forms of science," Darman said.
     Their positions rest on two premises:
     Number one, that space exploration is not a science.  This,
however, ignores the idea that exploration can enable, stimulate and
inspire science.
     Number  two, that 'savings' from reduced space exploration will
be given to other science projects.
     Darman said, "The reality is that appropriations will tend to do
exactly what the station-killing committee has proposed to do:  give
no more to science than in the President's budget; reduce station to
zero; and reallocate every single dollar thus 'saved' to
non-science."
     Fourth, "The Poor-return-on-investment Fallacy (Type One:
Methodological Error).  Some critics of Space Station Freedom
criticize it as if it were a single-purpose enterprise . . . But, of
course, Space Station Freedom is intended to serve multiple purposes,
and to expand incrementally with relatively low-cost modular
additions," he continued.
     Fifth, "The Poor-return-on-investment Fallacy (Type Two:
Imaginative Error). . . The obvious point is:  Exploration is up to
something somewhat larger than narrowly focused evaluations can
capture -- larger even than the pioneering participants themselves
can imagine . . . If Columbus's trip to America had been similarly
evaluated, he would have been forbidden to sail on the grounds that
the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria were not the most
cost-effective means to research motion sickness."


Partners Prepared to Explore Space Alone


     Testifying in June before a House panel, two of NASA's
international partners said they would pursue their own spacefaring
agenda if Congress abandons the Space Station Freedom program.
     "Failure by the United States to live up to its commitments in
the international space station partnership will fundamentally
influence Europe's plans, but not stop the pursuit of its own
ambitions to implement manned and man-tended orbital facilities,"
said Jean-Marie Luton, director general of the European Space Agency
(ESA).
     To date, Luton said, ESA's member states have spent the
equivalent of $1 billion U.S. dollars.  "Furthermore, Europe is the
second largest contributor to the international space station, and
plansto spend over five billion U.S. dollars to implement its
program, Columbus.  Of course, entering the international space
station project also represented a significant political commitment
on Europe's part, first to permanent manned use of space and, second,
to international cooperation," Luton said.
     Echoing those words, Dr. Kenji Funakawa, executive
vice-president of the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) of
Japan, testified,"Japan has made its best efforts to fulfill its
responsibilities to contribute to the space station program since we
accepted the U.S. invitation to the program.  Therefore, if the
program were to be canceled, our tremendous efforts in reforming the
organizational structure, securing contracts, taking part in
international restructuring activity, and securing support of the
Diet and the government would be all in vain.
     "This would not only have a great negative impact on the
Japanese space development program, but would make it difficult for
Japan to proceed in the future with international cooperative
programs with the United States in the field of space activities,"
Funakawa said.
     Because Canadian law prohibits officials from testifying in a
foreign country, no one represented the Canadian Space Agency.
     John Boright, deputy assistant secretary for science and
technology affairs with the state department, warned the House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that killing the Freedom
program would likely jeopardize all international projects involving
the United States.
     "Because of the space station's major foreign policy dimensions,
we are deeply concerned by the recent move in the Congress to kill
this important program," Boright said.
     "Our concern for continuance of the space station program
springs from the belief that a successful foreign policy must be
rooted in the concepts fundamental to the relationship of the U.S. to
its major friends and allies:  leadership, competitiveness,
reliability, and partnership," Boright said.
     "It is important to bear in mind that the Europeans, Japanese,
and Canadians accepted our invitation only after lengthy internal
consideration and debate.  The Canadians and Japanese had doubts
about making such a large proportion of their space programs
dependent upon a cooperative programwith the U.S.  One-half of
Canada's expenditures on space go to Space Station Freedom;  the
entire Japanese manned space program has been structured around the
Japanese Experiment Module (JEM), their contribution to the space
station.
     "In Europe there was intense debate between those who favored
cooperation with the United States and those who preferred investing
in autonomous programs competitive with our own . . .
     "They will incur significant additional costs related to U.S.
withdrawal from the program," Boright said.


ECLSS Water Scrutinized in Taste Tests at MSFC

     Most of us take for granted our seemingly endless supply of
fresh water.  Few of us give thought to the gallons we go through on
routine activities every day...not really knowing where it comes
from...or where it goes.
     However, scientists and engineers at NASA's Marshall Space
Flight Center are giving it a lot of thought.  They have the
responsibility for developing a water recycling system for America's
planned orbiting laboratory, Space Station Freedom.
     Each of the four crew members aboard Space Station Freedom will
use about 50 pounds of water a day.  Without an efficient system for
reusing this water over and over again, around 10 tons of water
would have to be sent to the space station every 90 days...requiring
special Space Shuttle flights just for the replenishment of the water
supply.
     "We couldn't afford to logistically carry that kind of weight
back and forth into space every 90 days.  We've got other cargo we
want to take.  And so the crew is depending on this reclamation
system to not only provide safe water but water that they would enjoy
using," said Kenny Mitchell.
     For months a group of 50 volunteers has visited a NASA
laboratory that simulates conditions on the space station.
     They've been exercising, cooking meals, washing clothes, and
showering  --  all to donate the kinds of waste water Freedom's crew
will produce and which engineers are using to test the water systems.
     Special systems collect their respiration and perspiration from
the area for reprocessing back into drinking water, and their shower
and wash water and urine are collected to reuse for wash and toilet
flush water.
     After it's processed and declared safe for reuse via a battery
of chemical tests, the drinking water is put through a much more
subjective human test to gather data that machines and chemical
analysis can't provide.
     "We're having 50 to 100 people taste the water, and give us
their subjective assessment of the quality of it.  It will be like
the old Coca-cola or Pepsi test where they don't know which one's the
real one, so they'll have some statistical data we can work with,"
Mitchell said.
     After they've recorded their evaluations, the test subjects are
told what they've tested.  "It was indistinguishable from tasting tap
water, I couldn't tell the difference," Robert Schmid said.
     "The water was much better than tap water, it has a much milder
flavor," Mary Delaney said.
     "It tasted very similar to tap water, and I rated it very high.
So there really wasn't that great a difference that I could tell,"
Mike Sosebee said.
     Based on the  initial results, the test director is confident
the team can overcome the remaining hurdles in this first-of-its-kind
technological development.
     "The data we're getting back indicates that the water we're
producing is very clean.  It meets all the water purity standards
that we've established for this test," Robert Bagdigian said.
     The water recycling system is to be installed on Space Station
Freedom later this decade.


Division to Help User Through Paper Maze

     Editor's Note:  This article,  the first of a regular series on
Space Station Utilization, summarizes the activities performed by the
Operations and Utilization Division.  Future articles will focus on
the utilization program and will present such topics as the station's
accommodations for user payloads, the process users follow to put
payloads onto Freedom, and the different types of users who will
likely use Freedom's capabilities.

     Space Station Freedom will offer users a new space research
opportunity:  long-duration human-assisted experimentation in a
permanently orbiting spacecraft.  From the beginning, one of
Freedom's primary program goals has been to design the station to
accommodate a wide range of user payloads.  The "Space Station
Freedom Operations and Utilization Division at NASA Headquarters will
push to achieve this goal by designing a set of policies and
processes to guide users' participation in the program."
     The Operations and Utilization Division is responsible for a
number of long-term utilization planning tasks.  The division works
with the science, technology and commercial organizations of NASA ?
known as the "user organizations" -- to identify what they expect
from the Freedom program.  This planning ensures that the station can
meet the user's needs and that each payload satisfies Freedom's
stringent technical and safety requirements.
     The Operations and Utilization Division also develops the
policies that guide how the program will  integrate a payload for
operations aboard Freedom.  Milestones with user selection, lead to
pre-launch processing -- such as payload testing user training and
safety reviews  -- and flight operations, and concludes with payload
deintegration and user debriefing.  Program planning for the payload
integration process is already underway, in anticipation of having
user payloads operating on Freedom by the mid-1990's.
     In addition, the Operation and Utilization Division is preparing
information to help the researchers throughout their involvement in
the Freedom program.  Brochures, user guides that describe the
utilization process, station capabilities, and user responsibilities
are now being developed.  As users are selected to participate in the
program, division members also will work with NASA's user
organizations to make sure payload requirements are met and the
integration process is followed.  An annually updated five year
strategic plan also will be provided.  The strategic plan will be
used by the program to manifest payloads to specific flights to the
station and for the development of detailed station and payload
operations plans.
     The Operations and Utilization Division also is responsible for
long-term planning for the station's operation.  The division
develops high-level operational requirements to ensure efficient
operation, maintenance and resupply trips.  Other operations
activities include developing operations cost management policies and
procedures, developing crew selection and training criteria and code
of conduct, and coordinating joint activities with the Space Shuttle
program.
     The Operations and Utilization Division also will make sure the
systems and facilities required to integrate and operate the station
are developed.  To accomplish this, operations and utilization has
set stringent requirements and has negotiated the multi-program
agreements designed to better assure that essential capabilities are
available when needed.  The division also is supporting the
development of advanced communications capabilities and information
systems to enable control and operation of station systems and
payloads on orbit.  As part of this effort, the division also
coordinates security issues within NASA.


Designers Meet to Discuss Standard Rack

     Designers from throughout the Space Station Freedom program met
in July to meld minds on the revised International Standard Payload
Rack agreement, also known as the Tokyo II agreement.
     The International Standard Payload Rack agreement is designed to
ensure that racks from one area of the station can be moved to a
different laboratory without changes, and so researchers can design
their payloads to fit in any rack.
     Each laboratory also must provide standard interfaces, standard
utility options, and module-specific utilities for all international
standard payload racks.  The racks also must accommodate two
side-by-side 19-inch standard drawers.
     Fitting all of the utilities in the limited space available
remains one of the designers' toughest challenges.  For instance,
making room for an air tube that runs in and out of the bottom of the
rack has meant experimenting with a variety of materials and shapes
for the tube.  "It's sort of like trying to put a jig-saw puzzle
together," said Livingston Holder, a Boeing technical liaison for the
internationals.  "This method may not be the most efficient way to
achieve tubing, but it's the best solution to meet the Tokyo
agreement for rack interchangeability.  This design is a little
easier for the European Space Agency and Japan to work with because
they have fewer utilities to consider."
     The program also is considering building 14 functional computer
mockups that will resemble the station's operational capabilities, so
"users can get a feel  for the make up of the system," Holder said.
"It will simulate most of the computer functions that will be
required for experiments, but it will not simulate the gases and such
that may be used."
     These computer mockups, if approved, should be ready for use by
October of 1993.  The different users divisions within NASA must then
decide who gets to use the mockups and when.  "It will depend greatly
upon the timing of the payload."
     Potential users of the station who attended the meeting also
learned that the program still eventually intends to provide
teleoperation from a researcher's own laboratory.  "That's what we're
working on, especially during the untended phases," said Steve
Noneman, a payload rack engineer with Marshall Space Flight Center.
     Noneman also said the role of the Payload Operations Integration
Center has basically remained the same.  "The biggest change is that
they will use the existing facility at Marshall, instead of a new
building."

JSC Issues Contract Modification for McDonnell Douglas

     The Johnson Space Center, Houston, has executed a supplemental
agreement that provides for changed requirements to the Space Station
Work Package 2 Design, Development, Test and Evaluation contract with
McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Co., Huntington Beach, California.
     This modification adjusts the contract to include the results of
the Space Station Freedom Program review activities of 1989,
including the change to requirements resulting from the Program
Requirements Review that occurred in September and October of 1988,
the Program Technical Audit of March 1989 and the Space Station
Freedom Program Configuration Budget Review of October 1989.
     These activities resulted in lengthening by 17 months the Work
Package 2 effort to June 30, 2000 and included such requirement
changes as architectural control document updates, change from AC to
DC power, addition of the responsibility for secondary power
distribution, addition of the Avionics Development Facility, and a
switch from hardware designed for flight to prototype such as
dedicated test articles.
     The negotiated amount for the modification is $597 million
making the new estimated value of the cost-plus-award-fee contract
$3.5 billion.  The majority of the work will be performed at
McDonnell Douglas facilities..


Station Evolution Begins with Today's Plans

     Eventual evolution of Space Station Freedom from the baseline
configuration begins now, said Office of Space Flight Chief William
Lenoir  and Johnson Space Center Director Aaron Cohen as they kicked
off an August evolution symposium.
     Lenoir, keynote speaker at the "Space Station Evolution: Beyond
the Baseline" conference, challenged more than 600 attendees to move
forward with the program as it is currently designed.
     "We cannot be afraid to move forward with something that's less
than perfect.  If (we stopped) every time we discovered a better way
to do something we would never get off the drawing board.  We would
still be talking about going to the moon."
     "During the past year we have been going through the birth pangs
of a new project not unlike those we experienced at the beginning of
Apollo and Shuttle," he said.
     Budget problems, intense public debate, technical issues and
schedule slips are nothing new to NASA, he said.
     "Those pangs in the birth of a program are really nothing
different and are typical of every program you have seen, but I have
to say that through the past year or so the space station project has
solved those problems," Cohen added.
     Outlining the completion of the preliminary design review in
July and station facilities construction projects completed or near
completion, Cohen said, "this is not a paper program, this program is
real and it's moving and it's going to be done."
     Reaching the goal of having a useful, permanent outpost in space
will be challenging, he said.
     "We must redouble our efforts to get costs down and quality up
and we must sharpen our sensitivity to the needs of the scientific
community and to the expectations of the American public," Cohen
said.
     Lenoir said the near-term challenge for a station capable of
being evolved is getting started now.
     "It's far better to do something, get started, figure out how to
do it better and get better.  That is what evolution is all about,"
Lenoir said.
     Freedom will help maintain United States leadership, he said,
warning that we are in danger of giving away what was handed down to
us.
     "We were handed a position of leadership from our parents and
grandparents.  If we are not careful, we will consume it and hand our
kids no leadership," Lenoir said.
     Reaching man-tended configuration with the station in 1996 and
permanently manned capability in the 2000 time frame remain prime
goals of the program.  But planners also continue to look to the
future.
     "The important thing is that we have a space station that we are
using so that we can learn what the real questions are we should be
asking," Lenoir said.
     The three-day conference investigated strategies, concepts, user
requirements, and growth potential for the international space
station.

    
    I was reading in a recent issue of Astronomy (or Sky & Telescope)
    an article about the periodic surges in the Leonid meteor shower.
    Apparently, every 33 years the meteor shower peaks.  As the last
    peak was in 1966, they predict that the next peak will fall
    between 1997-1999.  During past peaks they estimate that the
    number of meteors entering the atmosphere was on the order of
    150,000 per hour!
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the space station due for
    completion in the late 1990's?  I understand that the probability
    of a collision is low during NORMAL periods of activity, but
    is this really the best time to place such a huge structure in
    space?  

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              October 17, 1991
                                            4:00 p.m. EDT

Pam Alloway
Johnson Space Center, Houston

RELEASE:  C91-nn

     The Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, has awarded McDonnell
Douglas Space Systems Co., Huntington Beach, Calif., a modification
to the Space Station Freedom Program Integration Support (Schedule B)
contract.  Schedule B specifically involves the integration of space
station components.  JSC has a separate contract with McDonnell
Douglas to provide hardware components for the Freedom station
including the preintegrated truss, mobile transporter, the airlock,
the integrated nodes and various subsystems.

     The Schedule B modification extends the contract through
December 2001.  The modification was required following the
restructuring of the space station program earlier this year which
modified Freedom's design and pushed out the date for permanent
manned capability from July 1997 to September 1999.  The negotiated
cost-plus-award fee amount for the modification was $17,939,000.  An
additional option was negotiated for $9,537,000.  The option provides
for an incremental increase in the number of hours if additional work
hours are needed.

     The majority of the work will be performed at the McDonnell
Douglas facilities in Houston.

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                       November 15, 1991

RELEASE:  91-192


     Today at a meeting with all employees at the Reston, Va., Space
Station Freedom office, Arnold Aldrich, the Associate Administrator
for NASA's Office of Space Systems Development, said the space agency
intends to maintain a strong and effective team at Reston during the
Space Station Freedom development period.

     During his presentation, Aldrich outlined how the Reston office
will retain the level of resident expertise necessary to provide NASA
with the capability to carry out effective program management
functions.  Throughout the completion of the critical design review
phase, the Reston organization is expected to continue in its present
structure with responsibilities focussed on program management and
systems engineering to assure continued maximum program stability.  He
also said that while some system integration work and other areas of
Space Station Freedom may be assigned to NASA field centers, these
activities would be complementary to the efforts at Reston.

     Aldrich also pointed out that over the past year, the Space
Station Freedom program had enjoyed unprecedented stability and
significant program progress.  The program baseline developed under
the guidelines for restructure has been in place since January 1991.
The project preliminary design reviews conducted during the summer of
1991 and the recently completed Man-Tended Phase System Level
Preliminary Design Review have added substantial technical detail to
the baseline and have reaffirmed the viability of the current design.

     Aldrich did point out that as the program approaches the
operations phase in the mid-1990s, many development activities should
be approaching completion along with a natural buildup of support for
operations functions at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville, Ala., the Johnson Space Center, Houston, and Kennedy Space
Center, Fla., including software development, payload integration,
flight crew training, launch processing and mission operations.

    A final observation made by Aldrich was the fact that the 20
months of technical and programmatic progress from the end of
restructure, in January 1991 through completion of FY 1992, will take
Space Station Freedom more than a third of the way from restructure to
First Element Launch, scheduled for the second quarter of FY 1996.

Shuttle Experiment to INSPIRE Students, Individuals  to Learn

     High school students nationwide next year will help space physicists
with basic research on ionosphere radio waves.  This unique program and
the network of radio wave receivers established will likely be used aboard
future Shuttle flights, as well as Space Station Freedom.

     Known as INSPIRE (Interactive NASA Space Physics Ionosphere Radio
Experiment), the program could involve as many as 100,000 students, mostly
high school physics and other science students, amateur radio operators
and other private citizens  across the country, said Space Station Freedom
Chief Scientist Dr. William Taylor.

     Taylor is a co-investigator for SEPAC (Space Experiments with
Particle Accelerators), the experiment INSPIRE will support.   The primary
investigator for SEPAC is Dr. James Burch, who is with the Southwest
Research Institute.

     The program is being sponsored by TRW, Farallon Mesa Art and
Printing, and Micropower Systems, with the cooperation of NASA.  INSPIRE's
goal is to help the science team on an April 1992 Spacelab mission find
the ground footprint of radio waves that travel from space to Earth.

     "We are looking for assistance to do basic research that really
cannot be done in any other way.  I don't think anything quite like this
has ever been done.  Besides, there's no way we could afford to fund
thousands of professionals and outfit them with equipment; it would cost
millions of dollars," said Taylor.

     Students and other INSPIRE participants will record data when the
SEPAC experiment is turned on during the Spacelab Atlas mission next year.


     "Costs involved for the student project are minimal," said Bill Pine,
who is with the science department at Chaffey High School in Ontario,
Calif. "And my experience with a similar student project called ACTIVE in
1989-1990 has shown that the hands-on experience and other benefits, such
as enthusiastic students and teachers, results in a very attractive return
on investment."   Kits for students to conduct the experiment will cost
less than $50.

     Pine said he is convinced that the money teachers and schools spend
on the kits will not be wasted because the kits will be used more than
once.  "I believe that there will be similar radio wave length
investigations on other Shuttle missions and on Space Station Freedom.
Also, radio transmitters used for navigation can be studied with the
INSPIRE kit.  And the INSPIRE receiver can be used to study natural radio
waves.  For example, the source of most natural radio waves is lightning,"
Pine said.

     "Lightning generates a burst of electromagnetic radiation with a
broad range of frequencies including audio.  The audio signals can be
detected with an antenna and amplified with the INSPIRE receiver.
Although static is annoying when listening to a radio station, static
becomes fascinating when it is thought of as a natural radio source.  It
turns out that there are many kinds of static ranging from sharp 'pops' to
chirping 'tweaks' to musical 'whistlers'."

     "These sounds all have the  same source -- lightning -- but each has
been processed differently by a combination of the ionosphere and the
magnestophere. Thus, a study of natural radio waves with the INSPIRE
receiver can lead to an increased understanding of the physical world,"
Pine said.

     "A goal of INSPIRE is to create a network of monitoring stations
across the United States.  This will create an extensive data-taking
capability previously unavailable."



How High Schools, Individuals Can Participate

     High schools and individuals can help the SEPAC team and directly
enhance SEPAC's science return by participating in the program, which
would involve:

     Assembling an INSPIRE receiver from a nonprofit kit;

     Practicing data-taking procedures and techniques;

     Recording data on cassette tapes, based on SEPAC operation schedules;

     Sending data on cassette tapes to SEPAC for analysis; and,

     Receiving spectrograms, which are frequency time plots, of your data
for later study.

     The kit will cost less than $50.  In addition, students will need an
inexpensive stereo cassette recorder and blank cassette tapes to record
the data during SEPAC operations.

       For information, please send a business-sized self-addressed
envelope with two stamps to:

Bill Pine
Science Department
Chaffey High School
1245 N. Euclid Avenue
Ontario, CA  91762



NASA Launches Study of 90-Day  Orbiter Docked to Station

     Engineers are studying the feasibility of modifying the Space Shuttle
so it can stay in space up to 90 days, a capability that would
significantly increase Space Station Freedom use during the man-tended
capability (MTC) phase, William B. Lenoir, Office of Space Flight
associate administrator, said at a press briefing recently.

     "We'll have to assess how much bang for the buck we can get out of
this, but we think it will be worthwhile," Lenoir said.

     "We are looking at doing this so we can get as much research as is
reasonable from the space station from the man-tended phase until
permanently manned capability in 1999."

     The Space Shuttle program is already building toward a 16-day
mission, which will be routine by the station's first element launch in
1995.  A 16-day mission would allow three days for launch and landing,
leaving 13-days for actual station assembly, and for research aboard
Freedom once the U.S. laboratory is attached in 1996.

     The longest Space Shuttle mission so far has been 11 days, but
"we are looking at what it would cost to do better than the 16 days we're
looking at now," Lenoir said.

     The program probably would gradually build up to the 90-daystays in
orbit docked to the station, Lenoir said.  "The first year we might do 30
days, the second year we might build up to 60 days, and in the third year
we'd build up to 90 days."

     Money is not the only factor that will determine if this project will
fly, Lenoir said. "We also have some technical challenges that we will
have to better understand and overcome," he said.

     First, additional power generation capabilities will be necessary.
While docked to the station, the orbiter 's main power source would be the
station, Lenoir said.  The challenge will be to ensure that the Shuttle
can store enough electricity to return to Earth.  This may mean the
Shuttle either would have to carry a cryogenic pallet in its cargo bay,
deploy solar arrays, or use pressurized gas.  Second, the Shuttle's
existing auto-landing system would have to be proven, because the pilots
will have been in space for three or more months.  Third, engineers would
have to demonstrate the ability to shut down all of the Shuttle's fuel
cells on-orbit and then restart them, a task which has not yet been tried,
Lenoir said.

     Johnson Space Center also will be studying the stowage of food and
other consumables, as well as the requirements on Freedom and the Space
Shuttle fleet to reboost operations.

     NASA will be studying  this  program and possible flight experiments
during the next six to eight months.



Office of Space Flight Establishes Spacelab - Station Directorate

     Office of Space Flight Associate Administrator William B. Lenoir last
month created the Spacelab - Space Station Freedom Operations Directorate
to foster cooperation and communication between the two similar programs.
Lenoir named Dr. Robert Parker as the division's director.

     "We should achieve a great deal of synergy and efficiency in working
with the user community and in transitioning science and engineering
programs from Spacelab to Space Station Freedom," Lenoir said.

     "The new office will use Spacelab experience to provide effective
planning for space station operations and utilization and will seek to
strengthen and improve relations with the user community," Lenoir said.

     Parker's career with NASA includes serving as mission scientist for
the Apollo 17 mission and the program scientist for Skylab.  He was a
mission specialist on two Spacelab missions: Spacelab 1, the first flight
of the European Space Agency-developed laboratory; and Astro-1, a nine-day
mission, which was carried out last December.


Testing, Construction Under Way at Field Centers

     Space Station Freedom designers at Marshall Space Flight Center in
Huntsville, Ala., recently completed an acceptance test of the Hamilton
Standard predevelopment operational system test potable water processor.
This equipment will be used in the environmental control and life support
system testbed at Marshall.

     Marshall engineers also successfully completed a fire detection
system carbon dioxide dispersion tube test, as well as a hatch-latch
pressure development test.

     Construction continues at Kennedy Space Center in Florida on the
Space Station Processing Facility.

     Lewis' Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, has selected a single
supplier, Spectralab, to provide solar cells for Freedom's photovoltaic
solar arrays, which will provide electricity for the station.  Lewis
engineers also have initiated a photovoltaic plasma interaction test at
its electric power lab.  Acceptance testing also has begun on the
engineering model battery orbital replacement unit at the Lewis power
systems facility.  Another important test under way at Lewis will measure
the lifespan of the station's beta gimbal test equipment.

     Designers and engineers will use data gathered from these ground
tests to perfect the station's flight hardware.



Getting a Payload Aboard Station Is Hard Work

     When designers outfit a laboratory on Earth with scientific
equipment, they measure each room to decide how many equipment racks, work
benches, refrigerators, and other items will fit.  They order the
equipment and a delivery truck just pulls up to the back door.  Movers
unload the equipment, and carry it into place.

     Outfitting a laboratory that is cruising 220 nautical miles above
Earth's surface is not that easy.

     The U.S. laboratory, where most of the U.S. payloads will be housed,
will be about the same size as a small bus -- 27 feet long with a diameter
of 14.4 feet.  This may sound small, but this module will shelter several
of the life sciences and microgravity facilities, totaling 29 racks.
These facilities will be installed on the station by the year 2001 in the
U.S., European Space Agency (ESA), and Japanese laboratories.

     Getting that much hardware up to orbit -- and making sure it
functions properly -- will take a lot of detailed planning.

     Now that most of the science payloads are becoming better defined,
space station engineers can work with the individuals or organizations who
will do research (the users) on the station to determine how best to get
the payloads up to the station, and in what order.  How will we actually
get all those payloads from the ground up to the station?  Will the
building of the station interfere with the installation of the payloads,
or vice versa?  How much crew time will it take to install and check out a
payload in a lab module?

     Engineers plan to send the U.S. lab up to orbit in the Shuttle bay
either fully outfitted with payloads and support systems or nearly so.

     The utilization flights will be dedicated to both the transfer of
payloads from the ground to station, and to associated payload operations.
 Other Shuttle flights, termed "mission build" flights, will transport
elements needed to build the station.

     The users are currently scheduled to have eight utilization flights
between man-tended capability (MTC) in December 1996 and permanently
manned capability (PMC) in September 1999.

     By the first utilization flight, a "shirt sleeve" environment will
exist in the lab so the crew can work on the science payloads without the
constraints of a space suit.

     An average utilization flight will be 16 days long.  About 13 of
those days will be dedicated to the actual payload mission; the rest will
be used for launch and landing operations.  To stay in space so long, the
Shuttle may be equipped with an 'extended duration orbiter' kit that
provides extra supplies of oxygen, water and power.  Additional food and
clothing also will have to be brought in the Shuttle for these longer
flights.

     The payloads being transferred to station will be carried in the
payload bay in a mini-pressurized lo-gistics module (MPLM).  It is
referred to as 'mini' because it is a small version of the pressurized
logistics module (PLM) that will be used after PMC, when having a full
crew on orbit will require the transport of a large amount of housekeeping
supplies.

     Here is a typical scenario for a utilization flight:

     Payload hardware is first assembled into racks on the ground and
tested to make sure it will operate safely and as planned when finally
installed on orbit.

     These racks then are installed in the MPLM, in the Space Station
Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

     Next, the MPLM is placed in a transport canister, taken to the
Vehicle Assembly Building, and hoisted into a vertical position.  From
there, it is finally taken to the Shuttle, which is already sitting on the
launch pad.  It is hoisted up to the Shuttle, moved into the bay and the
Shuttle bay doors are closed.

     Because it probably will take several weeks from the time the MPLM is
placed into the payload bay until the Shuttle is ready to launch, there
may be a problem with loading animals and other perishable items that
usually need to be tended.  Space station engineers and science users are
working together to solve this problem.  Part of the solution may be to
store these items in the Shuttle middeck lockers, which can be accessed
just prior to launch.

     Once the Shuttle is launched and then has docked with the station,
the three or four crew members assigned to the payloads will start the
process of moving the MPLM from the payload bay to the station. The
station's robotic  arm will lift the MPLM out of the bay and attach it to
a space station hatch on the pressurized node.  The crew members will
board the station from the Shuttle through a different pressurized
berthing hatch and then go into the MPLM through the node.

     The payloads have to be moved very slowly and carefully, because
while they may have little weight in space, they still have considerable
mass.  If a crewmember pushes a payload rack too hard, it may put quite a
dent in a station wall.  And the crew member doesn't have a lot of room to
work in;  the square hatches are only about 50 inches on a side, just
enough room to push a rack through.

     Once the crewmember has pulled the rack out of the MPLM, guided it
through one or more hatches and around any corners into the U.S. lab, he
or she must connect it.  There are electrical, data, fluid and mechanical
connections that must be assembled and checked out.  The payload itself
must be activated and tested to make sure it works.

     When all the new payloads have been checked out, the crew can begin
to do space experiments using the new payloads and the ones that may
already have been on orbit.  For the remaining days the Shuttle is docked
to the station, emphasis is placed on experiments that need active crew
participation.

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.        December 6, 1991

RELEASE:  9l-200

     The Italian Space Agency (ASI) will design and develop two Mini
Pressurized Logistics Modules for the Space Station Freedom program
under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed with NASA today in
Washington, D.C.  The MOU was signed by Richard H. Truly, NASA
Administrator, and Prof. Luciano Guerriero, President, ASI, in the
presence of Italian Undersecretary of State Senator Learco Saporito.
The two agencies also agreed in the MOU to work toward expanding the
relationship to include provision of a Mini Laboratory as well.

     The Mini Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM) are pressurized
logistics modules capable of transporting user payloads and resupply
items in a pressurized environment to the Space Station Freedom and
returning necessary items to the ground.  The MPLMs will be capable
of remaining at the Space Station Freedom until the arrival of the
next pressurized logistics module.  The first MPLM is currently
scheduled to be transported to the Space Station Freedom by the Space
Shuttle in May 1997 and the second in August 1997.

     A final decision on proceeding with the design, development,
operation and utilization of the Mini Laboratory (ML) will be made no
later than February 1993.  The ML is a pressurized mini laboratory
which will include a subsystem rack and provisions for accommodating
a variety of research equipment.  In its initial usage, the ML will
be dedicated to life sciences research.  At a minimum, the ML will be
capable of accommodating a 2.5 meter tilting centrifuge and three
international standard payload racks.  The ML, if provided, would be
scheduled for launch in October 1999.

     In exchange for ASI's contributions, NASA will provide to ASI a
percentage of its share of utilization of Space Station pressurized
volume and accommodations for external payloads, a percentage of its
Space Station utilization resources and the opportunity for ASI to
provide Space Station crew.

So, the CIS, or I quess just the Russians now, have floated a proposal, worked
out with some NASA people, to launch Freedom on Energia. The proposal requires
three Energia launches and three shuttle launches. Basically Energia delivers
the pieces to orbit and the shuttle rendezvous with it. Astronauts from the
shuttle assemble the pieces. I read in the Boston Globe today that this
proposal has been endorsed by Ronald Reagan of all people.

Any comments? Does Freedom become more worth doing if it is cheaper and 
available sooner?

Mike H

    re .126
    
>Does Freedom become more worth doing if it is cheaper and available sooner?
    
    How much cheaper? Is it a drop in the ocean?
    How much sooner?
    
    I was going to say that using Energia would free up some shuttle
    flights which could then be used for something else but presumably
    doing so would negate the financial gains.
    

Energia can orbit 100 tons at a pop and costs what, 100million?  The shuttle
can orbit 32.5 tons per launch (pre-Challenger specs, less now) and costs
something like 250 million to launch.  Lots cheaper.

Someone must have more specific numbers.

Burns

I think I read about the proposal in AW&ST but it might have been the Globe.
There were specific numbers in the article. I donate my AW&ST to the local
library so I'll check Thursday when I'm upthere.

Mike H

Mitch Varnes                                       April 1, 1992

KSC Release No. 42-92

Note to Editors/News Directors

KSC  engineering and Space Station Freedom team members will
celebrate a milestone in the construction of  the  Space  Station
Processing  Facility  (SSPF) on April 3 when the final structural
steel beam is hoisted atop the giant building.  Movement  of  the
beam  and  subsequent remarks from KSC officials are scheduled to
begin at 2 p.m.

     The SSPF will be a KSC-operated facility occupied  by  about
1,000  NASA and contractor employees.   The three-story SSPF will
include   communications   and    electrical    control    areas,
laboratories, logistics staging areas, operational control rooms,
office  areas  and  a cafeteria.   The SSPF will have over 63,000
square feet of dedicated payload processing space, which includes
a high bay and intermediate bay.    A  5,000-square-foot  airlock
will be adjacent to the primary processing area.

     The  SSPF  is the biggest new construction effort undertaken
at KSC since the Apollo era.   Construction began in March  1991,
and the building is scheduled to be ready for occupancy by August
1994.

     The building was designed by Jacobs Engineering Group,  Inc.
of Lakeland,  Fla.  and is being constructed by Metric  Construc-
tors, Inc. of Tampa, Fla.  The building's cost is $56.2 million.

     News  media  wishing to cover the event should be at the KSC
News Center by 1 p.m.  for  transportation  to  the  construction
site.  Media representatives with permanent credentials may drive
directly  to  the  News  Center.    Those requiring access badges
should contact Lisa Fowler at 407/867-2468 to arrange access.
 

[Since they tend to ramble on for hundreds of lines, I thought it would be
 more appropriate to keep them in the archives than here.  If you think I'm
 being over-conservative, drop me a line....]


Station Break newsletters for Jan-Mar 1992 are available in:

   pragma::public:[nasa.station]station_break.*

Raw text files only (until my schedule lightens up)...


I'll post the availability of new issues as they arrive.


- dave

Article: 960
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
From: yee@trident.arc.nasa.gov (Peter E. Yee)
Subject: Skylab astronauts to test Space Station in underwater tank (Forwarded)
Sender: usenet@news.arc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Fri, 8 May 1992 23:19:26 GMT
 
Mike Simmons
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.                    May 8, 1992
(Phone:  205/544-0034)
 
EDITORS NOTE:  N92-42
 
SKYLAB ASTRONAUTS TO TEST SPACE STATION IN UNDERWATER TANK
 
	Lending their expertise with long-duration exposure to
microgravity, the Skylab IV astronaut crew will participate in a
series of underwater tests that will help in the development of Space
Station Freedom. 
 
	Jerry Carr, Ed Gibson and Bill Pogue will be diving in the
1.32 million- gallon Neutral Buoyancy Simulator at the Marshall Space
Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., which mimics the weightless
characteristics of space flight. They will be joined by former Space
Shuttle astronaut Bob Springer and former European Space Agency
astronaut Wubbo Oekls in tests to evaluate components for use in the
Space Station and to practice moving payloads from one module to
another using prototype developmental hardware. 
 
	The tests will be monitored by engineers representing NASA,
the Boeing Defense & Space Group (the prime contractor to NASA and the
Marshall Center on Space Station Work Package 1), and international
partners from the European Space Agency and the Japanese Space Agency.
 
	A 4-hour period has been reserved from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. EDT
on Wed., May 13 for media to photograph the tests.  Additionally, a
media availability has been scheduled from 10:30 to 11 a.m. that day
for media to interview the former astronauts and test subjects.  The
media availability and photo opportunity will occur at the Neutral
Buoyancy Facility in Building 4705.  Media planning to cover these
events should come to the Media Services Office, Room 101, in Building
42OO for badging and escort to Building 4705 by 10 a.m. to allow
enough set up time. 
 
	Carr, Gibson, and Pogue spent 84 days in orbit in 1974 - the
current record stay in space for American astronauts.  Springer flew
on Space Shuttle STS-29 and STS-38 missions in March 1989 and November
1990, and Oekls was a payload specialist aboard Shuttle's Spacelab D-1
mission in October 1985. 

6/16/92: SPACE STATION FREEDOM (SSF) UTILIZATION CONFERENCE TO BE
HELD, AUGUST 3-6, 1992 AT THE VON BRAUN CIVIC CENTER.

NASA is holding its first Space Station Freedom Utilization
Conference, August 3-6, 1992 in Huntsville, Alabama.

The purpose of the conference is to inform potential
researchers about SSF capabilities, plans and opportunities
for research and to provide a forum for the exchange of
information between Space Station program managers and
potential Space Station researchers.

The conference program will include speakers, exhibits and
mockups from the SSF Program, the NASA offices sponsoring
and developing Space Station payloads and the international
partners.

The speakers and exhibits will cover the status of SSF
development, the procedure for getting payloads aboard and
current SSF research objectives, plans and facilities.
Experienced space researchers will share results from past
investigations on Spacelab and describe their plans for
research aboard the Space Station. Three discipline splinter
sessions will cover life sciences research, technology
research and mircrogravity research.

Guided tours of SSF engineering mockups at Marshall Space
Flight Center will be given.

Full conference registration fees range from $70 - $200.
For registration information, call 1-800-448-4031 or
205-895-6010.

To receive promotional materials (posters or flyers) please
contact Deb Gilman of BDM International at 202-479-5250.
The NASA Headquarters contact is Barry Epstein (BEPSTEIN) at
202-453- 8203.

Article: 3181
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (ROBERT SHEPARD)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.local.texas,clari.tw.science
Subject: Move to kill space station fails
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:53:03 PDT
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The House, concerned about the potential loss of
thousands of jobs and world leadership in space science, Wednesday
defeated a move to cut off funds for the planned U.S. space station.

	The 237-181 vote to continue the program came despite arguments by
critics that the nation cannot afford the estimated $40 billion cost of
the space station and the money should be spent on other science
programs or domestic needs.

	Supporters of the project feared that budget pressures might cause
the House to vote against the project, as it did last month when the
House voted to halt funding for another costly and controversial science
project -- the super-conducting super collider being built in Texas.

	Supporters of that program have since worked hard to have the money
restored by the Senate, which could vote on the matter Thursday.

	Opponents of the space station have tried several times in recent
years to kill the program and made another attempt Wednesday during
consideration of the 1993 appropriation for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.

	The bill included $1.7 billion for the space station, which was $525
million less than what President Bush requested for the program.

	Rep. Bill Green, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the amendment to cut the funds,
called the space station ``a black hole'' that drains money from other,
more worthwhile science projects.

	Green said the space station should be killed and the country should
move on with ``a more balanced space program.''

	Defenders of the project said it is vital to the space program and
would provide an economic boost as well, generating as many as 75,000
high tech jobs.

	Rep. George Brown, D-Calif., chairman of the House Science, Space and
Techonology Committee, argued ``there is a direct and inescapable
relationship between our investments in research and development in this
country and our ability to promote economic growth and to provide jobs
for the people of this country.''

	Brown said the space station is ``the centerpiece of our invetment in
space,'' and, noting cuts already made in NASA's requests, said that 
``at a time when we should be increasing our investments in civilian
research and development we are cutting them to the bone.''

	Rep. Dick Zimmer, R-N.J., an opponent, noted that he original plan
called for the space station to have a crew of eight and be able to
carry out such functions as serving as a staging base, manufacturing
facility, space observatory, assembly facility and research lab, all for
a cost of $8 billion.

	Now the project is estimated to cost as much as $40 billion, carry a
crew of four, and serve only as a research lab, Zimmer said.

	The research ``is important, but is not worth $40 billion,'' he
argued, saying that ``instead of being a doorway to space, space station
Freedom will lock the door to space by diverting funds from other, more
worthwhile programs.''

	But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said the space station project
is vital to the U.S. aerospace industry, which he described as ``a
powerhouse for America,'' but which is vulnerable in the post-Cold War
period. If the station is canceled, ``the American aerospace industry
will be derailed in its transition from Cold War into a peaceful
competitive world.''

Michael Braukus
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                    October 6, 1992



RELEASE: 92-167

        NASA has awarded approximately $15 million in annual funding for 124
microgravity research grants to develop the research potential of Space Station
Freedom as one of the nation's premiere science and technology assets.

        "These awards are a major step towards the space station era of
microgravity research," said Robert Rhome, Director, NASA's Microgravity
Science and Applications Division, Headquarters, Washington, D.C. "The hardware
and experiments developed from these grants could make Space Station Freedom a
microgravity laboratory unrivaled by any other."

        The grants to the 119 researchers represent an increase of 70 percent
in the number of investigators sponsored by the microgravity division.  The
division now sponsors nearly 200 scientific investigators and plans to expand
to at least 300 before Space Station Freedom is operational in 1997.

        The selected investigators represent 60 universities, eight corporate
or private laboratories, five government laboratories and four NASA centers.
Nearly 500 proposals were submitted by scientists in response to the NASA
research announcements in fluid dynamics, biotechnology, materials science and
fundamental science.  The proposals were evaluated by peer review panels of
recognized experts in those areas.

- end -

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has revealed that
Australia may be the landing site for emergency evacuations from its planned
permanent space station, Freedom. One reason Australia is a prime candidate is
the famed Flying Doctor Service.

An "ambulance" vehicle - a Russian-made Soyuz spacecraft which uses a parachute
to slow its descent - will be docked at the station for medical emergencies or
if the station has to be evacuated.

Australia is favoured as a landing site for the ambulance because of its
geography, geology and stability. Mr Joseph Loftus, the assistant director
responsible for planning at NASA's Lyndon B. Johnson Space Centre, said that
the Great Victoria Desert near Lake Eyre in South Australia lies directly
beneath the space station's planned orbit. A large area of flat, featureless
and stable land was required to minimise risk to ground population.

A team of NASA space engineers is now visiting Australia for talks on the
proposal with the Australian Space Office and the Australian Geological Survey
Organisation. They have hired a train to take them to the South Australian
desert where they will assess potential landing sites.

The plan raises the possibility that NASA may prove to be the unlikely saviour
of the Flying Doctor Service, whose future has been under a cloud due to a
funding dispute between the Federal and State governments. But the proposal
will proceed only if NASA decides to use the Russian-made Soyuz space vehicle
which was built to land in the deserts of Kazakhstan. A decision will be made
on the landing vehicle late next year, and it should be operational by 1996.

- from Saturday's (Nov 14) Sydney Morning Herald; heavily edited.

[DG: The ambulance is welcome to land here but we'ld prefer it if this time the
station itself didn't. (-:

On a more serious note...Just how hard a landing does the Soyuz craft make? I
can imagine that the condition of a seriously ill stationaut might not improve
as a result of the landing. Also does anyone know whether they plan for night
emergency landings or whether there will have to be one or more other sites?]

If you're looking for some reading during the "dry" holiday here (made even
drier by the classified shuttle flight) -- additional Station Break newsletters
are available per reply .131.

- dave

    Re.131 (Dave Griffin)
    
    The "Station Break" files on 
    				pragma::public:[nasa.station]station_break.*
    
    Are not world readable, not the last 8 files anyway. Could you fix that.
    
    And don't forget to post a reply here everytime a new one is added there,
    as its easy to forget they are there.
    
    Gil

re .138
    
>    And don't forget to post a reply here everytime a new one is added there,
>    as its easy to forget they are there.
    
    I don't think this is a good idea. If Dave is willing perhaps he could
    establish a mailing interest list else failing that how about you set
    up a regular batch job that looks for new files and mails them to you.

All fixed.

- dave

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.              November 30, 1992

Billie Deason/Kyle Herring
Johnson Space Center, Houston


RELEASE:  92-212

     A group of NASA and Russian officials began 2 weeks of working group
meetings today at the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, to discuss the
feasibility of using the Soyuz TM capsule as a means of returning Space Station
Freedom crews to Earth in an emergency when the Space Shuttle is not docked at
the orbiting laboratory.

     NASA and NPO-Energia, a Russian company, will meet for the next 2 weeks
for a final review on the feasibility of using the Soyuz TM spacecraft as an
Assured Crew Return Vehicle (ACRV) for astronauts aboard the space station.
Various concepts are being considered for the ACRV, one of which is the Soyuz
spacecraft.

     "Many configurations have been analyzed to support the space station, and
the Soyuz TM with its three-person capability may provide an interim solution
to allow an early permanently-manned capability for Freedom," said Jerry Craig,
ACRV Project Manager.

     This meeting continues efforts between NASA and NPO- Energia that began
earlier this year when the two entered into a study contract.

     A number of the Russian participants in the working group sessions were
previously involved with the highly successful Apollo-Soyuz Test Project
conducted between the U.S. and USSR during the 1970-1975 time period.  This
will be their first visit to JSC since that time.
 

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                  December 1, 1992


RELEASE:  92-214


        Culminating 6 months of reviews, NASA today announced plans to
consolidate some management functions for the Space Station Freedom program and
create a contractor-led integration team to ensure the successful building and
deployment of the international space station.

        "These moves will improve overall program management and significantly
strengthen the integration of the various station elements," said Arnold
Aldrich, Associate Administrator for Space Systems Development. "We foresee no
schedule or budgetary impact from these changes.  In fact, when fully
implemented, these changes will reduce 'overhead' costs and strengthen program
execution and accountability."

        NASA plans to combine the existing Level 1 (Headquarters) and Level II
(Reston) Space Station Freedom offices in Reston, Va. This step will
consolidate overall program management at Reston. "Reston will remain the focal
point for the space station program for the foreseeable future," said Aldrich.

        NASA also is working toward establishing a Joint Vehicle Integration
Team (JVIT) at the Johnson Space Center, Houston. The JVIT will be staffed by
the 3 space station prime contractors (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and
Rocketdyne). NASA will manage the JVIT contract.

        "It is my strong view, which is shared across NASA senior management,
that these changes are essential to the successful implementation of this
program," said Aldrich. "Further, they are consistent with the findings of a
number of internal NASA reviews and with congressional direction.  The changes
are fully supported by the space station hardware contractors and by Grumman."
Grumman is the space station engineering and integration contractor who will
participate with the JVIT and who will continue at Reston as the program
integration contractor.

        Aldrich said, "With these changes, the civil service manpower level at
Reston will likely increase above the current level of about 210."

        Aldrich said Richard Kohrs will continue as Director, Space Station
Freedom and will be located at Reston. He added that the Deputy Director for
Program and Operations would be transitioned to the Johnson Space Center to
provide for full and effective management of the Freedom program, including the
JVIT.

        According to Aldrich, details of these changes will be spelled out in a
transition plan developed by Kohrs by mid-February 1993.  The plan will clearly
define the roles and responsibilities for the space station offices at Reston;
the Lewis Research Center, Cleveland; the Johnson Space Center, Houston; the
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; and the Kennedy Space Center,
Fla.

        Kohrs plan also will address longer-range plans to consolidate Space
Shuttle and space station operations by mid -1997 and combine the Shuttle and
station programs by late 1999. "This will result in significant economies of
scale in the outyear budget for space station operations and will greatly
improve the overall operations management of both programs," said Aldrich.

        "Over the course of the last few years, the men and women of the NASA
team have made substantial progress in meeting key program milestones," Aldrich
said. "However, as the program shifts its emphasis from design activities to
hardware development, manufacturing and integration, the buildup to support
these activities at the NASA Centers was planned and is required."

        Aldrich said these changes have been reviewed with the Office of
Management and Budget and the Congress and will be presented to the
President-elect's transition team in the near future.

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                           January 7, 1993

Kyle Herring
Johnson Space Center, Houston

Anne McCauley/Evelyn Smith
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace, Huntington Beach, Calif.

RELEASE:  93-7


        Static firing tests of a propulsion development test article for Space
Station Freedom began in late December at NASA's White Sands Test Facility
(WSTF) in New Mexico.

        The test series will validate the concept and preliminary design of the
propulsion module to be used for space station attitude control, orientation,
speed and altitude control and avoidance of space debris.

        "Freedom is no longer a 'paper-station'," commented Richard Kohrs,
Director of the Space Station Freedom Program in Washington, D.C.. "And the
beginning of critical tests with the propulsion module system at White Sands
represents the next and certainly not the last in a long string of reality
checks for Freedom focussing on launch of the first element in the assembly
sequence in about 3 years."

        "We have seen Space Station Freedom progress from concept to design and
now to validation of hardware," said Larry Morata, Vice President and General
Manager of McDonnell Douglas Aerospace (MDA) Space Station Division. "We are on
the way to constructing a facility that will promote science and exploration
for years to come."

        During Shuttle's second space station assembly flight, two propulsion
modules will be positioned on Freedom. Two more will be added following
man-tended capability and an additional pair will be added prior to permanently
manned capability.

        Early propulsion modules will have 13 thrusters located at both ends
and on top of each module.  On later modules, the number of thrusters will be
scaled down to nine.  The thrusters can be fired independently, allowing
precise positioning of the station.

        The article being tested in New Mexico has 10 small thrusters, each
with an operational range of 9 to 25 pounds of thrust and three large thrusters
with 20 to 55 pounds of thrust.

        MDA Space Station Division, under contract to the NASA Johnson Space
Center (JSC), Houston, is responsible for the development and testing.
McDonnell Douglas previously carried out structural dynamics and vibration
testing at JSC. The test series will continue at WSTF as needed to complete
validation of the design.
     Source:NASA Spacelink    Modem:205-895-0028  Internet:192.149.89.61

President Clinton's science advisor (Higgins? -- a former OTA head) has
publicly stated that the Space Station, as currently configured, won't fly.
It's just too expensive.   [He's also advising that the SSC physics project
be slowed down.]


[Heard on the radio the past couple of days...]


- dave

    Probably a VERY good move.
    
    At $30+B SSF is a turkey (or maybe a dog with fleas?).
    
    Tony

re .145
    
>    Probably a VERY good move.
>    
>    At $30+B SSF is a turkey (or maybe a dog with fleas?).
    
    There is no doubt that financial responsibility from the government is
    sorely needed but scrapping SSF will leave the US with low credibility
    as far as joint ventures with other countries are concerned, merely
    reaffirming the worries that they have had all along.

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Subject: Space station manager quits after criticism
Date: 12 Feb 93 23:30:15 GMT

	HOUSTON (UPI) -- The project manager of the space station resigned
Friday shortly after Sen. Bob Krueger, D-Texas, demanded his resignation
in an effort to save funding for the embattled $30 billion Texas
project.
	Krueger said in a press release that he received assurances from the
Clinton administration that the space station would continue to receive
funding, but at the same time he demanded that Project Manager John
Aaron step down.
	Krueger said Aaron must be removed because ``precious tax dollars
have been mismanaged. There is no question that a new management team
must get to work immediately to increase efficiency and productivity.''
	A statement from NASA's Johnson Space Center Director Aaron Cohen
said he agreed with Aaron on his resignation in the interest of the
Space Station.
	``The decision is part of ongoing reviews throughout the program as
we move into the hardware-building phase,'' Cohen said.
	Cohen praised Aaron's service with NASA and said he will continue to
support the space program as assistant director of engineering.
	Funding for the space station and the Superconducting Super-Collider,
both major Texas projects, have been questioned since reports last week
that the Clinton adminstration might kill them. Administration officials
denied the reports but did not rule out cuts in the funding.
	Krueger said he has won assurances that funding would continue for
the Space Station.
	``I have been called by the White House today, and I have been
assured that continued funding for the space station will be in the
president's recommended budget,'' he said. ``White House officials have
also assured me that there will be no significant job losses connected
with this project in Texas.''
	Krueger said he assured Clinton administration officials ``that I
will take immediate steps to insure that no tax dollars will be
mismanaged.''
	White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos was
peppered earlier with questions about Clinton's apparent desire to make
substantial cuts in the $8.3 billion superconducting super-collider and
steep reductions in the $30 billion space station, $8 billion of which
has been spent.
	``The president is not going to cancel the space station,''
Stephanopoulos said. ``I think what he's looking at is how to best
manage the system and control costs.''
	A senior White House official said Clinton would indeed request cuts
in both programs but is searching for a way to do it and ``be sensitive
to jobs.''
	Space experts say cuts of 40 percent or more would render the program
useless.
	``We want to be sure we don't cross that'' line, the official said.
	Deputy Project Manager Jack Boykin will serve as acting manager of
the space station until a permanent replacement is found.

    Most of the cost of the Space Station Freedom are Space Shuttle
    costs are they going to cancel that too ... (-; 
    
    Anyway did anyone hear any specifics about how NASA is affected
    by the president's "500 Billion" program announced last week.
    
    Gil

    Pure guess work....
    
    I suspect that overall NASA's budget will be unchanged, but that the
    emphasis will shift from the 'S' to the first 'A'.  That is from space
    to aeronautics.  The new administration appears to be sensitive to
    claims that Europe, with Airbus, is subsidizing aerospace for the
    future and probably intends to counter that.
    
    I would not be surprised to see support for a second generation (after
    25+ years can it only be called a second generation?) SST before the
    end of Clinton's first term.
    
    Tony

    re .146
    
    Scrapping is probably not the word.
    
    But I suspect that perhaps $10 billion will be cut off the cost.
    
    Tony

  I have to agree with Tony here. While I'm emotionally in favor of seeing the
Space Station built, it just isn't practical in it's current design considering
the limits of the Shuttle. 

  When this station was 1st designed, it was based on a Shuttle program that
was suppose to make 24 flights per year. For reliability it depended on the
Shuttle being able to quickly reconfigure not only for emergency rescue flights
but also to allow normal flexibility in the use and repair of a permanently
manned station. As we all now know the Shuttle program is lucky to hit double
figures in flights per year and the schedule is cast in stone at least two
years in advance. 

  Providing a rescue system would involve inventing something not yet on the
books. The ideas tossed around of an Apollo or Soyez being used for rescue are
not at all workable since the majority of people who are scheduled to use the
station would have a difficult time flying in one of those craft. Imagine
pulling 8 g's during reentry or making a hard ground "capsule" landing in
perfect health, much less sick or injured. 

  Realistically the only way the Station would ever be used before the Space
Plane is operational is with a Shuttle attached. When it went home, the people
would have to go home or risk being stranded in space. That being the case,
there is probably little the station could do that Spacelab or a much simpler
station couldn't do almost as well. 

  A much cheaper type of station like Mir or Skylab with modern "pluming" (i.e.
modern electronics, modern lab equipment) designed to be launched and used with
little outside repair and no outside construction would make a lot more sense.
It could be attached to the ESA Columbus module and could run tests and
experiments automatically or by remote control during those times when it is not
manned with the Shuttle or Hermes attached.

  It's the right move. It's too bad that this step wasn't taken 10 years ago
when it became obvious that the Shuttle would never be able to support a more
complex station. 

  George 

re .151
    
>While I'm emotionally in favor of seeing the Space Station built
    
    I'm just in favour of *something* being built. There is significant
    inefficiency in continually redesigning, rescoping and/or eventually
    scrapping projects.
    
    Your points about the shuttle flight rate and flexibility (and cost, if
    you mentioned it) are all well taken.
    
>Imagine pulling 8 g's during reentry or making a hard ground "capsule" landing
>in perfect health, much less sick or injured. 
    
    I have to agree with you there as I raised the same concern back in .136.

>That being the case, there is probably little the station could do that
>Spacelab
    
    I don't think Spacelab is a realistic alternative to any kind of space
    station. It is somewhat limited in power available and wastes launched
    mass by going up each time. There are also some experiments that would
    benefit by longer run times.
    
>or a much simpler station couldn't do almost as well.
    
    Probably, if it provides a power source independent of the Shuttle and can
    be left to run autonomously for extended periods of time. This probably
    implies some kind of environment control although not necessarily full
    life support etc. Telerobotics would sure help here but I am afraid that
    if such technology became a pre-requisite then we would see even the
    alternative simpler station disappearing into the future.

    Shuttle costs  are not going away whatever happens to the station,
    so they should go ahead and build the darn thing once and for all.
    
    I must admit that this start / stop / re-design / re-aprove / re-budget
    station process is getting to me.   By GOLLY  once congress  commits to 
    something  it  should  stay commited, and not change anything with less 
    then a two thirds vote.
    
    A project of any magniture will cost twice as much and take twice as
    long if it is continualy re-started. And that goes DOUBLE for public
    projects...  Now here something the democratcs can really do for the
    USA while they are in power: revamp the whole governament aproval and 
    budget process. (this is something I and most people would vote for)
    
    Puclic projects such as the station, the general economy, and all tax 
    payers would all benefit. By the removal of the continual uncertainty 
    that the existing process brings about.
    
    Gil

RE starting over again 

  There is an old saying that says you don't throw good money after bad. I
agree that it's not good to keep starting over again but regardless of how many
times you've restarted, if you have a bad plan, it won't work. And running a
station of Freedom's complexity based on the shuttle program is a bad plan. 

  At 1st it was an honest mistake. The people who originally designed the
Freedom Space Station did so with the old shuttle estimates in mind of 24
flights per year. In fact, if memory serves correctly, at one time I believe
they were saying the Shuttle would fly 12-24 times a year per shuttle with a
two week turn around time. In either case, the estimate was wrong. 

  The real problem was that about the time it sunk in that the Shuttle could
only fly a small fraction of it's original planed capacity, politics prevented
the total redesign that was needed. Some number of managers from Dan Quayle on
down through NASA management to the Freedom Space Station program office kept
insisting on the grandiose plan of a permanently manned station. This was
done in spite of the fact that it was obvious that the station could only be
manned with a shuttle attached and that would limit them to about 2 or 3 visits
per year of 2 or 3 weeks each. 

RE power and other capabilities 

  When I said that Space Lab or a Mir type station was just as effective as the
Freedom Design I was well aware of the limited power capacity and other limited
capabilities. I still say that Space Lab or a Mir type station would be just as
effective as Freedom because you can't use what you can't reach. 

  Putting an enormous amount of money into a system that can only be used 6 or
7 weeks out of a year makes no sense no mater how much capability exists. If a
station is going to be useful it has to be able to run unmanned for over 40
weeks per year and it has to be able to survive gaps of up to 2 or 3 years
without any visits at all which is very likely to occur following any sort of
Shuttle system accident or program failure. 

  Maybe Hermes will take the pressure off a little, but I would have to see to
believe any claim that Hermes will have much more capacity than the Shuttle.

  Freedom was a nice idea and if we ever get to the point where we can fly 24+
cheap flights per year with at least 12 being dedicated to the station then it
would be great to go ahead and build a massive space station. Until then we
need a generation of stations that can run at least 80% on autopilot. 

  George 

    re .153
    
    >Shuttle costs  are not going away whatever happens to the station, so
    >they should go ahead and build the darn thing once and for all.
    
    I couldn't DISAGREE more.  To me its foolish to build a space station,
    anywhere near the scope of Freedom with launch technology at its
    present state.  
    
    The right answer is not a space scation, but rather spend that smae
    money on ways to get us to space cheap.
    
    Why kill for only $500M/year the X-30 and fund the space station?
    
    What if Delta Clipper works?
    
    Lower your launch costs, THEN build the station.
    
    Tony

    re .154
>  Maybe Hermes will take the pressure off a little, but I would have to see to
>believe any claim that Hermes will have much more capacity than the Shuttle.
    
    Hermes' payload is a lot less than the shuttle. It more akin to the
    X-20 program in that the Hermes (and it's crew) IS the payload.
    
    FWIW, a number of the ESA members are pushing back on Hermes as too
    expensive.
    
    gary

    Build a Space Station when there is sifficient reason to have one.
    
    So come up with a REASON, first,
    
    then cheap access to space
    
    then a design.
    
    
    Gregg

  I think there are plenty of reasons to have a space station. There are many
space sciences and there is the idea of using it as a stepping stone to travel
to the Moon or Mars or as a stepping stone toward setting up space colonies in
various places (L9? I forget the number). 

  Problem is, if you can't get to it, or if you can only get to it for 6 weeks
out of a year, it doesn't do much good unless it is highly automated and only
needs to be serviced 2-3 times a year.

  George

    I will ammend my list thusly:
    
    Get cheap access to Space - we need it no matter what.
    
    Then come up with a good set of reasons for a Space Station (there
    aren't any George - same voodoo the spinoff argument).
    
    Then build the station...

    Greg,
    
    I finally have someone in agreement with me!
    
    For about 3-4 years I have been saying that our first priority in space
    should be cheap access.
    
    It is the linchpin on which everything turns.
    
    Tony

  I think that everyone agrees that cheap access to space is the most important
thing but no one knows how to accomplish it. 

  Everyone's confidence in NASA's return on investment estimates was shaken by
the fact that they were so far off with the Shuttle. Now they are talking about
various single stage to orbit solutions as being the way to go, but if you look
at what takes the time, stacking the throw away stuff is not always on the
critical path. 

  It's refurbishing (actually overhauling) the orbiter between missions that
takes a large amount of time and money and the Space Plane designs don't seem
to address that problem. What's different about the Space Plane that will mean
it doesn't take 6-10 weeks of work in the Orbiter Processing Facility before
being rolled out for launch like the Shuttle does today? 

  It will probably take a 2 or 3 generations of the Space Plane, X-30, Delta,
or what ever they call it before we really have a low orbit capability that
looks anything like airline or air freight in terms of scheduling. Most likely
it will take 20-30 years to go through all of those generations. 

  In the mean time, an advanced Skylab/Mir type of station that is highly
automated would be the way to go. It should be designed to deploy and operate
like Skylab/Mir as apposed to being constructed in space, and it should be
designed to run on it's own or with 2 or 3 test pilots for all but 6-7 weeks a
year when others would be on board with the Shuttle or Hermes attached. 

  In fact, one good bet for now would be for NASA, ESA, and the Russians to cut
a deal and build the whole thing around Mir. 

  George 

re .154
    
>I still say that Space Lab or a Mir type station would be just as effective as
>Freedom because you can't use what you can't reach.
    
    I'm agreeing with you in respect of a Mir type station being a viable
    alternative. I don't agree with you about Spacelab. Since one of the
    main problems with the current SSF design is being dependent on the
    Shuttle it doesn't seem to make sense to make your alternative
    dependent on it too. If the only alternative to SSF is Spacelab then I
    would have to agree with other replies saying fund NASP and DC (and by
    implication delay any kind of space station until they are operational).

>  Maybe Hermes will take the pressure off a little, but I would have to see to
>believe any claim that Hermes will have much more capacity than the Shuttle.
    
    Hermes might be an emergency backup but I think with ESA stretchouts
    Hermes isn't going to fly this millenium.
    
re .?
    
    It's L5.
    
    
    Just to throw the cat among the pigeons...
    
    I would rather NASA concentrate on a lunar base - or, at this stage,
    do the R&D for it. I'm assuming that lunar resources are sufficient
    to avoid supplying everything from Earth. Naturally some work on closed
    loop life support systems would benefit either a lunar base or a space
    station. Doing 0g research in lunar orbit from the lunar surface would be
    much easier energetically relative to LEO from the Earth's surface.
    Additionally the lunar surface may avoid some of the problems of
    weightlessness (both engineering and biological). Flame away...

    George,
    
    I said FIRST step, not the most important.
    
    Forget every other manned space mission until you have cheap access. 
    Keep up the unmanned exploratory craft (maybe even increase the effort
    there?), but stop manned space flight until you have really cheap
    access.
    
    I think there are a few things you can do that will cut down the
    processing time.  The single most important is simpler engines.  SSME's
    are very complex, finicy things.  A ramjet has virtually no moving
    parts!  I'm not sure about a scramjet, but I have even heard of
    external combustion scramjets, so I think engine wear and tear and
    testing will be vastly reduced.
    
    Don't discount the cost entailed in et and solids fabrication and
    mating, I think there is probably a good deal fo cost there.
    
    Also, who says you have to stack a space plane?  Maybe you can even run
    off a standard runway, VASTLY reducing your infrastructure investments.
    
    But I, regretably, agree with you, it will probably be 20 years before
    we have something like a SSTO that works.
    
    I wish it weren't so.......
    
    Tony
                     

    Actually, I kind of like .162's suggestion at the end.  But, I fear
    taking that step without SSTO craft.  The cost could be huge, even
    compared to apollo.  
    
    Tony

    re .164
    
    If it's the "bootstrap" launching that is the concern, perhaps Russian
    launchers could be used. I have to admit that I don't have any idea of
    the bootstrap mass required.

  I don't know Tony, if I were a Congressman and NASA were coming to me saying

     "We are going to build this new Single Stage to Orbit Space craft that:
        Uses jet engines to take off a regular runway,
        Uses a ram jet that burns Kerosene to get up to Mach 5-7,
        Uses a ram/scram jet that burns Liquid Hydrogen to get to Mach 10-12,
            (Oh and by the way the air intake system will make the super
            colider look like a child's toy),
        Uses some sort of SSME to get to Mach 24,
        Uses a Space Shuttle OMS system while in space,
        Don't worry about tiles because we have something new for reentry,
        but NO PROBLEM, It will be cheap and easy to run and will fly every
            other day", 

  I'd be very reluctant to believe it without seeing it. I'd want to see
plenty of prototypes developing all of those scram jet concepts before I kicked
in 10s of billions for a major deployment of the system.

  In the mean time, a nice system could be build around MIR involving:

    Columbus attachments to MIR for advanced space research,
    A power module built by NASA (attached and deployed, not built in space),
    Modern test components that could be automatic or watched over 40+ weeks
        per year, by Russian or NASA test pilots capable of flying Soyez,
    6-7 weeks a year of work by scientists with a Shuttle or Hermes attached,
    A more modern and comfortable habitat module for when non test pilots visit.

  That sounds like a nice system that would hold us over until the cheap
access to space came along.

  George

    George,
    
    You have got the X-30 ALL WRONG!
    
    First, while there might be turbojets, there probably will not be
    multiple fuels (lat I heard).  That is it would be a turbojet running
    hydrogen.
    
    Secondly there will be no seperate ramjet and scramjet.  It will be one
    engine.
    
    And the top speed of a scramjet is considerably above mach 12.
    
    And you don't need nothing like an SSME at mach 20 and 100K feet to
    achieve orbit.
    
    And the air intake syustems won't be THAT bad, Watchasatie Texas is
    another place that gives me heartburn.
    
    But I agree with you that I woudl need major tests before committing
    10's ofg billions.  Heck even billions.
    
    BUT, you ahve given me no reason to support your limited system.  I
    still think it is a waste of money.  Not needed.  Sure, its 'a nice
    system'.  What's its mission?  What would be the mission of Freedom?
    
    At least with X-30, you might get a ramjet HST for little cost.
    
    Tony

    if the next space vehicle is NOT the easy cheap access vehicle. THen
    NASA shold map out a plan to get us thee. a series of vehicles all
    testing technologies, if necessary.

RE How simple is it to get to space with one stage.

  The single stage to orbit vehicles which I've seen explained all seem very
complex and all seem to push the state of the art much further than we've ever
seen before in one single step. Unlike the shuttle which was based on the
lifting bodies that had been flown from Edwards and Liquid Hydrogen engines
based on the ones in the 2nd stage of the Saturn V, the single stage to orbit
designs seem to be based on very new technology. 

  Some designs call for multiple fuel vehicles that use carbon based fuels to
take off, liquid Hydrogen ram/scram engines to get near orbit speed and
something else to get into orbit. Others seem to depend on extremely complex
mechanical devices so that one engine can be efficient in the lower atmosphere
then reconfigure itself to breath thin air in the upper atmosphere.

  All this to be done every flight by an agency which has trouble opening an
umbrella shaped antenna or unreeling a spool of wire in space. I don't believe
for a second that this will take anything less than 3 generations to get it
all working and then it will be very expensive.

RE Is there anything to do up there today.

  There are very many interesting things that could be done in space today in a
more automated Mir/Columbus type station with Shuttle/Hermes/Soyez/Progress
support. 

    - Research into the growth of rare earth elements into crystals could
      provide the basis for a technology which would make super computers
      that would run rings around the fastest Alpha we can produce today.

    - Study of the upper atmosphere could have dramatic effects on controlling
      environmental problems such as Ozone depletion, green house effect, etc.

    - Space based health studies could give us a huge head start on solving
      problems that people will encounter on extended space flights of the
      future such as trips to Mars and long space station visits.

    - Techniques could be developed to generate food, water, air, and fuel in
      in space that could be used later when extended space travel becomes
      common (i.e. Biosphere III).

    - As more complex space telescopes are deployed, they could be maintained
      from the station if they were placed in a compatible orbit. This would
      work particularly well for telescopes made from coordinated sets of
      mirrors or infrared telescopes that have to be refueled with liquid
      helium.

  And those are the things I spun off the top of my head. There's almost no
end to the space research that could be supported or actually carried out
today in a more limited space station.

  George

    Sure it would be nice to have cheap access to space, in fact that
    is what we tought we were getting... with the Space Shuttle.
    
    But I think the last 20 years have proven that doing things serialy
    is not too good an idea. Ex: the original plan was to get cheap
    access to space (i.e. the Space Shuttle) then go on from there with
    a Space Station, then the Moon and Mars programs.
    
    But look at what happened after waiting 20 years for the Space Suttle, 
    maned access to space is MORE expensive then before AND we got NO Space
    Station, and NO Moon or Mars programs going yet. 
    
    On the other hand if we had kept going with the Apollo rockets, 
    without a doubt we would have a hell of a Space Station by now. They
    started with Skylab and could have kept going on from there. And we 
    would probably have at least a Moon base as well. As for the Space 
    Shuttle it would probably now be a better vehicle and a cheaper one, 
    because the pressure for it to do everything for everyone would not
    have been there.
    
    I think that we can and should move towards cheaper space access, but 
    that should not prevent us from building a Space Station and starting 
    the Moon base and Mars programs right away.  Investing for the future 
    is nice but its better if you start getting your returns immediatly. 
    And depriving yet another generation of the adventure of maned space
    exploration is not a good idea, the spirit of it might be lost.
    
    I don't know about you, but personally I hate the idea that I may be
    dead before bases are established in the Moon and Mars.
    
    Gil

    Gil,
    
    All that parallel effort takes a lot more money than NASA is getting
    now. and even inthe mid 80's NASA was not overfunded.
    
    And the track record of successfully reaching objectives (i.e. cheap
    access to space with the shutle) has not been good.
    
    Gregg

  That's why using Mir would be the best of both worlds. We could pay the
Russians to use and upgrade Mir a fraction of what we would have to pay for a
completely new station. Some new electronics, life support, and pluming from
the shuttle program and adapters for docking the Shuttle or Columbus modules
and we (the world) would have a fine space station dirt cheap. 

  George

    how closely does MIR match the power requirements of our own equipment?
    
    what is the inclination of MIR's orbit? How difficult will it be to get
    to it?
    
    how much room is there to do what we want to do?

>how closely does MIR match the power requirements of our own equipment?
    
Don't know. We probably couldn't put the types of loads our module
would require onto their system. Assume our module would be self-powered
(as are each of the new Mir modules that the Russians have added)

> what is the inclination of MIR's orbit? How difficult will it be to get
> to it?

We've been within visual range on previous missions. There is already
a plan to dock the Shuttle with Mir in a future mission (I believe)

> how much room is there to do what we want to do?

Adding a room is a lot different than creating a station from scratch.
Being able to have something to go up to is important in the near term.

Having something "mostly unattended" with a "landlord" onsite has some 
advantages over the LDEF type of approach. I see some real advantages to 
moving into a neighborhood already occupied.

RE: <<< Note 282.174 by GAUSS::REITH "Jim 3D::Reith MLO1-2/c37 223-2021" >>>

>> what is the inclination of MIR's orbit? How difficult will it be to get
>> to it?
>We've been within visual range on previous missions. There is already
>a plan to dock the Shuttle with Mir in a future mission (I believe)

Right; within a year or so in fact. Docking hardware has been built and I
think even been brought up to Mir.
						-- Tom

  Mir is modular. New components can be added. One possibility would be for
NASA to work with the Russians (actually I think it's the Ukrainians who build
the modules) to build a Mir type module with western electronics. The equipment
would be build in the U.S. or an ESA country and taken to the Ukraine to be
installed in the module before launch. Adapters could be build to make it all
compatible with the Russian equipment already on board. 

  Also, didn't the Soviet Space note say that the central section of Mir was
due to be replaced at some point soon? It may not be too late to add some
components compatible with western electronic equipment. 

  George

RE: <<< Note 282.176 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  Also, didn't the Soviet Space note say that the central section of Mir was
>due to be replaced at some point soon?

Yes; the hope is to launch the core of Mir 2 in the next few years. Funding
issues are a could in the plans, however. I keep thinking about NASA getting
together with the Mir folks on space stations; kill two birds with one stone?
						-- Tom

    what do you guys mean by "module"?
    
    a separate living space connected at an airlock?
    
    a rack mountable instrument?
    
    if it's the former, then whaat's the use of connecting it to Mir.
    
    if it's the latter, then what about the power differences (if any)?
    
    are you thinking of an instrument pallet connected to MIr for control
    but with it's own power?

    re .last few
    
    Or how about you pay the CIS to build your own copy of Mir, but at
    the same time incorporate certain US specified improvements?
    
    Undoubtedly that would cost less than designing SSF from scratch but
    more than just adding a module to the existing Mir. It would be a
    sensible incremental improvement on an existing design. You could
    outsource the logistics supply and crew rotation through a service contract
    i.e. they launch Progress tankers etc. for your Mir just as they do for
    their own now.
    
    The fact that you would have your own space station (albeit NIH) would
    mean you could conduct whatever experiments you like and decide on how
    to utilise what would certainly be a scarce resource. As long as your
    Mir was reachable with the Shuttle you could eliminate technology
    transfer issues while low tech stuff goes up with the supplies.
    
    P.S. pluming is not the same as plumbing

RE  <<< Note 282.178 by CFSCTC::SBOATS::GERMAIN "He's the Iceman - a Hunter!" >>>

>    what do you guys mean by "module"?

  Large chunk that gets launched from Kazakhstan on a Soviet booster and docks
with other Mir modules.
    
  As I understand, each chunk of Mir has it's special purpose. People live in
one section, do lab work in another, have telescopes in another and so on.
That's why it makes sense to hook them all together. Also if they are all in
one place, Shuttle or Progress flights can service the whole thing and test
pilot "land lords" flying a Soyez could watch over all of the experiments. 
    
>    [...] what about the power differences (if any)?

  Obviously it would take some work to resolve all the problems but it seems
that getting a NASA gyzmo to run off 220 instead of 110 or direct instead of
alternating shouldn't be that big a problem. Norelco has a shaver that runs on
different power supplies so if they can figure it out, NASA should be able to
figure it out. 

  I can see a few generations.

    Generation 1

        - NASA and ESA fly Shuttle missions to Mir and use the Shuttle for
          living space while on board and work on Mir Equipment.
        - Russian test pilots teach western astronauts about living and
          working in Mir
        - Russians do other work as normal.

    Generation 2

        - A new Mir Module is built that can be connected to the Mir station
          but has power converters and racks to support NASA/ESA equipment
        - Russian and western test pilots flying from Soyez watch experiments
          when scientists are not on board.
        - Shuttle is used to bring scientist for 2-3 week visits. Scientist
          live on shuttle while test pilots live on Mir.
        - Progress is used for supply.

    Generation 3

        - A new Mir Central Module is designed and build by both the east
          and west. ESA Arbitrator has big hammer and scissors to keep
          chopping NASA plans back down to reality. This is basically a
          Mir station with modern electronics, not a new type of station.
        - A new Mir module is built with modern Shuttle living conditions so
          scientists can live on Mir and work comfortably.
        - Columbus modules attached to new Mir Central Module.
        - Russian and western test pilots flying from Soyez watch experiments
          when scientists are not on board.
        - Shuttle is used to bring scientist for 2-3 week visits. More Shuttle
          space available for cargo since scientist are living in Mir.
        - Progress is used for supply.
          
  George

    but......but.......if we use all or part of a MIR, we won't be able to
    enjoy all these marvelous spinoofs that many of you talk about! We
    won't research and build our own station and therefore won'tbe
    discovering any nifty new stuff.......

We'll be making the station, we'll just be sitting next door and using 
space WHILE we build the station. This isn't the end of the line. This 
is just an easier/cheaper way to bootstrap the process. The initial 
version of Freedom wasn't "all there was going to be". It was just a 
foothold to have something/where to work from. First you get there, 
then you expand as it makes sense. Think of it as the contractor's 
trailer at the jobsite.

re .181
    
>    but......but.......if we use all or part of a MIR, we won't be able to
>    enjoy all these marvelous spinoffs that many of you talk about!
    
    We're attempting to make realistic responses to budgetary constraints.
    New president, new agenda ... there's not much point maintaining that
    it's got to be a 30 G$ from-the-ground-up station or nothing (else
    you'll probably end up with the latter).
    
>    We won't research and build our own station and therefore won't be
>    discovering any nifty new stuff.
    
    True you'll miss out on some things. However I view the most useful
    function of the space station in the short term not as the research itself
    but as a research tool in areas such as materials processing and bio-
    technology. Hence the station would be used specifically to discover
    nifty new stuff.
    
    (NB: I am not saying that a space station is the only way to conduct
     this research. Unattended or infrequently attended platforms have also
     been discussed in this topic. Some researchers are using parabolic
     flights, sub-orbital craft and even just dropping the experiment as
     limited but even cheaper alternatives.)
    
    Research leading to commercially viable results would do a lot to
    ensure the future of space ventures, independent of fickle legislators
    and the vicissitudes of politics.

Jeffrey Carr
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                February 25, 1993

RELEASE: 93-038

NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin has named Dr. Joseph
F. Shea to oversee the redesign of the Space Station and
has provided new policy direction for Space Station
contract cost management during the design transition.

Shea has been appointed Assistant Deputy Administrator
of the agency and will be directly responsible for
leading NASA's efforts to develop options for the
redesign of the Space Station, its mission and
management structure.

A candidate also will be named, shortly, to establish
and chair a blue ribbon panel of outside experts to
review and assess NASA's redesign concept and approach.

"I have asked Joe Shea to come back to NASA to head the
redesign effort.  He has recently been serving as the
Acting Chair of the NASA Advisory Council and brings a
wealth of knowledge and experience to this critical
task," Goldin said.

"Joe will be responsible for assembling a team that will
involve a variety of individuals from across NASA and
our international partners and will call upon the
expertise of individuals both within and outside of the
government and academia.  The NASA/contractor Space
Station team also will be called upon and Joe will work
with Dick Kohrs to assure access and insight to ongoing
program activities.  This team will truly reflect the
cultural diversity of the agency and country," Goldin
added.  Kohrs is Director of the Space Station Program
Office.

Goldin also announced agency-wide measures to conserve
resources and restrict new spending during the redesign
transition.  In general, no new awards or new work
modifications which relate to the current Space Station
program, including support service contracts, will be
solicited or issued.  Work on existing contracts is not
to be accelerated and Space Station contractors are
being advised to discontinue overtime and any further
staffing increases.

An adjunct professor of aeronautics and astronautics at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Shea has
served on the NASA Advisory Council for several years.
His contributions in the field of space flight also
include 5 years with NASA in the 1960's as Deputy
Director of Manned Space Flight and as Apollo Program
Manager at the NASA Manned Spaceflight Center, Houston
(now the Johnson Space Center).  He also served as
Manager of the Titan inertial guidance program for
General Motors Corp. and is a retired senior vice
president of the Raytheon Co.

Shea has served on the Defense Science Board and the
National Research Council, is a member of the National
Academy of Engineering and is a former President of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
 

Re: .184

I've met Joe Shea -- he's no spring chicken anymore -- but he's a REALLY
intelligent fellow.   I hope he's up to the task and can work within what
NASA has become (versus what it was when he worked there originally).


- dave

Sarah Keegan
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
April 6, 1993


RELEASE:  93-64

        Dr.  John H. Gibbons, Director, Office of Science and Technology
Policy, outlined to the members-designate of the Advisory Committee on the
Redesign of the Space Station on April 3, three budget options as guidance to
the committee in their deliberations on the redesign of the space station.

        A low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a high
option of $9 billion will be considered by the committee.  Each option would
cover the total expenditures for space station from fiscal year 1994 through
1998 and would include funds for development, operations, utilization, Shuttle
integration, facilities, research operations support, transition cost and also
must include adequate program reserves to insure program implementation within
the available funds.

        Over the next 5 years, $4 billion is reserved within the NASA budget
for the President's new technology investment.  As a result, station options
above $7 billion must be accompanied by offsetting reductions in the rest of
the NASA budget.  For example, a space station option of $9 billion would
require $2 billion in offsets from the NASA budget over the next 5 years.

        Gibbons presented the information at an organizational session of the
advisory committee.  Generally, the members-designate focused upon
administrative topics and used the session to get acquainted.  They also
received a legal and ethics briefing and an orientation on the process the
Station Redesign Team is following to develop options for the advisory
committee to consider.

        Gibbons also announced that the United States and its international
partners -- the Europeans, Japanese and Canadians -- have decided, after
consultation, to give "full consideration" to use of Russian assets in the
course of the space station redesign process.

        To that end, the Russians will be asked to participate in the redesign
effort on an as-needed consulting basis, so that the redesign team can make use
of their expertise in assessing the capabilities of MIR and the possible use of
MIR and other Russian capabilities and systems.  The U.S. and international
partners hope to benefit from the expertise of the Russian participants in
assessing Russian systems and technology.  The overall goal of the redesign
effort is to develop options for reducing station costs while preserving key
research and exploration capabilitiaes.  Careful integration of Russian assets
could be a key factor in achieving that goal.

        Gibbons reiterated that, "President Clinton is committed to the
redesigned space station and to making every effort to preserve the science,
the technology and the jobs that the space station program represents.
However, he also is committed to a space station that is well managed and one
that does not consume the national resources which should be used to invest in
the future of this industry and this nation."

        NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin said the Russian participation will
be accomplished through the East-West Space Science Center at the University of
Maryland under the leadership of Roald Sagdeev.

-end-

  I don't think anyone likes the idea of constant redesign, but when you've
got a bad idea to begin with there's not much choice.

  What's amazing is that they seem to be closing in on a plan not unlike the
one we cooked up earlier in this note.

  They should have been listening to us all along

  :*)},
  George

Article 60608 of sci.space:
Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: nntpd2.cxo.dec.com!pa.dec.com!decwrl!uunet!techbook!szabo
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: SSF Redesign: Constellation
Message-ID: <C51z6E.CL1@techbook.com>
Summary: decentralize & automate functions
Keywords: space station, constellation
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 220-0636
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1993 08:20:38 GMT
Lines: 89

SSF is up for redesign again.  Let's do it right this
time!  Let's step back and consider the functionality we want:

[1] microgravity/vacuum process research
[2] life sciences research (adaptation to space)
[3] spacecraft maintenence 

The old NASA approach, explified by Shuttle and SSF so far, was to
centralize functionality.  These projects failed to meet
their targets by a wide margin: the military and commercial users 
took most of their payloads off Shuttle after wasting much effort to 
tie their payloads to it, and SSF has crumbled into disorganization
and miscommunication.  Over $50 billion has been spent on these
two projects with no reduction in launch costs and littel improvement
in commercial space industrialization.  Meanwhile, military and commercial 
users have come up with a superior strategy for space development: the 
constellation.  

Firstly, different functions are broken down into different 
constellations placed in the optimal orbit for each function:
thus we have the GPS/Navstar constellation in 12-hour orbits,
comsats in Clarke and Molniya orbits, etc.  Secondly, the task
is distributed amongst several spacecraft in a constellation,
providing for redundancy and full coverage where needed.

SSF's 3 main functions require quite different environments
and are also prime candidates for constellization.

[1] We have the makings of a microgravity constellation now:
COMET and Mir for long-duration flights, Shuttle/Spacelab for
short-duration flights.  The best strategy for this area is
inexpensive, incremental improvement: installation of U.S. facilities 
on Mir, Shuttle/Mir linkup, and transition from Shuttle/Spacelab
to a much less expensive SSTO/Spacehab/COMET or SSTO/SIF/COMET.
We might also expand the research program to take advantage of 
interesting space environments, eg the high-radiation Van Allen belt 
or gas/plasma gradients in comet tails.  The COMET system can
be much more easily retrofitted for these tasks, where a 
station is too large to affordably launch beyond LEO.

[2] We need to study life sciences not just in microgravity,
but also in lunar and Martian gravities, and in the radiation
environments of deep space instead of the protected shelter
of LEO.  This is a very long-term, low-priority project, since
astronauts will have little practical use in the space program
until costs come down orders of magnitude.  Furthermore, using
astronauts severely restricts the scope of the investigation,
and the sample size.  So I propose LabRatSat, a constellation
tether-bolo satellites that test out various levels of gravity
in super-Van-Allen-Belt orbits that are representative of the
radiation environment encountered on Earth-Moon, Earth-Mars,
Earth-asteroid, etc. trips.  The miniaturized life support
machinery might be operated real-time from earth thru a VR
interface.  AFter several orbital missions have been flown,
follow-ons can act as LDEFs on the lunar and Martian surface,
testing out the actual environment at low cost before $billions
are spent on astronauts.

[3] By far the largest market for spacecraft servicing is in 
Clarke orbit.  I propose a fleet of small teleoperated
robots and small test satellites on which ground engineers can
practice their skills.  Once in place, robots can pry stuck
solar arrays and antennas, attach solar battery power packs,
inject fuel, etc.  Once the fleet is working, it can be
spun off to commercial company(s) who can work with the comsat
companies to develop comsat replaceable module standards.

By applying the successful constellation strategy, and getting
rid of the failed centralized strategy of STS and old SSF, we
have radically improved the capability of the program while
greatly cutting its cost.  For a fraction of SSF's pricetag,
we can fix satellites where the satellites are, we can study
life's adaptation to a much large & more representative variety 
of space environments, and we can do microgravity and vacuum
research inexpensively and, if needed, in special-purpose
orbits.

N.B., we can apply the constellation strategy to space exploration
as well, greatly cutting its cost and increasing its functionality.  
Mars Network and Artemis are two good examples of this; more ambitiously 
we can set up a network of native propellant plants on Mars that can be used
to fuel planet-wide rover/ballistic hopper prospecting and
sample return.  The descendants of LabRatSat's technology can
be used as a Mars surface LDEF and to test out closed-ecology
greenhouses on Mars at low cost.


-- 
Nick Szabo					 szabo@techboook.com

    
    re. -1   Has forgotten a major goal of the space station
    
    		[0] Put and Keep Man in Space
    
    Space is not merely comertial, its also exploration, publicity,
    national pride and so on.
    
    * The USA put men on the moon the russians merely landed machines.
    * A Russian has spend 1 continuous year in space ...
    * The Russians have a permanently maned station  ...
    
    And so on, besides a rat cannot tell how excited or bored it is to
    be in space.
    
    One thing re. -1 got right though is that the station should be as
    modularized as possible.
    
    

Jeff Vincent
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                 April 22, 1993


NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced that Bryan O'Connor, Deputy
Director of the Space Station Redesign Team, will manage the effort so that a
request by Dr. Joseph F. Shea, the team's leader, to reduce his workload can be
accommodated.

In a letter to Goldin today, Shea submitted his resignation as Assistant Deputy
Administrator for Space Station Analysis. He will transition to a role as
Special Advisor to the Administrator and advisor to O'Connor.

"I greatly appreciate Joe's help and willingness to continue to contribute to
an effort that is critical to this nation's future in space," Goldin said.

The Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the Space Station, chaired by Dr.
Charles M. Vest, held its first public meeting today in Arlington, Va. They
received a comprehensive status report from the NASA Redesign Team, including
an introductory presentation from Shea. Briefings also were presented on space
station missions and requirements; science, technology and engineering
research; current option development and plans; and by the international
partners on redesign considerations to date.

"Today's meeting of the Advisory Committee was extremely productive," Goldin
said. "The redesign effort is on track, and I am especially gratified by the
terrific job being done by Bryan O'Connor and the rest of the NASA Redesign
Team."
 

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                         June 4, 1993

RELEASE:  93-104


        The Space Station Redesign Team, comprised of representatives from NASA
and the international partners, will submit its final report on three space
station options to the White House Advisory Committee on the Redesign of the
Space Station on Monday, June 7, at the Stouffer Hotel in Crystal City, Va.

        The three options, the results of nearly 3 months of intensive research
and analysis, include a modular concept that would use existing flight-proven
hardware, a derivative of the current Space Station Freedom design and a space
station that could be placed into orbit with a single launch of a
Shuttle-derived vehicle.

        "The Team has done a tremendous job," said NASA Administrator Daniel
Goldin. "They have developed 3 technically viable space stations.  Each
provides for international cooperation, establishes a fully-capable space
research center in orbit that will enable high priority science, technology and
engineering research and in every case, do it for significantly less money than
the current Space Station Freedom baseline."

        "The cost estimates provided by the Redesign Team reflect complete and
accurate costs of each option and the current Space Station Freedom design,"
Goldin said.

        The baseline Freedom cost numbers were subjected to rigorous review by
an expert NASA team working apart from the Freedom program.  Those results,
plus the costs of the three space station options, are being reviewed by an
experienced, independent cost analysis team created by the White House advisory
committee.

        "The estimates are honest and defensible.  They provide a solid basis
for decision because they are comprehensive and compare all options on an
apples- to-apples basis," Goldin said.  "Our books are open and will withstand
the closest scrutiny."

President Directs Redesign

        An assessment early in 1993 by the incoming Administration determined
the increases in the Space Station Freedom budget in the outyears would not fit
within the expected NASA budget, which the Administration planned to cut by
about 15 percent over the next 5 years in the interest of federal deficit
reduction.  The White House also wanted to place increased emphasis on other
NASA programs such as aeronautics and science.

        Rather than cancel the program, President Clinton directed NASA to
redesign the space station and produce a configuration that would significantly
reduce development, operations and utilization costs, while at the same time
honor the United StatesU commitments to the international partners and provide
the essential resources to advance the nationUs scientific and technology
development capabilities in space.

        The Station Redesign Team also was charged with recommending new and
streamlined management structures and acquisition strategies and to develop
operational concepts that would cut operations costs in half.

        Monday's meeting will be the third and final public meeting with the
Advisory Committee. Chaired by MIT President Dr. Charles Vest, the 16- member
Advisory Committee will provide an independent assessment of the designs, cost,
proposed management structure and the operations plan, and forward that
assessment to the President on or about June 10.

        "The objective of the redesign team was to develop options for a
redesigned space station," said Goldin. "The team was not asked to recommend
one option over the others but rather to characterize each design's strengths
and weaknesses in an unbiased manner."

        Directed by Deputy Associate Administrator for Space Flight and former
astronaut Bryan O'Connor, the NASA team was led by a core group of about 36
people.  The diversified team had at least one representative from each NASA
center, several scientists and engineers with backgrounds that ranged from
program managers to spacecraft designers.

        Ten representatives from the international partners - the European
Space Agency, Japan and Canada - and from Italy formed the remainder of the
core team.  Consultants from other government agencies and from industry served
as advisors to the group.  The core team, working in Crystal City, Va.,
received technical support on each of the options by people from across NASA.


Station Objectives Outlined

        Goldin provided specific objectives and constraints, reflecting
guidance from the Administration, to the team in an implementation letter of
March 9, 1993.  In the letter, Goldin stressed that the redesigned space
station must:

% Provide a cost effective solution to basic and applied research challenges
whose merit is clearly indicated by scientific peer review, significant
industrial cost sharing or other widely accepted method;

% Provide the capability for significant long-duration space research in
materials and life sciences during this decade;

% Bring both near-term and long-term annual funding requirements within the
constraints of the budget;

% Continue to accommodate and encourage international participation; and

% Reduce technical and programmatic risk to acceptable levels.

        Other directions to the team from Goldin included constraints or
objectives of greatly reducing on-orbit assembly and checkout; planning for a
shorter on-orbit lifetime (e.g., 10 years extendible to 15 years); greatly
reducing the number of Shuttle launches and extravehicular requirements for
deployment; advancing the permanently manned capability date; and
reestablishing national leadership in space.

        In addition, the team was directed to give consideration to greater use
of Shuttle and Spacelab capabilities (which may be modified to allow longer
stays in orbit) and the Russian Mir space station.

Budget Guidelines Set

        In addition, Dr. John Gibbons, the PresidentUs Science Advisor,
provided budget guidance for the Advisory Committee to use in their
deliberations.  For the 5-year period from Fiscal Years 1994 to 1998, NASA was
to assume a low option of $5 billion, a mid-range option of $7 billion and a
high option of $9 billion.

        Activities which were to be paid for within the $5 billion, $7 billion
and $9 billion accounts included: space station development, operations,
utilization (including building science experiments and other payloads for the
station and for Spacelab as well as the ground infrastructure to manage and
deliver data to the users), Shuttle integration, facilities, research
operations support, termination costs, transition costs and an appropriate
level of reserves.

Three Main Options Evolve

        Option A is a modular build-up configuration which uses a combination
of Space Station Freedom hardware and flight-qualified space systems from other
sources, including the potential use of a self-contained DoD spacecraft called
"Bus-1" to provide propulsion, guidance, navigation and control.  Option A
includes a "Bus-1" configuration and a configuration without "Bus-1." Option A
has four distinct phases of buildup including: Power Station (1
photovoltaic(PV) array on-orbit for increased power to a docked
orbiter/Spacelab); Human Tended Capability (adds U.S. laboratory);
International Human Tended (adds an additional PV array and international
elements); and Permanent Human Capability (adds third PV array, the U.S.
habitat module and two Russian Soyuz ACRVs).

        Option B is derived from mature Space Station Freedom designs.  It
makes maximum use of current systems and hardware to provide an incrementally
increasing capability, emphasizing accommodations for users, adherence to
international partner commitments, flexibility and growth potential, and
recommends some system changes to save money.  Like Option A, the
Freedom-derived option is built up over 4 stages.  From an assembly sequence
standpoint, the primary difference between the Option A and B is that the
Freedom-derived configuration adds the third PV array before the international
partner elements are added.

        Option C is a single-launch space station.  This configuration features
a 92- foot-long, 23-foot-diameter core module launched as part of a Space
Shuttle vehicle and uses an existing external tank, solid rocket boosters and
Shuttle main engines.  The module would provide 26,000 cubic feet of
pressurized volume, separated into 7 "decks" connected by a centralized
passageway.  Seven berthing ports would be located on the circumference of the
module to place the international modules and other elements.

        "Each option is capable of accomplishing the mission of the space
station," said Goldin. "All of them offer significant scientific and
engineering research capabilities, especially in their permanently human
presence stages."

        Goldin said all the options also would:

% make maximum use of Space Station Freedom systems and components, which have
completed a rigorous critical design review, where it is both cost effective
and schedule enhancing, thus benefiting from the nationUs investment to date in
the Freedom program;

% incorporate changes that would reduce complexity and increase the probability
for meeting cost and schedule;

% achieve substantial savings through a streamlined management structure that
provides clear lines of authority, reduces overlap and gives accountability and
authority to the lowest level to get the job done; and

% benefit from a new operations approach that would significantly reduce
operational costs.

        Goldin said Russian hardware alternatives, where it could benefit the
redesigned space station program, also were investigated.  In all three
options, the Soyuz crew return vehicle has been baselined as the assured crew
return vehicle.  Launch capability and other systems developed and in operation
in the Russian space program are described in the report and will be considered
for use in the redesigned space station or in future improvements.

Fact sheets 1 and 2 were a lot less interesting.  Stuff about proposed
management structure etc etc. 

Article 1822 of sci.space.news:
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Space Station Fact Sheet 3

Option A - Modular Build-Up

Objective: Provide a modular buildup approach that provides a 
lower cost approach to Space Station Freedom while keeping a 
strong focus on user needs and International agreements. 

Key Design Drivers: Use current and simplified Space Station 
Freedom systems where cost-effective, and repackage, reduce and 
simplify elements to reduce overall costs, number of assembly 
flights and extravehicular activitity. 

Option A1: Modular build-up using Lockheed-built "Bus-1" 
spacecraft to provide guidance, navigation, control and propulsion.

Option A2: Modular build-up without the "Bus-1."

Option A1/A2 Characteristics:
Inclination: 			28.8 degrees inclined to the equator
Overall dimension at PHC:	A1 - 245 feet end-to-end
						A2 - 281 feet end-to-end
Assembly Altitude: 		220 nautical miles
Shuttle flights:			16 assembly flights to PHC
						 5 utilization/logistics
flights per year

4-Phase Build-Up
Power Station (First Element Launch - October `97)
	o Achieved with 3 flights (12/97)
	o 1 photovoltaic array provides 23 kilowatts of power
	o Provides 3 attachment sites for external payloads
	o Orbiter with Spacelab docks to power station for human-tended 
research of up to 20 days (17 days of on-orbit research - 2 
missions per year)

Human Tended Capability (April `98)
	o Achieved with 4 flights
	o Adds a common core/lab module which houses laboratory 
equipment, 9 International Standard Payload Racks, subsystems 
and integrated berthing ports for International partner elements 
and logistics module
	o Adds Canadian Space Station Remote Manipulator System
	o Orbiter docks to station for human-tended research of up to 20 
days (17 days of on-orbit research - 4 missions per year)

International Human Tended Capability (December 1999)
	o Achieved with 12 flights
	o Adds Japanese Experiment Module/Exposed Facility and ESA's 
Columbus Attached Pressurized Module (adds 30 International 
Standard Payload Racks)
	o Adds cupola
	o Adds second PV array for total of 46 kilowatts of power (18 kW 
to users)
	o Orbiter docks to station for human-tended research of up to 20 
days (17 days of on-orbit research - 4 missions per year)

Permanent Human Capability (September 2000)
	o Achieved with 16 flights
	o Adds habitation module
	o Adds third PV array for total of 57 kilowatts of power (31 kW 
to users)
	o Uses Soyuz TM (2) spacecraft for assured crew return
	o Adds airlock for station-supported extravehicular activites
	

Major differences from Freedom:	
	Deletes truss segments 	A1 - 5 segments/A2 - 3 segments
	Common modules in place of modules and nodes
	Core module outfitting approach for the laboratory
	Simplified solar array/battery system
	Deletes large rotary alpha joints
	Single-phase common radiators for PV arrays and station central 
radiators 
	Simplified data management system and associated software 
	Simplified and reduced size of Freedom airlock - delayed until 
permanent human capability
	Italian "stretched" mini-pressurized logistics module and new 
"closet" (pantry) module - deletes U.S. pressurized logistics module
	Reduce number of orbital replacement units and maintenance 
items by 30 percent
	Delete Mobile Transporter - use simplified EVA cart on monorail
	Reduce audio and video components
	Simplify atmosphere control and supply and temperature and 
humidity control system


Space Station Fact Sheet
Option B - Freedom Derived

Objective: Derived from mature Space Station Freedom designs, 
makes maximum use of current systems and hardware to provide an 
incrementally increasing capability, emphasing accommodations for 
users, adherence to International Partner commitments, flexibility 
and growth potential. 

Key Design Drivers: Option B configuration and assembly were 
guided by the orbit inclination, accommodation of International 
Partner elements, an assured crew return vehicle, the Space Shuttle 
as a launch vehicle and a permanent human presence in space. 
Other design factors included acommodation of microgravity and 
life science (including a 2.5 meter centrifuge), support to a 4 person 
crew for 10 years, and two-fault tolerance for crew and station 
survival.

Option B Characteristics:

Inclination: 			28.8 degrees inclined to the equator
Overall dimension at PHC:	331 feet end-to-end
Assembly Altitude: 		220 nautical miles
Shuttle flights:			20 assembly flights to PHC
						12 utilization/logistics
flights
4-Phase Build-Up

Power Station (First Element Launch - October `97)
	o Achieved with 2 flights (11/97)
	o Major subsystems include active thermal control, S-Band 
communications, propulsion and control moment gyroscopes
	o 1 photovoltaic array provides 23 kilowatts of power (provides 
6.25 kW to orbiter and 4.9 kW to Spacelab payloads and external 
attached payload)
	o 1 external payload attachment point
	o Orbiter with Spacelab docks to power station for human-tended 
research of up to 20 days (17 days of on-orbit research - 2 
missions per year)


Human Tended Capability (December `98)
	o Achieved with 8 flights
	o Adds the U.S. laboratory module which houses laboratory 
equipment, subsystems, a node and an airlock. 
		13 International Standard Payload Racks and 3 non-standard 
		 payload rack locations
	o 2 external payload attachment points
	o 1 photovoltaic array provides 8.5 kilowatts of power to users
	o 50 Mbps downlink and 72 kbps uplink data streams
	o Operates with and without an orbiter docked
	o Orbiter with Spacelab docks to power station for human-tended 
research of up to 20 days (17 days of on-orbit research - 4 
missions per year)

International Human Tended Capability (March 2001)
	o Achieved with 17 flights
	o Adds port side truss
	o Adds Japanese Experiment Module/Exposed Facility and 
Columbus Attached Pressurized Module
		Total payload volume increased to 48.5 rack sites
		JEM provides 10 external attached payload sites
	o Adds Canadian Space Station Remote Manipulator System
	o Adds cupola
	o Adds second and third PV array for total of 68 kilowatts of 
power (greater than 30kW to users)
	o Orbiter docks to station for human-tended research of up to 20 
days (17 days of on-orbit research - 4 missions per year)

Permanent Human Capability (December 2001)
	o Achieved with 20 flights
	o Adds habitation module
	o Adds second node
	o Adds 3 additional external attached payload sites (total of 15) 
covering ram, wake, zenith and nadir viewing
	o Uses Soyuz TM (2) spacecraft for assured crew return
	
Major differences from Freedom:	
	Deletes 1 truss segment 	
	3rd PV array on port side of truss to improve microgravity 
environment
	Modified data management and communications and tracking 
systems; minor changes to environmental control and life 
support and thermal control systems

Space Station Fact Sheet
Option C - Single Launch

Objective: Uses a Shuttle-derived launch vehicle to place a space 
station into orbit with a single launch, retaining as much 
commonality as possible with existing Space Shuttle systems, and 
moving as much equipment as possible inside the large core module 
to cut down on extravehicular activities. 

Key Design Drivers: Use Shuttle hardware and software for all 
aspects of ascent flight control and retain all features of the Shuttle 
main propulsion system. Minimize impact to KSC launch facilities 
and take advantage of Shuttle hardware components to provide 
common logistics support for Shuttle and Station and maximize use 
of current Shuttle ground infrastructure.

Option C Characteristics:
Inclination: 			28.8 degrees inclined to the equator
Assembly Altitude: 		220 nautical miles
Shuttle flights:			10 assembly flights to PHC
						 2 utilization/logistics
flights

Single Launch Core Station Module (Launch - Sept. `99)
	o Orbiter aft fuselage and aerodynamic fairings attached to 92-
foot long common core module and attached to standard Space 
Shuttle external tank and solid rocket boosters 
	o On-orbit pressurized module is 64 feet long and 22 feet in 
diameter with 10-foot long unpressurized equipment bays on 
each end
o 2 fixed photovoltaic arrays. Depending on flight mode (Solar 
Inertial or Local Vertical) and Sun angle, arrays can provide a 
maximum of 57.6 kW (47.6 kW to users) and a minimum of 
34.2 kW (24.2 kW to users)
	o Body-mounted and deployed radiators
	o Canadian Space Station Remote Manipulator System
	o Docking ports on both ends for Shuttle or Soyuz
	o 7 berthing ports - 2 for Soyuz ACRV and 5 for International 
Partner modules and logistics module
	o 6 optical windows
	o 26,000 cubic feet of volume divided into seven decks
	o Accommodates 40 payload racks (72 with International Partner 
modules)
	o 50 Mbps downlink and 72 and 128 kbps uplink data streams


Permanent Human Presence Capability (November `99)
	o Achieved with 3 flights
	o Includes 2 Soyuz TM spacecraft for assured crew return
	o Canadian Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator

International Permanent Human Presence (July 2000)
	o Achieved with 9 flights
	o Adds and fully outfits Japanese Experiment Module/Exposed 
Facility and Columbus Attached Pressurized Module 
	o Adds user racks

Permanent Human Capability (January 2001)
	o Achieved with 10 flights
	o Adds third PV array for total of 76 kilowatts of power (26 kW 
to users in the local vertical flight mode)
	
	
Major differences from Freedom:	
Hardware - source for subsystem orbital replacement units and 
major assemblies
	47 percent from Space Station Freedom 	
	37 percent from existing orbiter hardware
	16 percent new design
	No airlock - EVAs accomplished only when Shuttle is docked at
station

I have heard various reports about the cost of these options, but most
say they cost on the order of $9-10B.  I can't imagine how this can be
true except for option C, given that the first two are talking about tens
of shuttle flights!

Burns

Mark Hess
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.          July 27, 1993


        NASA today announced the assignment of Dr. John Cox as acting Deputy
Director, Program and Operations, Space Station Freedom Program, and Robert
Moorehead as Chief Engineer for the Office of Space Systems Development (OSSD),
NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

        The announcement was made jointly by Arnold D. Aldrich, Associate
Administrator for Space Systems Development and Space Station Transition
Director Bryan O'Connor.

        Cox currently serves as Deputy Manager for Operations, Space Station
Freedom Program. He was named to the Station Redesign Team in March and played
a key role in the development of the operations concept for the redesigned
space station.  As acting Deputy Director, Cox will be located at the Space
Station Freedom Program Office in Reston, Va., and will direct all Space
Station Freedom Program activities.  He will be responsible for all transition
related efforts by the Space Station Freedom team and for all on- going Space
Station Freedom activity.

        "John will play a key role in structuring a closer and more effective
working relationship between the Transition Team and the Space Station Freedom
Program," said O'Connor. "John possesses a wealth of knowledge and experience
about the current Space Station Freedom Program and about the redesigned space
station.  He will provide a critical link between the current program and the
Transition Team to enable NASA to meet its commitment to provide a
comprehensive configuration definition and detailed program transition plan to
the White House on September 7."

        Moorehead will be responsible for engineering assessments and analyses
of all OSSD programs including the administration's new technology initiative
and technology programs related to existing launch systems, commercial launch
vehicle capabilities and improvements, NASA's Access to Space program for
future space transportation and numerous other advanced technology projects.

        "I'm extremely pleased that Bob has agreed to take on this new role,"
said Aldrich. "Bob's technical skills and vast program management experience
make him uniquely qualified to be the Chief Engineer for OSSD. I expect him to
make significant contributions to developing the strategies which will help
ensure NASA's leadership in the launch vehicle technology and the
transportation systems of the future."

        In making the announcements, Aldrich said these changes were in
recognition of "the benefits of integrating the extensive resources of the
Space Station Freedom Program more directly into the transition process."

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (MIKE MYERS)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.budget
Subject: Senate rejects move to scrap space station
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 93 19:53:00 PDT

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Senate brushed aside an effort Tuesday to kill
the proposed orbiting space station despite criticism that $11 billion
has already been sent down the tube and the project hasn't lifted off
the drawing board after a nine-year countdown.
	``If this nation is anything, it is a nation that is broke,'' Senator
Dale Bumpers, Democrat of Arkansas, said of the arguments that America
cannot abandon its role as the scientific and technological leader of
the world.
	``Ultimately it is not government that will solve problems, it is
science and technology,'' said Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas,
representing a state with a key financial stake in the project. 
``Ultimately this is a question of do we go forward or do we stop.''
	The Senate voted 59-40 to stop Bumpers's proposal to reject spending
another $2 billion in the next budget for the station.
	The size and mission of the station has been steadily shaved back due
to budget and operational restraints since former President Ronald
Reagan proposed it in 1984 at a cost of $5 billion.
	Bumpers proposed spending $500 million to shut down the program, with
$20 billion in projected lifetime savings going for federal deficit
reduction.
	Bumpers called the project a boondoggle and derided a proposal for
NASA to share launch and operational costs of the space station with
Moscow, using Russian rockets and other existing hardware.
	The details of the proposed cooperation are not due until late this
year -- after Congress is to have written its $2 billion check.
	``You haven't the faintest idea what the cost will be, what the
design will be,'' Bumpers said. ``If we go forward with the Russians
under the tentative agreement, we will have to give them $100 million a
year to get them going on this program.''
	Gramm said the time for the Senate to cut overall spending was during
the budget debate this summer and not on a science project that is to
pay off for years.
	Senator James Sasser, Republican of Tennessee, said the project was
not about producing scientific research in space and medicine, in
addition to other benefits on the ground.
	``It is nothing less than a jobs bill,'' he said. ``That's the bottom
line. It is time to saddle up, ride out and sound the alarm about the
dangers of the continued funding of the space station.''
	Supporters effectively agree about the jobs aspect of the project,
saying killing the project could cost 100,000 good paying ones.

pragma::public:[nasa.station]dps_reqs_draft.txt

is a small document outlining the requirements for the computer system for
the space station.

It originated from someone at JSC, but I cannot otherwise vouch for its
veracity.   It does make for somewhat interesting reading if you're into
that sort of stuff -- but it is a requirements document, not a tutorial:

           "A partitioning strategy shall be implemented which isolates
            changes in the US Core, US Payload, IP Core, or IP payload..."


- dave
  

Article: 4091
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: NASA HQ News as of 10/7/93
Date: 7 Oct 1993 10:28 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center / Cleveland, Ohio
 
House Hearing on Station

Kathy Sawyer reported in today's Washington Post on two activities in
the House yesterday (Headline - "House Deals a Possibly Fatal Defeat
to NASA Space Rocket"). First, the House refused debate on the $88 B
appropriations bill funding VA, HUD, & Independent Agencies (which
includes NASA), because the bill included $158 M for ASRM. Instead,
they voted 305 to 123 to return the bill to the House-Senate
conference (who negotiated it last week). The House voted in June to
kill ASRM, while the Senate voted to keep it. The House action
rejected the compromise the conferees had reached which provided
minimum funding and let NASA decide whether to terminate the project. 
 
The second activity was the hearing by the House subcommittee on space
science and applications. White House Science Advisor John Gibbons
told the House subcommittee the potential termination of ASRM is "a
difficult point." He said the administration will take another look at
"how ASRM fits in," and added there are other options for reaching
higher inclination orbits. 
 
Committee members expressed concern that a U.S.-Russian partnership
would mean transferring both money and U.S. jobs to Russia. Gibbons
said the process was intended to generate new U.S. jobs and save
money, but he agreed that "whatever we do on the Russian option, that
should be a reversible process." He said the United States would
retain leadership of any joint undertaking - "No one should confuse
the course we are charting as relinquishing control of the Space
Station or exporting jobs out of the United States. In developing this
cooperative program, we are focusing on areas that will not negatively
impact the U.S. aerospace sector. We intend to proceed in a way that
protects our vital domestic interests while maximizing the benefit we
can derive from fuller interaction with the Russians. In some areas,
such as solar dynamic power and possibly closed life support systems,
we believe that the net gain of new technologies from the Russians
could stimulate jobs in the U.S. ... The Russians are very clever
people in engineering, mathematics, science in general." 
 
Gibbons noted that the administration has not yet agreed to build the
planned U.S.-international space station at the higher inclination
required for Russian participation. Kathy writes on Nov 1, NASA is to
complete a report on the "Russian option" and its potential benefits
and costs. Aerospace Daily says Gibbons stressed that at present there
is no agreement on human spaceflight cooperation with Russia, and said
it could be at the end of the year or even later before the
Administration decides just how far to go with Russia. Talks between
top NASA officials and their counterparts at the Russian Space Agency
that concluded yesterday in Moscow, with more top-level talks likely
in Washington Oct 18-20, are intended to produce a report on options
for cooperation rather than a formal agreement. 
 
Gibbons conceded that the demands of the higher orbital inclination
would mean limiting the shuttle to a five- or six- minute launch
window daily, but he said that is not a serious concern. 
 
Grumman Station employees told jobs will end Nov 30. Aerospace Daily
reports today that yesterday Grumman notified all 854 company and
subcontractor employees working on its Space Station engineering and
integration contract that their jobs will be terminated on Nov. 30.
NASA had ordered Grumman to pare its workforce down to 60 by Dec. 1,
and congressional language prohibits NASA from spending Station funds
on the activities performed by Grumman after Dec. 1. A letter sent to
some of the employees said the 60 positions that NASA wants to keep
have not yet been identified. 
 
 
Buyout Status

Today the Post reports that the House Post Office - Government Affairs
committee will begin hearings on the buyout legislation next week. The
Post says the legislation may be approved in time to allow agencies to
begin offering buyouts in mid-November. Yesterday, retirement counselors 
from 100 agencies were briefed on the details of the buyout offer. 
 
 
Goldin Letter

In case you haven't seen it, Goldin sent the following letter on
September 29, 1993
 
To:       All Space Station Freedom Program Employees
 
From:     A/Administrator
 
Subject:  Space Station Program
 
Change is never easy but it is essential if we are to retain U.S.
technological leadership in the 21 century and honor our
commitments to the American public. As I review the activities of
the past months in a rapidly changing NASA, I am particularly
proud of your accomplishments. Your work and that of others who
have preceded you gave the Space Station transition team the
foundation upon which to build the redesigned station.
 
As the Agency completes the transition to a new management
structure, each of us must remember that these changes represent
a new, streamlined, way to address changing circumstances. They
are not an indictment of past efforts. I remain impressed with
the skill with which all NASA employees assigned to the Space
Station Program have approached their work and I am particularly
proud of the dedication and technical expertise of the Space
Station Program Office employees.
 
There is no question that this period of transition and ambiguity
has been extremely difficult for you and the members of the Space
Station Freedom Team. The uncertainty must be very disconcerting.
However, through it all, you have continued to demonstrate your
dedication and commitment to the successful implementation of the
Space Station Program. As we proceed, let me assure you that I am
personally committed to ensuring that NASA personnel remain
integral participants in accomplishing the goals of Congress and
the President regarding the United States Space Program. I am
convinced that NASA, with the help of its employees, will
successfully implement the directions we have been given and will
provide an excellent example of the gains to be made through the
re-engineering of management processes. We owe the American
people and ourselves nothing less.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           David McKissock		NASA Lewis Research Center
                                           Cleveland, Ohio 44135
    dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov
    /pn=david.mckissock/admd=telemail/prmd=lerc/c=us/@x400.msfc.nasa.gov
                   Disclaimer: My Opinions are My Own, not NASA's.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Debra J. Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.

October 18, 1993

NOTE TO EDITORS: N93-60

     The United States, Canada, Japan and Member States of the European Space
Agency met in Paris, France, on Oct.16, 1993, to discuss potential Russian
involvement in the Space Station. The joint statement, summarizing the results
of the meeting, is being issued today by all the participants.


              JOINT STATEMENT ON POTENTIAL RUSSIAN
                INVOLVEMENT IN THE SPACE STATION

   The United States, Canada, Japan, and Member States of the European Space
Agency have been working together, on the basis of the Intergovernmental
Agreement of September 29, 1988, on the Permanently Manned Civil Space
Station, to design and develop a space station as the next milestone in
the exploration of space.

     A dramatically changed international situation, in which Russia continues
to play a constructive and responsible role in the international community, has
created the opportunity to consider a landmark undertaking--the inclusion of
Russia in the building of the International Space Station.

     Meeting in Paris, October 16, 1993, the representatives of the Governments
participating in the cooperative partnership to build and operate an
international space station considered a proposal by the United States that
Russia be invited to join in this endeavour.  The Partners recognized that
Russia, with its impressive record of accomplishments in space, including its
wealth of experience in human space flight activities, could make considerable
contributions to this program.  The Partners also recognized that Russian
involvement in this program would represent important progress toward their
shared objective of building broad cooperative relationships with Russia.


    The Space Station Partners Governments therefore wish to extend to the
Government of the Russian Federation their invitation to collectively explore
possible Russian partnership in the International Space Station program.

     To this end, the Partners have agreed to intensify their consultation
process and have charged their respective cooperating agencies to work in
concert to develop an integrated plan for Russian involvement in the
International Space Station, for a decision by their respective Governments.
   

Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
October 20, 1993

RELEASE:  93-191

     NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin today announced that the Office of
Space Flight will assume responsibility for management of the Space Station
Program. Jeremiah W. Pearson III, Associate Administrator for Space Flight,
will lead the integration of these major programs.

     "Our planned Space Shuttle flight activities are becoming increasingly
more involved with our Space Station planning," Goldin said. "These programs,
of necessity, must be more closely integrated.  The Space Shuttle will be a key
element of the redesigned Space Station program and in all presently planned
human space flight activities with Russia."

     Organizational details of the merger of these two programs at NASA
Headquarters are under development and will be announced soon.

     Goldin also named William Shepherd as the Space Station Program Manager at
the Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston. He is currently an Assistant Deputy
Administrator (Technical) at NASA Headquarters and has been leading the
day-to-day transition activities for the Space Station program.  Shepherd and
the new Space Station Program Office at JSC will assume responsibility for the
program and related transition activities effective immediately.

     Program Directors for the Space Shuttle and Space Station, reporting to
Pearson, will be responsible for all activities of the respective programs at
NASA Headquarters. Pending selection of the Space Station Program Director,
Bryan D. O'Connor has been designated as Acting. O'Connor is currently the
Director of the Space Station Transition. Thomas Utsman is the Space Shuttle
Program Director.

     The present Space Shuttle organizational structure will continue to be
responsible for the Space Shuttle program.

I guess the votes for SSF are getting too close.  Time to really lash
the space station to the shuttle pork barrel...

The part of me that likes the shuttle worries that the sinking SS Freedom will
drag the orbiter program down with it.

The part of me that thinks the shuttle is a collosal waste of my tax
dollars thinks this may not be such a bad idea after all...


- dave

Article: 5574
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.international
Subject: U.S., Russia plan joint space station operation
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 93 8:52:59 EST
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The U.S. government plans to continue
development of its own Alpha space station, but will work towards a
joint operation with the Russian Mir station. 

	A proposal announced Thursday calls for a U.S.-led constrution
of an international space station beginning in 1997. The U.S. space
station would be designed to connect with Mir. 

	No costs were revealed in a briefing of the leaders of House
and Senate space committees Thursday by Vice President Al Gore and
NASA administrator Daniel S. Goldin. 

	Goldin said both the United States and Russian would save
billions of dollars through the joint development. 

	Gore is expected to sign a formal proposal with the Russians
when he visits Moscow in December. Original plans for a $30 billion
U.S. space station were scuttled earlier this year by the Clinton
administration, chosing instead a scaled-down version costing about
half as much. 

Article: 77073
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Station News
Date: 5 Nov 1993 09:52 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center / Cleveland, Ohio
 
I believe this posting bombed in my first attempt, so this is try #2 ...
 
Kathy Sawyer has a lengthy article in today's (11/5) Washington
Post, under the headline "U.S. Proposes Space Merger with
Russia." The article begins on the front page.
 
Kathy starts with "the Clinton administration yesterday unveiled
the outlines of a high-stakes plan to merge the American and
Russian space programs in order to boost the sagging prospects of
both." The proposal "calls for U.S.-led construction of an
international space station ... in 1997."
 
Gibbons (White House science advisor) says the prospect is
daunting in its cultural and political as well as technical
complexity and would represent "the largest international venture
ever undertaken by countries in history, other than fighting wars."
 
Goldin and Koptev said Russia would join Europe, Japan and Canada
as a partner in the station project, with the US retaining total
command and control authority (Kathy notes "key members of
Congress had earlier expressed alarm at reports the plan might
yield too much authority to the Russians").
 
Koptev was asked if this "junior partner" role would concern the
Russians, and he "responded drily, 'We spent about 70 years
trying to decide who is the junior, who is the senior partner. It
doesn't seem helpful.'
 
Goldin said the time has come for America to stop its costly
indecision on the issue and make a commitment, "We don't have the
resources to keep two separate programs going ... The Russians
are giving up their independent space station. I believe we in
America have an obligation to assure the Russians we're not going
to walk away from the space station."
 
Gore and Goldin briefed leaders of the House & Senate space
committees yesterday. Rep Grown (D-Calif), chair of the House
Science, Space and Technology committee, called the plan "a major
accomplishment for which Gore & Goldin deserve great credit ...
However, the devil will be in the details."
 
The report doesn't contain detailed cost estimates & other
specifics sought by legislators; many are still being worked out.
Goldin said he expects the Russian participation to save $3 to $4
Billion over Alpha without Russians, as it shortens construction
by two years.
 
If the administration can gain assurances of support from
Congress, as well as from the other international partners, Gore
is expected to sign an agreement to move forward with the project
when he visits Moscow in mid-December.
 
Goldin said the advantages of Russian participation include 25%
more enclosed volume, a crew of six instead of four, 40 kW more
power, a better level of stable weightlessness for science, improved 
safety and reliability and more efficient supply and servicing.
 
Russian-supplied components include propulsion, guidance and
navigation equipment, a docking system and resupply vehicles. The
US and Russia will jointly develop an airlock, rescue vehicles,
batteries and other power supply components.
 
The plan envisions the world's first electronically linked joint
control centers - one in Houston and one for backup in
Kaliningrad, northeast of Moscow. Controllers in both control
rooms and all flight crews would be trained in English and Russian.
 
Addressing another congressional concern, Goldin said his goal is
that there be no massive transfer of funds to Russia, other than
those already agreed to: $400 million over the next four years
for equipment and services. Instead, there would be a barter
arrangement for services and equipment. The only exception, he
said, is a U.S. plan to lease the Russian space tug that is to
provide mobility for the space station.
 
In a preliminary phase, from 1995-1997, kinks in engineering,
operations, communications and philosophy would be worked out
during as many as 10 flights in which the Space Shuttle would
dock with the current Mir space station, with mixed crews of
astronauts and cosmonauts. Some two tons of U.S. research
equipment and experiments would be placed aboard Mir.
 
Kathy then discusses some history of Freedom, stating the station
was delayed, redesigned and shrunk a half dozen times after it
was started by Reagan. She writes "the smaller version of Freedom
(dubbed 'Fred' by some) is now officially called Alpha. The
Russian-Alpha combination is known informally as 'Ralpha'"
 
There have been nine congressional votes on station in the last
18 months, and another is expected soon on yet another proposal
to kill the project.
 
The article concludes noting that the US/Russian cooperation has
been made possible by the Russians agreeing to abandon a plan to
sell missile technology to India. The article includes a picture
of the proposed design, with labels on who builds what: Support
Beam (Truss) - U.S., Mir 2 Core Module - Russia, Solar Power
Panels - U.S., Salyut Crew Rescue and Return Vehicle - Russia,
and Advanced Solar Dynamic Power Dishes - U.S. and Russia.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           David McKissock		NASA Lewis Research Center
                                           Cleveland, Ohio 44135
    dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov
    /pn=david.mckissock/admd=telemail/prmd=lerc/c=us/@x400.msfc.nasa.gov
                   Disclaimer: My Opinions are My Own, not NASA's.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Article: 77467
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Space Station Assembly Sequence
Date: 9 Nov 1993 16:37 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center / Cleveland, Ohio
 
The following are excerpts from NASA's November 1 "Alpha Station
Program Implementation Plan", relative to the assembly sequence.
 
                         ** Phase Two **

Assembly  Launch    Developer Element        Launch Date
Flight    Desgntr
 
1         1R        Russia/US FGB Energy Block              5/97
2         2R        Russia/US Airlock/STS Docking adapter   6/97
3         1A        US        Node 1                        7/97
4         3R        Russia    Service Module                7/97
5         4R        Russia    Docking Node                  8/97
6         2A        Russia/US Truss 1, Gyrodynes, Batteries 9/97
7         5R        Russia/US Truss 2, PV array             10/97
8         3A        US        US Lab (3 system + 2 ISPR     10/97
                                   racks)
9         4A        US        Lab outfitting, MBS           11/97
10        5A        US        S0 Truss, MBSU, MT, TUS,      12/97
                              MTS, GPS
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                        ** Phase Three **

Assembly  Launch    Developer Element        Launch Date
Flight    Desgntr
11        6R        Russia    Soyuz ACRV                    1/98
12        6A        US/Canada P1 Truss, TCS, SSRMS,         4/98
                              S-band, Ku-band, UHF,
                              Cameras
13        7A        US        Node 2, Cupola, S5, SPDM      7/98
14        8A        US        S1 Truss, TCS, S-band,        10/98
                              UHF, Cameras, MMD
15        9A        US        P3/P4 Truss, PV array         1/99
16        10A       US        S3/S4 Truss, PV array         4/99
17        7R        Russia    Service Module LSS            6/99
18        11A       US        S6 Truss, PV array            7/99
19        1J        Japan     JEM                           10/99
20        2J        Japan     Outfitting flight             1/00
21        1E        Europe    APM                           4/00
22        2E        Europe    Outfitting flight             7/00
23        3J        Japan     JEM EF                        10/00
24        12A       US        US Hab                        1/01
25        8R        Russia    Research Module 1             2/01
26        13A       US        Hab outfitting                4/01
27        9R        Russia    Soyuz ACRV 2                  7/01
28        14A       US        Outfitting flight             7/01
29        10R       Russia    Research Module 2             8/01
30        11R       Russia    Research Module 3             9/01
31        12R       Russia/US Solar Dynamic Element         10/01
 
Overall Concept

Phase 1
Phase One expands the joint participation by US and Russian crews
in Mir and Shuttle operations agreed upon in October 1992. This
expanded program combines the Shuttle-Mir program with additional
Shuttle flights to Mir and US crews aboard Mir.
 
Planned missions, in addition to the STS-60, Soyuz 18, and STS-71
missions, include an additional Russian cosmonaut on STS 63, four
or more US astronaut flights aboard the Mir station for a total
on-orbit stay time of approximately 24 months, and up to ten
Shuttle flights to Mir between 1995 and 1997. The US Shuttle will
assist with crew exchange, resupply, and payload activities for Mir.
 
Mir capabilities will be enhanced by contributions from both the US
and Russia. The Shuttle will bring new solar arrays to replace
existing arrays on Mir. Russia will add Spektr and Priroda modules to
Mir. These modules will be equipped with US and Russian scientific
hardware to support science and research experiments. 
 
One of the primary advantages of Phase One is that it will provide
valuable experience and test data that will greatly reduce technical
risks associated with the construction and operation of the
international space station. The Space Station Program will also be
enhanced by combined space operations and joint space technology
demonstrations. Moreover, Phase One will provide early opportunities
for extended scientific and research activities. 
 
Phase Two
Phase Two combines US with Russian hardware to create a totally
new, advanced orbital research facility with early human-tended
capability. This facility will significantly expand and enlarge
the scientific and research activities initiated in Phase One and
will form the core around which the international space station
will be constructed.
 
Phase Three
Phase Three completes construction of the international space
station. The station will support a permanent human presence and
have full operational and research capability. After completion,
the station will have an operational lifetime of approximately
ten years.
 
Flight Descriptions
Flight 1R - FGB
The FGB Vehicle is a Russian spacecraft which incorporates the
functionality of a Tug along with a pressurized compartment. The
FGB has approximately 55 cubic meters of internal volume and has
the capacity for up to 6 metric tons of propellant. The unit will
serve for initial station attitude control and reboost and in
later stages shall serve as the fuel stowage system for the
secondary reboost engines. The vehicle is approximately 4.4 m in
diameter with a length of 12.8 m. The mass of the unit is
approximately 19.5 metric tons.
 
Flight 2R - Airlock
The airlock is a combined US/Russian development which shall have
the capability for support of both US and Russian EMU's. The unit
will also serve as the docking port for the shuttle during the
Node 1 delivery flight.
 
Flight 1A - Transition Structure / Node 1
The transition structure is a pressurized volume which shall
interface between the US Node 1 and the Russian FGB. The
structure shall transmit structural loads and station utilities.
 
Node 1 is a pressurized volume which contains four radial and two
axial berthing ports. This element shall interface with the US
Lab and the transition structure. The Node will be launched with
two Pressurized Mating Adapters attached and shall serve as the
docking location for the delivery of the US laboratory. The Node
shall allow for attachment of a pressurized module to the zenith
radial port.
 
Flight 3R - Service Module
The Russian Service Module is a pressurized module which contains
basic housekeeping module functions, life support functions, primary
and secondary power, thermal control, and limited payload operations. 
 
Flight 4R - Docking Node
The Docking Node is a Russia Universal Docking Element which
contains six radial and two axial ports. This element will allow
for attachment of Russian science modules.
 
Flight 2A - Truss 1
This flight consists of the lower portion of the power mast. This
portion of the truss is pressurized and will contain the
gyrodynes and electrical storage batteries.
 
Flight 5R - Truss 2
This flight assembles the upper portion of the power mast. This
section will contain the electrical power conditioning equipment.
The PV array will be attached to the top of this section and the
thermal radiator will be attached to the aft face.
 
Flight 3A - US Laboratory
The US laboratory is a pressurized volume approximately 27 ft in
length and 15 ft in diameter which is designed to house
experiments in the form of International Standard Payload Racks
(ISPR). The laboratory houses 13 ISPR locations and will provide
basic Environmental Control and Life Support System temperature
and humidity control, electrical power distribution, and thermal
control. The laboratory will house the central electronics for
the operations of the US pressurized and unpressurized volumes.
The laboratory will provide the attach points for Module to Truss
structure.
 
Flight 4A - Laboratory Outfitting
This flight will contain a pressurized logistics module with
Payload Racks and the Mobile Base Servicer. The pressurized
logistics module will be offloaded and returned in the Shuttle.
 
Flight 5A - Truss S0
This is the central truss element and provides a home for the
central power distribution, thermal distribution, and attitude
control equipment. The structure also provides the structural
points for the module to truss attach.
 
Flight 6R - Soyuz ACRV
This unit will be a Phase 1 ACRV based on a Soyuz vehicle and
launched on a Russian booster. The unit will be used for both
rescue and crew rotation.
 
Flight 6A - Truss P1
This truss section will house the SSRMS and the port side thermal
radiators. The truss section will also house the port side
communications antennas.
 
Flight 7A - Node 2, Cupola, SPDM
This flight will contain Node 2. Node 2 is a pressurized volume
with four radial and two axial ports. The cupola will be co-
manifested on this flight and will be attached to the zenith port
of Node 2. The SPDM Robotic End Effector will be also co-
manifested. The SPDM is a robotic element which works in
conjunction with the RMS.
 
Flight 8A - Truss S1
This truss section contains the starboard side thermal radiators,
the S- and KU- band antennas and the MMD.
 
Flight 9A - Truss P3/P4
This truss element will house the first US PV element and the
associated thermal systems. This flight will also contain the
port alpha joint.
 
Flight 10A - Truss S3/S4
This truss section houses the first starboard side PV element and
associated radiator. This truss section also houses the starboard
side alpha joint.
 
Flight 7R - Service Module LSS
The LSS is a pressurized volume which will contain the
regenerative life support equipment for the Russian Environmental
Control and Life Support System activity.
 
Flight 11A - Truss S6
This truss section contains the outboard starboard PV array and
associated power stowage and conditioning.
 
Flight 1J - JEM
The JEM Module is a pressurized element which will contain
Japanese and US Payload Racks and associated support equipment.
 
Flight 2J
This flight contains a pressurized logistics module containing
Payloads for inclusion in the JEM Module.
 
Flight 1E - APM
The APM is a pressurized element which will contain European and
US Payload racks and associated support equipment.
 
Flight 2E - APM Outfitting
This flight will contain Payloads offloaded from the APM.
 
Flight 3J - JEM EF
The JEM Exposed Facility is an unpressurized platform which is
attached to the JEM Module. This platform will be used for
viewing experiments.
 
Flight 12A - US Habitation Module
The Habitation Module is a pressurized module which will contain
the galley, wardroom, waste management, water processing and
other crew support functions necessary for human operations.
 
Flight 8R - Research Module 1
The Russian research module is a pressurized volume containing
science payloads.
 
Flight 13A - Habitation Module Outfitting
This flight will contain racks offloaded from the Habitation Module.
 
Flight 9R - Soyuz ACRV 2
This flight contains the second ACRV.
 
Flight 14A - Outfitting
This flight will contain pressurized and unpressurized offloads
from previous flights.
 
Flight 10R - Research Module 2
This flight will contain the second Russian pressurized science module.
 
Flight 11R
This flight will contain the third Russian pressurized science module
 
Flight 12R - Solar Dynamic Element
This flight will contain the SD Power Element and associated
power conditioning.
 
Send me an e-mail if you've read this far, and you would like me to type
in additional information on the Operations, Science and Technology
Utilization, Program Management, and Financial Management (it's kind
of a lot to type in, so I won't do it unless somebody will actually
read it). 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           David McKissock		NASA Lewis Research Center
                                           Cleveland, Ohio 44135
    dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov
    /pn=david.mckissock/admd=telemail/prmd=lerc/c=us/@x400.msfc.nasa.gov
                   Disclaimer: My Opinions are My Own, not NASA's.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From:	US1RMC::"JONATHAN.FINK@ASU.Edu" "Jon Fink" 11-NOV-1993 17:39:07.71
To:	distribution:;@us1rmc.bb.dec.com (see end of body)
CC:	
Subj:	fyi#149_distr

"Ralpha" Space Station Plan Takes Flight

FYI No. 149, November 11, 1993

The anxiously-awaited plans for a joint U.S.-Russian space station
were revealed by the Clinton Administration last week.  Informally
called "Ralpha," the joint station would link the U.S.-led space
station "Alpha" with an upgraded Russian station.  The Clinton
proposal lays out a three-phase strategy for U.S.-Russian cooperation
in space, culminating in a "world" space station effort involving the
U.S., Russia, Japan, Canada, and Europe.  The plan is described in an
addendum to the "Program Implementation Plan" for Alpha. 

The international space station would enable a permanent human
presence in space by October 2001, two years earlier than the U.S.'s
plan for Alpha alone.  According to NASA, the joint facility would
provide additional advantages over Alpha:  40 kilowatts more power, 25
percent more enclosed volume, a total of six crew rather than four, a
better microgravity environment, and better Earth Observation from the
51.6 degree orbit.  NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin estimated that it
would save the United States $3 to $4 billion, mainly due to the
shortened construction schedule. 

The three-phase plan would begin with enhanced cooperation between the
U.S. and Russia on shuttle flights and Russia's MIR space station. 
This level of cooperation was agreed to last year, with the U.S.
promising to pay Russia $100 million a year for four years for
hardware and services.  Phase I will include astronaut and cosmonaut
exchanges, shuttle missions to MIR, and enhanced U.S. and Russian
research on MIR. 

Phase II will be an advanced orbital research facility with an early
human-tended capability (by 1997.)  Intended to become operational by
the end of MIR-1's useful lifetime, this phase will couple a
second-generation MIR station with a U.S. lab.  According to the
proposal, this will eventually become "the core around which the
international space station will be constructed." 

Phase III is the complete international space station, which will
support permanent human presence by 2001, and have full operational
and research capability.  Designed to have an operational lifetime of
about ten years, the station will be serviceable by both U.S. and
Russian vehicles.  Plans for assembly require 19 shuttle launches and
12 Russian booster launches.  (This assumes an upgraded shuttle with
an aluminum lithium tank and various performance enhancements, but
without the Advanced Solid Rocket Motor.) 

All command and control operations for the international station would
be under the direction of NASA's Mission Control Center at Houston,
which would also maintain responsibility for overall program
coordination, systems engineering integration, and safety. Back-up
operations capability would be provided by the Russian Space Agency at
Kaliningrad. 

The proposal states that "the roles and responsibilities" of the
U.S.'s current International Partners as determined by the
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) and Memoranda of Understanding "will
remain unchanged."  For Phases II and III, Russia will become a full
International Partner and adhere to the existing IGA. 

"Pending internal governmental procedures and final governmental
decisions, and concurrence of the space station partners," the
proposal says, "it is anticipated that Russia and the U.S. will
develop and conclude an interim arrangement by December 15, 1993."
Signing of the arrangement is expected to take place during a December
trip to Moscow by Vice President Gore. 

The reaction to the proposal by Members of Congress is difficult to
anticipate.  Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee chair Barbara
Mikulski has concerns about the level of Russian participation.  As
reported in FYI #134, the fiscal year 1994 budget language for NASA
included a clause capping the amount of space station money NASA can
spend until Congress has reviewed the joint station proposal. 

While the ideas of a "world" space station and a "new world order" of
cooperation with Russia seem to have buoyed support for the station,
yet another congressional challenge is expected next week when further
cuts to the FY94 budget are considered. 

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1993 17:15:58 -0500 (EST)
% Resent-From: Jon Fink <JONATHAN.FINK@ASU.Edu>
% From: fyi@aip.org
% Subject: fyi#149_distr
% Resent-To: distribution:;@us1rmc.bb.dec.com (see end of body)
% Resent-Message-Id: <01H5707QNBV68Y50Z9@asu.edu>
% Apparently-To: volcano@asuvm.inre.asu.edu

From:	US1RMC::"fyi@aip.org" "MAIL-11 Daemon" 16-FEB-1994 17:53:47.65
CC:	
Subj:	fyi#22_distr

NASA FY95 Budget Request:  Space Station, Russian Cooperation

FYI No. 22, February 15, 1994

Below are selected highlights from background material supplied by
NASA for its fiscal year 1995 budget request:

"In October 1993, NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin announced that
the Office of Space Flight (OSF), which managed the Space Shuttle
program, would assume responsibility for management of the Space
Station program.  This management change was done because planned
Space Shuttle flight activities are becoming increasingly more
involved with Space Station planning.  OSF managers now consider
the Space Station and Space Shuttle programs to be an integrated
effort for all future planned human space flight activities.

"In the NASA FY 1995 estimate, the Human Space Flight appropriation
provides funding for NASA's human space flight activities.... 
These activities are funded in four categories: 1) Space Station -
($1.890 billion); 2) U.S.-Russian Cooperative Activities -($150
million); 3) Space Shuttle - ($2.42 billion, Shuttle operations,
$903.9 million, Saftey/Performance Upgrades); and 4) Payload and
Utilization Operations - ($356.2 million)."

SPACE STATION:  "The total NASA request for the Space Station
Program is $2.1 billion; of that total $1.9 billion is contained in
the Human Space Flight budget, and the remaining $181 million is
contained in the Science, Aeronautics and Technology budget.  The
$1.9 billion request provides for the development, manufacturing,
test, assembly and qualification of flight hardware; the
development of facilities required for operations, docking systems
and other integration activities with the Space Shuttle to
integrate the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs; activities
related to NASA hardware and utilization of the Russian Mir space
station; and flight technology demonstrations.  FY 1995 funding
also provides for utilization support and long-lead items to
support vehicle and ground operations...."

"During the past year, extensive- and intensive- redesign efforts,
mandated by the Administration, have resulted in a new
international Space Station design which will continue to include
participation by traditional U.S. partners- the European Space
Agency, Japan and Canada (with Italian involvement as well)- and
Russia, which has been invited to become a full-fledged partner and
will be a major player in the launch, assembly and scientific
utilization of the facility during its intended 10-year lifetime. 
Launch and assembly of the U.S. portion of the international Space
Station will begin in 1997.  Permanent, international occupation of
the Station by as many as six persons is scheduled for shortly
after the turn of the Century."

RUSSIAN COOPERATION:  "A total of $150 million is contained in the
Human Space Flight budget in FY 1995 for Russian Cooperation.  $100
million of that will go to the Russian Space Agency as part of a
4-year, $400 million fixed price contract between NASA and the RSA
for NASA's lease of the Russian Mir space station.  The contract is
for services and equipment to be provided by the Russian Space
Agency and includes the enhancement of Mir-1 operational
capabilities, joint space flights and other joint activities to
design, develop, operate and utilize the international Space
Station.  (By prior agreement with the Congress, the contract
funding amounts are not included in the $2.1 billion Space Station
and related funding request.)  The remaining $50 million is for
Shuttle and Spacelab requirements in support of the Mir program."

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Wed, 16 Feb 94 17:46:34 EST
% From: fyi@aip.org
% Subject: fyi#22_distr

Article: 6984
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.gov.agency
Subject: Space Station Completion Seen
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 13:50:36 PST
 
	WASHINGTON (AP) -- NASA's new space station boss said Friday that
the controversial program will be completed even if Russia fails to
carry out its end of the partnership negotiated last year.

	``I'm not here to preside over the demise of a space station,''
said Wilbur C. Trafton. ``I'm here to build a station.''

	Russia last year joined the United States, Europe, Japan and
Canada as a partner to build the station. The cash-short Russians
will supply two important components, a propulsion module to guide
the station on orbit and two Soyuz spacecraft that will serve as
emergency return vehicles.

	``We are moving forward in the assumption they will be here for
many years to come,'' said Trafton, adding that there is a detailed
backup plan should Russia withdraw for any reason.

	The space station survived by only a single vote in the House
last year before the agreement was reached and the uncertainties
surrounding Russia's participation are certain to provide new fuel
to some opponents.

	``We do not move forward in this program assuming that people
are going to withdraw,'' said Trafton. While the Russians are being
counted on to provide the two ``lifeboats'' and a steering module,
he said, if they were to withdraw there would be a need to get them
somewhere else at added expense and delay.

	Trafton said the benefits of Russian participation will be
earlier completion of the project -- in June 2002, instead of 2003 --
and a $2 billion saving. ``We have gone from a $19.4 billion
program to a $17.4 billion program,'' he said.

	The launch of the first American-provided construction element
will be moved up by a few months to December 1997, he said.

	``You can write this down and take it to the bank,'' Trafton
said. ``We are launching in December 1997.''

	There will be 21 U.S. construction flights and 11 by the
Soviets, he said, but left the door open for a different mix
because the European Space Agency and Japan have each said they
might launch some elements also.

	Trafton retired as a Navy captain in 1992 where his last job was
assistant chief of staff for plans and policy of the U.S. Pacific
Fleet. He planned and managed the withdrawal of the American naval
forces from the Philippines.

	He was president of Micro Research Industries when he was tapped
at the end of last year to join NASA as deputy associate
administrator for the space station, one of a number of management
changes made by Administrator Daniel C. Goldin.

	The space station still is a facility looking for a name.
President Reagan, after a contest in the nation's schools, chose
Space Station Freedom, but that was dropped for an interim
designation as ``Alpha.'' Trafton on Friday referred to it as
``International Space Station Alpha.''

Article: 6990
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Reuter/Deborah Zabarenko)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.world.europe.eastern
Subject: NASA Plans for Russian Pullout from Space Station
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 94 13:33:44 PST
 
	 WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The United States is counting on
Russia to cut costs and speed construction of an international
space station, but there are contingency plans in case Moscow
drops out, NASA said Friday.

	 Russian participation in the space station will save $2
billion, said Wilbur Trafton, who heads the space station
program for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

	 But he acknowledged NASA had ``fairly detailed backup
plans'' for use if Russia withdraws from the project.

	 He said that the $2 billion saving does not include the $400
million the United States is paying Russia over the next four
years for its help.

	 As it stands now, Russia will make 11 of the 32 space
flights needed to assemble the orbitting international space
station, including the first two flights that will set up the
station's propulsion system, Trafton said at a briefing.

	 The United States will make the other 21 flights, he said,
with the first one tentatively set for December 1997.

	 Astronauts will be able to visit the station in June 1998,
and the project should be complete by June 2002, more than a
year earlier than previous plans had specified.

	 After numerous design changes and repeated analysis by
engineers, the plans for the as-yet-unnamed international space
station -- the name ``Freedom'' was jettisoned during the latest
re-design -- will face a final review on March 23.

	 ``On March 23, we're done talking and analyzing and we start
buildilng,'' Trafton said.

	 The plans for Russia's withdrawal are phased, and costs go
up depending on how late in the program Russia leaves, he said.

	 ``The house of cards never comes tumbling down ... there
will be some expense involved and there will be some delays,''
Trafton said, but declined to elaborate.

	 There are no such contingency plans for Europe and Japan,
which are partners in the project. In the case of Canada,
another partner which is providing a robotic arm for the
station, the United States would get the plans for the arm if
Canada left the project.

	 The European Space Agency and Japan have both inquired
whether they might perform some of the space flights, and NASA
is considering this possibility, Trafton said.

Article: 3771
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.news.canada,clari.tw.space
Subject: Canada to Pull out of NASA's Space Station
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 94 15:20:12 PST
 
	 OTTAWA (Reuter) - Canada's will pull out of the international
space station planned by NASA due to budget constraints, the new
Liberal government announced Tuesday. 

	 President Clinton called Prime Minister Jean Chretien last
week to urge him to keep Canada in the program in which Russia, Japan
and the European Space Agency are participating. 

	 But Finance Minister Paul Martin said Canada did not have the
funds to stay in the project. 

	 ``The government is faced with the reality that Canada's
current partnership role in the International Space Station Program is
not within its fiscal means,'' he said in the 1994/95 budget unveiled
in Parliament. 

	 ``Therefore, the decision has been taken to negotiate an
orderly withdrawal from the current commitments to the space station
program,'' Martin said in the budget. 

	 Canada has spent $562 million over five years to develop a
robotic crane for the station similar to the Canadian-built arm used
on NASA's space shuttle. 

Article: 798
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: u9104506@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca (R. Pavlacic)
Subject: Canada pulls out of Allied Space Station Project
Sender: Robert Pavlacic <u9104506@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca>
Organization: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 1994 14:54:17 GMT
 
In yesterday's (1994-02-22) federal budget, Canadian Finance Minister
Paul Martin, Jr. (the son of a former finance minister of the same
name) announced that Canada is withdrawing its commitment to the
Allied Space Station Freedom.  While Mr. Martin can certainly be
credited with at least trying to reorganize Canada's R&D priorities,
I think his decision is a huge mistake. 

	Canada was supposed to provide, as part of the project, a
Remote Manipulator System (RMS), similar to Canada's robotic arm on
the space shuttles (except this one would have been truly mobile) and
a supply depot station.  Our involvement with Freedom was a
continuation of Canada's long-standing relationship with NASA. 
Canada's pullout means the program is now shot to pieces, and the
remaining partners in the alliance will have to come up with their own
RMS system, adding to an already bloated budget for a much needed
space platform.  On behalf of all Canadians, I ask Mr. Martin, "Why
should we pull out now, when we have already invested so much in the
program?  After all, it's not just a case of being able to write off
what we've already done." 
 
Robert Pavlacic
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
u9104506@muss.cis.mcmaster.ca
 

    
    'Why don't name the spacestation to "GaiaPal" and keep
    the name "Alpha" for the first moonbase...
    
    ThPi
    

Article: 3774
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.news.canada,clari.tw.space
Subject: Canada Seeks Reduced Role in Nasa Space Station
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 13:10:36 PST
 
	 OTTAWA (Reuter) - Canada says it cannot afford to stay in
the space station Freedom planned by the United States but is
negotiating a reduced role in the multinational project at U.S.
insistence, officials said Wednesday.

	 ``We are negotiating so that we can still participate in
some way in the space station within our fiscal framework,''
said a spokesman for Industry, Science and Technology Minister
John Manley.

	 The new Liberal government said Tuesday that it could not
afford to meet a commitment to build a mobile robotic arm that
will help assemble and maintain the space station.

	 ``As currently configured, we simply don't have the money to
stay in it,'' Finance Minister Paul Martin told reporters after
uneviling his first budget in Parliament.

	 President Clinton called Prime Minister Jean Chretien last
week to urge him to keep Canada in the project which Russia recently 
joined. Japan and the European Space Agency are also participating.

	 Talks began Monday in Washington to find a reduced role for
Canada as a result of its severe budget deficit, one of the
highest among industrial nations.

	 Over the last five years, Ottawa has spent half of the $1.5
billion Canadian ($1.2 billion U.S.) it committed to develop the
robotic crane similar to the Canadian-built arm used on the U.S.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's shuttle.

	 U.S. officials said negotiations in Washington on the  space
station partnership made clear that international cooperation
was essential for the project's future.

	 ``We are happy Canada is going to stay in,'' a U.S. Embassy
spokesman in Ottawa said. ``We understand that they are under
fiscal restraint.''

Article: 3776
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.canada,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.space
Subject: Canada Wants To Cut Space Plan
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 94 16:00:12 PST
 
	WASHINGTON (AP) -- Canada, which is scheduled to provide a $1
billion crane for the international space station, has told its
partners it can no longer afford to meet its commitment and wants
to renegotiate the agreement, Congress was told on Wednesday.

	``The Canadians have a new government, the government came in
and just as President Clinton did a year ago, took a look at their
space budget and said they cannot afford the full value,'' NASA
Administrator Daniel S. Goldin told the House space subcommittee.

	The European Space Agency and Japan ``are prepared to deliver
what they said,'' Goldin said. In fact, he said, the Europeans want
to take on an additional task: developing a transport vehicle to
carry their own materials to the station.

	There have been discussions between Canada's new prime minister
Jean Chretien and President Clinton, and with Japan and ESA, said a
government source in Ottawa who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Other talks have been at the ambassadorial level and among heads of
each nation's space program.

	``They are going through a similar redesign process that we went
through and we told them we were going to give them our full cooperation 
because we believe it's essential they participate,'' Goldin said.

	``We said, `We are prepared to talk to you; we are prepared to
work on the schedule requirements and the technical requirements so
you can perform this program on the funds that are available,''' he added.

	The intention to cut costs was announced in Ottawa Tuesday by
Industry Minister John Manley.

	``In 1986, the previous government launched an ambitious space
program, but approved funding for only the first phase of costs,''
he said. ``The fiscal situation we inherited made it impossible for
us to maintain our current level of commitment.''

	He said that Canada will try to save more than $380 million
(U.S. dollars) over the next 10 years.

	Canada has already spent $532 million on the project, the source
said. The government is working on a new space plan, which should
be ready in 60 to 90 days, the source said.

	The station was redesigned recently, for the sixth time since it
went on the drawing boards in 1984, to include Russian
participation. The United States plans to spend $17.4 billion more,
in addition to the $11 billion already spent, to bring it to
completion. Japan and the ESA are in for more than $2 billion each.

	Canada had agreed to pick up about 3 percent of the total cost.

	While the other partners are planning to add modules to the core
station, Canada was to contribute a mobile servicing system,
patterned after the robot arm on the space shuttle.

	Canadians designed and built the arm, which has been used for a
variety of tasks from snaring satellites in orbit and releasing
them back into space to lifting astronauts to do repair work on the
Hubble Space Telescope.

re .210
    
> ... Finance Minister Paul Martin told reporters after
> uneviling his first budget in Parliament.
  ^^^^^^^^^
    
    Freudian typo?

Article: 8217
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.agency
Subject: Space Station Design Readied
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 10:50:19 PST
 
	WASHINGTON (AP) -- This week NASA officials unveil yet another
``final design'' for the space station -- the seventh to date and
the first to include full participation by the Russians.

	The deal gives Russians some badly needed cash and Americans
the benefit of Russian experience with long-term space stays. But the
arrangement may not go over so well in the House, where sentiment to
scrap the project is growing. 

	The six discarded plans were keyed to building an orbiting
laboratory for pure, world-class science. The newest offering,
however, will present the station for the first time as an
instrument of foreign policy.

	Under a 300-page agreement signed in Moscow last December by
Vice President Gore and Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, Russia
became a full partner in an international space station with the
United States, 10 European nations, Japan and Canada.

	Lost in the smiles, self-congratulations and backslappings was
the fact that the United States was horsetrading to stop Russia from
sending sensitive rocket engine technology to India and to abide by
the Missile Technology Control Regime.  More than 20 countries signed
on to the MTCR agreement not to export long-range missiles and missile
technology. 

	It was a good deal for the cash-strapped Russians. The United
States agreed to pay $400 million (which happened to be the amount
Russia said it would lose by canceling its contract with India) and
will send 10 shuttle flights to the Mir space station through 1997
along with equipment and experiments the Russians need.

	The United States gets access to 20 years of Russian space
station experience and the opportunity to have astronauts spend a
total of 24 months on Mir. America's space corps lags far behind
its Russian counterpart in the long-duration flights that are
precursors to interplanetary travel. The U.S. best is 84 days on
Skylab; Russians have spent up to 366 days on Mir at a single time.

	NASA officials plan to outline the new design on Thursday, and
next week, present it to Congress, a routine they know well. All that
remains of the previous six designs -- which cost American taxpayers
$11.2 billion to date -- is a mountain of paper and a few pieces of
hardware. 

	But the Russian participation is an unknown element in
Congress, where many members question the need for any station.  Eleven
attempts to terminate the program have failed but votes are increasingly 
close.  The station survived in the House by a single vote last year. 

	Lawmakers grouse that Russia's iffy economy and internal turmoil
make it an unreliable partner.

	``I have serious questions on whether to continue to support the
space station,'' said Rep. George Brown, D-Calif., who is chairman
of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and a strong
supporter in the past.

	``I'm in favor of cooperating with the Russians,'' he said in an
interview. ``I don't favor cooperating with them to the extent that
they could endanger the project by failing to meet their commitments. 
I want us to be a partner, but not dependent on them.''

	Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., ranking Republican on
the House space subcommittee, has declared his opposition as long
as the station's completion relies on Russia.

	In a background paper, Russian space specialist Marcia S. Smith
of the Congressional Research Service raised these questions that
most certainly will become the focus of debate:

	``What if Russia violates the MTCR? Would the United States
impose sanctions against Russia that could include terminating
Russian participation in the program, or that could lead to Russian
withdrawal in retaliation? ... What happens to the space station if
U.S. foreign policy changes.''

	NASA's latest space station chief, former Navy captain Wilbur
C. Trafton seemed surprised at skepticism about Russia and stressed
NASA has backup plans to go ahead without Russia if necessary and
``the house of cards never comes tumbling down.'' 

	The larger station that results from the partnership will
accommodate six crew members instead of four, have more lab space
and electrical power than the station NASA was proposing last year.

	Further, the Clinton administration has maintained it will
save $2 billion and one year's construction time by including the
Russians.  Both claims are questionable already because of announced
schedule changes.  The last NASA estimate of the station through
completion was for $17.4 billion in addition to the $11.2 already
spent.  By all accounts, the end-of-March figure will be at least 
$1 billion more. 

	In the meantime, other problems have surfaced. Canada agreed to
provide a $1 billion crane for the station but says now it can no
longer afford it and wants to renegotiate. Presumably the United
States would have to increase its contribution.

	The European Space Agency, representing 10 countries, plans a
smaller module and is waiting for two years before deciding whether
to build it. And ESA is talking about using its own construction
transportation, not the space shuttle.

	Only Japan is sticking to its original plans.

Article: 5433
From: MAILRP@ESA.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Subject: Russia - a new partner in the international space station
Date: 22 Mar 1994 14:18:58 -0800
Organization: European Space Agency
Sender: daemon@news.arc.nasa.gov
 
Press Release No. 08-94
Paris, 18 March 1994
 
Russia - a new partner in the international space station
 
On Friday, 18 March 1994, at a meeting held in Paris, the signatories
of the multilateral Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) on cooperation
in the design, development, operation and utilisation of the future
international space station welcomed Russia as a new partner and began
the negotiations that will establish its role. 
 
The meeting was attended by the 11* ESA Member States participating in
the Columbus programme and the manned space transportation programme
(MSTP) and by the United States, Canada, Japan and the Russian Federation. 
 
With the advent of Russia as a new partner, some amendments will have
to be made to the formal agreements over the months ahead, in order to
carry out the space station programme which will enable all the
participants to have a permanent presence in space from the start of
the 21st century. 
 
After the meeting, Mr Jean-Marie Luton, the ESA Director General,
said: "Cooperation on an unprecedented scale will now develop and I am
sure that, like all the other partners, Europe will reap both
political and industrial and scientific and technological benefits
from it.  This is a project in which we must play our full part and we
are now working on definition of our contribution, based on the
Columbus element and the cargo and crew transport systems that will be
launched by Ariane-5". 
 
                        *     *
 
*       Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,
        Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Article: 3884
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (AP)
Newsgroups: clari.news.gov.usa,clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.agency
Subject: NASA Unveils Station Plans
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 94 17:30:32 PST
 
	CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) -- NASA and its space partners, in
an unprecedented show of support, pledged Thursday to build an
international space station on time and within budget. 

	``We have an executable program,'' NASA space station director
Wilbur Trafton said at a news conference outlining plans for the
orbiting laboratory. ``We expect problems, but we've got the team
in place that can tackle these problems.''

	The space station unveiled Thursday was NASA's seventh version.
Ten station program managers discussed the project following a
system design review at Johnson Space Center in Houston -- they
represented NASA, the European Space Agency and the space agencies
of Italy, Canada, Japan and, for the first time, Russia.

	Russia became a full partner late last year in the international
space station already planned -- and replanned -- by the other countries. 
But some members of Congress and many others fear Russia's economic and 
political uncertainties could jeopardize the project.

	Dan Tam, NASA's space station business manager, said he's
confident Congress and others will buy the program once they see
``we indeed have a different way of doing business.'' This includes
a streamlined program, specific goals and a firm design.

	Provided Congress approves funding, NASA and its Russian
counterpart expect to start building the orbiting laboratory in
1997, after America's shuttles dock 10 times with Russia's aging
space station Mir.

	Sixteen U.S. shuttle flights and 13 Russian space flights will
be required over five years to build the station, officials said.
In addition, up to five flights will be needed each year to supply
fuel for raising the station's orbit.

	That's 54 flights right there.

	Trafton said NASA was prepared to go it alone if Russia or any
other country pulled out. By the same token, U.S. space station
parts could be transferred to Russian rockets for launch if the
shuttle fleet was grounded because of an accident, said Bill
Shepherd, deputy program manager.

	``We are working contingency plans,'' Trafton said. ``I think
we're being prudent program managers here. ... We feel like we're going 
to have a space station, and we're going to launch in December 1997.''

	The station, dubbed Alpha but still awaiting an official name,
should be completed in 2002 and house six people. NASA said it will
be bigger and cost the United States less than what had been
planned under the old space station Freedom program.

	Trafton said NASA will use 75 percent of the hardware, drawings
and other items already planned for space station Freedom.

	As for costs, NASA insisted they will not exceed the $2.1
billion annual spending limit set by the Office of Management and
Budget. The latest cost estimate through completion is $17.4
billion, in addition to the $10 billion already spent. That doesn't
include shuttle launch costs or foreign investment.

	Add about $3 billion from the European Space Agency by the time
the station is completed, $1 billion from Canada, $400 million from
Italy and $3 billion from Japan and the cost is up to $35 billion
and counting. The Russian space agency's representative, Alexander
Botvinko, said he could not provide a cost estimate.

	Many issues remain unresolved.

	NASA is struggling to reduce the amount of spacewalking time
needed to build the station and maintain it during its 10-year
lifetime. Current plans call for more than 400 hours of
spacewalking to build the station, but NASA wants to get that below
the 365 hours required under the old space station program.

	And a spacesuit common to both the United States and Russia must
be developed, although that doesn't have to be done immediately,
Shepherd said.

	Tam said for the first time in the 10-year history of the space
station program, ``we feel much better today than we've ever
felt.'' The European, Canadian and Japanese representatives agreed
with some hesitation.

	``We're in it for the long haul. We want to see this program
succeed,'' said Derek Deil, the European Space Agency's station manager.

	NASA said joint U.S.-Russian space flights now through 1997 will
provide the necessary experience for building a joint station and
reduce risks.

	U.S. astronauts are to spend a total of 24 months on Mir
beginning in 1995. At the same time, Russian cosmonauts will fly on
shuttles. The first time a cosmonaut flew on a U.S. shuttle was
last month, on Discovery.

	As NASA was hashing out station details, the Aerospace Safety
Advisory Panel urged the U.S. space agency to get a quick but thorough
understanding of the workings of the Russian space program: its testing 
procedures, equipment design, and policies on having backup systems. 

Article: 4015
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (Reuters)
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.gov.usa
Subject: NASA Chief Hotly Defends Space Station Program
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 94 14:10:20 PDT
 
	 WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The chief of the U.S. space agency
hotly defended the space station program Wednesday against
congressional critics who say it costs too much and risks too
much with Russian participation.
	 ``NASA cannot handle the punishment that we're going
through,'' Daniel Goldin told a House of Representatives panel
on space and technology, speaking of repeated budget cuts and
constant criticism. ``We have got to have stable funding and
some kind of agreement about what we are going to do.''
	 Goldin, head of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, complained that a 30 percent budget cut in the
last 12 months had hampered the U.S. space program, including
the redesigned space station.
	 The space station has been a perennial target of
budget-cutters in Congress and funding for the program was only
narrowly approved last year.
	 Pressed to estimate how much more the space station would
cost -- $10.2 billion has already been spent -- Goldin gave the
figure of $17.9 billion.
	 However, he said NASA negotiators were in the midst of
hammering out the details of an agreement to purchase Russian
space hardware and support for the station.
	 A general agreement for Russian components in December said
the amount would not exceed $400 million; now figures as high as
$650 million are being mentioned.
	 Asked whether reliance on Russian hardware would jeopardize
safety in construction of the space station, Goldin replied,
''The Russians have many more hours in space than we do; we have
something to learn from them.''
	 Goldin said NASA officials are also working out a
contingency plan in case the United States needs to ``divorce''
itself from its Russian partners while the space station is
being built.

From:	US4RMC::"yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov" "Peter Yee" 27-MAY-1994 08:52:22.98
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	Station solar array modules to be sent to Russia [Release 94-79]  

Mark Hess/Jim Cast
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                            May 20, 1994
(Phone:  202/358-1778)

Debra Rahn
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
(Phone:  202/358-1639)

Mary Ann Peto
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland
(Phone:  216/433-2902) 

Kari Fluegel
Johnson Space Center, Houston 
(Phone:  713/483-5111)

RELEASE: 94-79

STATION SOLAR ARRAY MODULES TO BE SENT TO RUSSIA

        The first set of solar array modules for the International
Space Station program are ready to be shipped from the United States
to Russia at the end of May, NASA announced today. 

        The modules of interconnected solar cells are prototypes of
flight units which will be delivered in September to be incorporated
into advanced solar arrays for use on Russia's Space Station Mir. 
NASA and Russia's Space Agency are carrying out a joint program
involving flights of the U.S. Space Shuttle to Mir and Russian
participation in the International Space Station.  The advanced array,
known as the Cooperative Solar Array, combines Russian flight proven
structures and mechanisms with American advanced solar array modules
to increase the available user electrical power on the station. 

        "This project combines the best technology from both the
United States and Russia," said Randy Brinkley, manager of the
International Space Station Program Office.  "It represents one more
milestone that shows how all the international partners are committed
to building a world- class research facility in space." 

        The modules will be delivered in two shipments.  The first is
tentatively scheduled to be sent May 30 with the second shipment
tentatively set for June 15.  Once they arrive in Russia, NPO-Energia
will validate the design and assembly procedures prior to launch of
the photovoltaic arrays to Mir on the Space Shuttle in October 1995 to
support the joint Shuttle/Mir space flights.  The six arrays for the
International Space Station will be launched in 1998. 

        The Cooperative Solar Array team is structured as an
Integrated Product Team (IPT) consisting of NASA's Lewis Research
Center, Cleveland, Ohio;  Rockwell International's Rocketdyne
Division, Canoga Park, Calif.;  Lockheed Missiles and Space
Corporation, Sunnyvale, Calif.;  and NPO-Energia, Kaliningrad.  The
IPT concept, which is being incorporated throughout the space station
program, provides the necessary communications, flexibility and buy-in
of all the team members and is critical to producing flight hardware
in a reduced amount of time for lower cost.  The Cooperative Solar
Array project timeline will be less than two years from inception to
deployment of the jointly produced array, making it one of the first
pieces of hardware to be launched in the International Space Station
program. 

        As the largest international scientific and technology
development ever undertaken, the International Space Station will
bring together resources from the United States, Russia, member
nations of the European Space Agency, Canada and Japan.  The first
phase of the U.S./Russian program is a series of joint Shuttle/Mir
space missions that will allow the United States to perform longer
duration science experiments and verify station hardware concepts.
Subsequently, the International Space Station will be assembled
on-orbit with elements provided by the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan and
Canada.  The first U.S. element launch will be in December 1997 with
human-tended operations beginning in June 1998 after the launch of the
U.S. laboratory.  Assembly will be complete in 2002. 
   
- end -   
   
NOTE TO EDITORS:  Three photographs of Lockheed technicians inspecting
the solar array modules are available in the Johnson Space Center's
Still Photo Library.  To order the photos, please call 713/483-4231. 

From:	US4RMC::"buenneke@rand.org" "Dick Buenneke" 16-JUN-1994 23:37:29.19
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	GAO reports doubts on Russian role in station

[I'm told this came from an Air Force news server, but I'm not 100% sure 
of the pedigree.  The details are of interest, though. --Dick Buenneke]

GAO QUESTIONS BENEFITS OF RUSSIAN ROLE IN SPACE STATION

     Russia's involvement in the international space station has
increased the project's complexity and uncertainty and might not yield
the advertised cost savings, the General Accounting Office (GAO) claims. 

     In a draft summary of a study, GAO also says NASA's projected
$17.1 billion funding level for station through assembly completion
falls $1 billion short of what may be required. 

     Although NASA claims Russian participation will save the U.S. up
to $2 billion, GAO feels the cost impact cannot be determined until
issues regarding Moscow's contribution are resolved. 

     "All costs of Russian participation have not been considered in
determining what the true savings are from Russian participation," GAO
says, adding that costs included in previous station designs have not
been counted under the latest design.  In addition, not all of the
savings are related to Russia's involvement, the document says. 

     "Most of the savings from Russian participation comes from an
optimistic schedule which may not hold up," GAO concludes.  "If the
schedule slips, any savings will quickly evaporate." 

     A NASA spokesman declined to comment on the GAO study until after
the release of the final report sometime in August. Congress, however,
is expected to vote on station funding by the end of this month, reports 
today's edition of Defense Daily. 
-- 
Richard H. Buenneke Jr.                    Tel: (310) 393-0411, Ext. 7382 
RAND Graduate School                       Fax: (310) 393-4818
1700 Main Street                             Internet: buenneke@rand.org
P.O. Box 2138                                  "All opinions are mine alone
Santa Monica, Calif.  90407-2138      All facts speak for themselves"

From:	US4RMC::"dmckiss@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov" "DAVE MCKISSOCK" 21-JUN-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	Space Station Weekly Report for June 6

Space Station This Week
June 6, 1994
94-12

Airlock Contract Awarded
Rockwell International was awarded a contract last week by Boeing
Product Group-3 for the crewlock portion of the joint airlock. The
work will be done in Downey, Calif., then integrated and outfitted by
Boeing in Huntsville, Ala. The airlock is a two-chamber structure that
allows astronauts to ingress/egress. It is an environmentally
controlled portal of the Space Station that allows space suit
servicing -- such as battery recharging, pressurization of the
breathing apparatus, as well as access to extravehicular activity --
without disturbing the delicate balance of the Space Station
environment. It is the second Product Group-3 element to be launched,
following the node, to which it will attach. 

'Trekkies' converge in Anaheim
McDonnell Douglas Space Station Advocates, a group of employees who
volunteer their time to promote the international Space Station,
attended the Star Trek Convention in Anaheim, Calif., over Memorial
Day weekend. The volunteers distributed more than 2,000 pieces of
Space Station literature to science-fiction fans and collected more
than 500 signatures on a pro-Space Station petition. The grass-roots
group conducts letter writing campaigns, writes articles and gives
public presentations and speeches. 

Register for Race for Space
The second annual Race for Space, to be held in Washington, D.C. on
July 24, is hosted by the National Space Society and sponsored by
McDonnell Douglas and the Space Station team. Proceeds from the 1k and
5k races will help fund space education programs. Runners may register
individually or as part of a company team. For more information,
contact Libby Clarke at (202) 543-1900. 

Space Station info available on electronic bulletin board
Reminder ... this newsletter and other Space Station information is
available on the National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Mosaic electronic bulletin board. Users can reach the newsletter as a
World Wide Web document via the following Uniform Resource Locator: 
http://krakatoa.jsc.nasa.gov/ss/prgview/prgview.html

Links are present in this document which will take you to each new
release of the newsletter. 

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: dmckiss@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov (DAVE MCKISSOCK)
% Newsgroups: sci.space.news
% Subject: Space Station Weekly Report for June 6
% Date: 21 Jun 1994 00:36:22 -0700
% Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
% Approved: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
% Distribution: world
% Originator: yee@atlas.arc.nasa.gov

From:	US4RMC::"fyi@aip.org" "AIP listserver" 22-JUN-1994 19:38:37.94
To:	fyi-mailing@aip.org
CC:	
Subj:	FYI #89-AGU/Space Station

American Geophysical Union Position Statement on "The NASA Space Station"
                                                                  
FYI No. 89, June 22, 1994

(Note: In order to increase the level of awareness in the physics
community about the public policy activities of the ten Member
Societies of the American Institute of Physics, FYI expanded its
coverage last year to include societies' resolutions and other actions.) 

The following is a Position Statement of the American Geophysical
Union on "The NASA Space Station."  It was adopted by the AGU Council
on May 26, 1994: 

"A healthy and effective space program is of critical importance to
many fields of geophysics.  The Space Station defined in the
President's FY95 Budget is designed to maintain human presence in
space and to allow microgravity and life sciences studies. Although
this version of the Station is supposed to be less costly than the
original Space Station Freedom, the American Geophysical Union (AGU)
remains deeply concerned that the high cost of implementing the
current Station design will detrimentally affect NASA's science
programs: Mission to Planet Earth, those in the space sciences, and
others.  The impact within NASA is already evident in that there are
no resources identified for new space science missions in the
projected budgets for future years.  The situation threatens the
viability of a balanced national space program.  AGU is also concerned
that the high costs of the Station may detrimentally impact
geophysical science programs in other agencies. 

"The commitment to a predetermined multiple-year budget for the Space
Station, in an era of declining NASA funding, is at the root of the
problem.  AGU recommends that the 1990 Report of the Advisory
Committee for the Future of the U.S. Space Program be carefully
heeded.  The Report argues for a balanced space program, with science
as the `fulcrum', and with selected program elements (e.g., Station)
that are tailored to match the availability of funds.  Implementation
of the Space Station must not be allowed to cause the decline or
demise of the exciting and important science elements of the national
space program.  AGU recommends that funds be included in the
projections of future budgets for science elements of the space
program, even if this action results in future reduction of the scope
of the Station." 

###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact: Richard M. Jones
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
###############

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Date: Wed, 22 Jun 94 15:56:26 EDT
% From: fyi@aip.org (AIP listserver)
% To: fyi-mailing@aip.org
% Subject: FYI #89-AGU/Space Station

From:	US4RMC::"dmckiss@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov" "DAVE MCKISSOCK" 23-JUN-1994 
To:	usenet-space-news@arc.nasa.gov
CC:	
Subj:	Space Station Weekly Report for 6/20/94

Space Station This Week
June 20, 1994

Station clears funding subcommittee

The international Space Station passed the first stage of the
Congressional budget process when the House Appropriations
subcommittee funded NASA at $14 billion for fiscal 1995. The
subcommittee voted to fully fund the station project, while cutting
several other programs in the White House budget request. Overall,
NASA took a $240 million cut to be made at NASA's discretion within
human space flight and mission support accounts. 

The full committee plans on taking up the bill on June 22. The House
floor vote is expected the week of June 27. 

Hardware fabrication continues at McDonnell Douglas

Fabrication of capture latch and umbilical mechanism assembly (UMA)
qualification test units is currently underway at McDonnell Douglas in
Huntington Beach, Calif.  The capture latch is used in various attach
systems to mechanically join sections of the Space Station together
on-orbit. The UMA mechanism is used to connect utilities such as
power, data and video from the main truss to the mobile transporter,
logistics carrier and attached payloads. These mechanisms are complex
precision assemblies with over 100 different mechanical parts in each.
Precision machining of the parts is required to assure high
performance over multiple operating cycles in the hostile space
environment. The parts will be integrated with motors from Allied
Signal in Torrance, Calif., and will undergo environmental and
functional qualification testing. 

"Lookout station" passes structural tests

A recent test to simulate an on-orbit failure has successfully
verified the functional redundancy of the cupola "lookout station"
window design. Boeing employees, in Marshall Space Flight Center's
hazardous test facility in Huntsville, Ala., intentionally applied
pressure to the primary pane window to verify the pane's ability to
sustain the induced pressure. A post-test inspection of the pane
revealed significant surface scratches and dings, but no apparent
damage which might cause an immediate failure. The test demonstrated
the structural integrity of the window design. 

Mir solar array modules shipped

Rocketdyne PG-2 reports that two developmental solar array modules for
the Mir-1 power upgrade were shipped to NPO-Energia ahead of schedule.
The modules will be integrated into the Russian Frames and used for
testing. The objective of the testing is to enable the Mir solar
arrays to be upgraded using solar cells developed for the Space
Station power modules. 

Early power option defined

A program option that provides early power to support science has 
been defined. This option employs the earlier use of one of the
photovoltaic (PV) arrays, a modified long spacer, and attendant
temporary cooling to the U.S. Lab module. After station assembly, the
PV module and long spacer will become one of the outboard PV modules.
This approach minimizes program costs by using standard PV module
pumps and radiators for temporary lab cooling. 

Aerospace States Associates updated on program

On June 10, Randy Brinkley, NASA Space Station program manager, Bill
Shepherd, NASA deputy program manager and Larry Winslow, Boeing vice
president, Space Station program, briefed members from the Aerospace
States Association on the status of the program. The aerospace group
comprises various Governor-appointed representatives most of whom are
strong supporters of the Space Station. 

% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% From: dmckiss@lmsmgr.lerc.nasa.gov (DAVE MCKISSOCK)
% Newsgroups: sci.space.news
% Subject: Space Station Weekly Report for 6/20/94
% Date: 23 Jun 1994 05:17:42 -0700
% Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
% Approved: sci-space-news@ames.arc.nasa.gov
% Distribution: world