Conference 7.286::space

    The National Space Society (formerly Institute) gives launch tours
    which include VIP passes.
    
    Burns

    Where are they, how much does it cost, and who do I call?
    

Associated Press Tue 07-OCT-1986 14:20                       Shuttle Atlantis

   Shuttle Rollout Delayed Two Days By Weather

    CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The space shuttle Atlantis' rollout
to the launch pad for seven weeks of tests was delayed Tuesday for
at least two days by thunderstorms.
   The move to a pad of the first shuttle since the Challenger
accident was scheduled early Tuesday, but had to be scrubbed until
Thursday because of storms in the area and a forecast that they
would linger.
   NASA ground rules prohibit exposing a shuttle to the 4.2-mile,
six-hour trip to the pad if there is lightning within 25 miles of
the Kennedy Space Center. The vehicle is transported while perched
upright on a large tracked carrier.
   The main reason for the trip to the pad is to check out $3.2
million worth of new weather protection equipment designed to shield
shuttle thermal tiles from rain, hail and wind-blown objects.
   Because the space plane was going to be on the pad, engineers
drew up a list of other tests that could be conducted there,
including a countdown rehearsal, electrical checks and the emergency
escape of seven astronauts from a simulated fire on the pad.
   Challenger exploded Jan. 28, killing its crew of seven, and all
                                                            More -->
Associated Press Tue 07-OCT-1986 14:20              Shuttle Atlantis (cont'd)

shuttle flights have been grounded until the faulty booster rocket
joint blamed for the accident has been redesigned and tested.
   The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has said it
hopes to resume launchings in February 1988.
Associated Press Tue 07-OCT-1986 12:16              Shuttle Atlantis (cont'd)

three main engines removed.
   The emergency escape drill, scheduled for mid-November, will
involve fire and rescue crews working with the astronauts.
Everything from crew rescue training to performance of equipment and
communications will be evaluated during a simulated fire.
   Astronauts will be taken by rescue vehicles to a waiting
helicopter to be transferred to a hospital in Titusville where crew
members would be taken if there were an actual launch emergency.
   Atlantis will be the last shuttle on a pad until flights resume.
NASA has set a goal of February 1988 for the next mission.

Info on the National Space Society's launch tour can be found in note
    #43.  You must be a member of the NSS to obtain a launch tour pass,
    but it's well worth it.  You get a monthly magazine free with the
    $30.00 annual membership fee.

    	The NSS's ADDRESS would be helpful.
    
    	Larry
                         

    
    Try 
    
    600 Maryland Ave SW
    West Wing, Suite 203
    Washington, DC 20024
    
    Phone:  202-484-1111
    Hotline (recorded message about current events): 202-484-2802

    Burns
    (NSS Member # 160...if I can't have a low badge at DEC, at least
    I do at NSS!)

    I'll trade you my low badge number at DEC or yours at NSS!  :^)

    Thanks, Burns.  I called yesterday and they are sending out the
    membership info.  (I figured it wouldn't do to look too anxious
    and sign up over the 'phone!)  They (obviously) don't have any
    information on future shuttle tours, but they will try to dig
    up some old brochures, etc., and send them along.  Sounds like
    a nice bunch of people.  Watching the shuttle launches from the
    VIP stands versus the causeway sure sounds inviting ...
    
    When I get the information I'll post it here for anyone else
    who might be interested.
    

    
    I just read where the Vandenberg Shuttle  site is being formally
    mothballed.  I don't understand why the Military is not flying the
    Shuttle now !  If one believes the Roger Report, and with no
    political problems,  Vandenberg would be a ideal place to launch
    the Shuttle.  The new guidelines are know, don't reuse the solid
    state booster, launch in a certain temp range, etc.  Flying combat or
    U2 type mission is certaily as dangerous to ones health.  
    
     Shuttle flight form Vandenberg for Military Mission.  
     Does anyone else feel the same as I do?
    
    I would fly such a shuttle mission if I was in the Military.  The
    Shuttle has a very good track record and the problem that are 
    reported can be worked around.  I would not like to see a Civilian
    flight or satellite under these restrictions but why not a Militray one.
    
    john                                           
    
    

    Actually, I almost agree with you, but keep the following in mind:
    
    1) The SRBs are NOT the only failure points raised by the RC as
       requiring attention.  Brakes were another big item, and there
       were about a dozen more items.  Also, the change to pressure
       testing procedures of the SRB o-rings MAY have had a negative
       impact on SRB reliability; after going to higher pressure tests
       there was more incidence of blowby/burn through.
    
    2) Back to the SRBs, any fool SHOULD know an o-ring would burn if
       it was exposed to hot gasses. Why they insist on using that type
       of joint, when there are others available which are better, or
       when someone proposed casting the entire motor in Florida and
       thus doing away with field joints, I don't know.  (Maybe I do;
       it would cost more and require complete retooling of the SRB
       segments.)
    
    3) Ignoring for the moment the human factor, if we lose another
       shuttle we're in deep sewage.  If you think the space program
       was badly affected by the Challenger loss, another loss would
       probably destroy the space program completely.
    
    Actually, Vandenberg DID have some problems with venting of exhaust
    fumes (hydrogen gas?) from the launch tower if the main engines
    shut down for some reason.  Might this have had an impact on the
    decision to mothball Vandenberg?
    
    
    I'm all for getting the shuttles flying again, but I'd really like
    to see everything done right this time.  We can't afford any more
    half measures.
    

    Re .9: 
    	I remember reading somewhere that the launches from Vandenburg
    place the flight paths too close to populated areas. Am I wrong?
    BTW: I don't know much about space flights, so I may have mis-read
    the article!	8^)
    
    	But definitely I remember the criticisms vis-a-vis the draw-backs
    in the handling of exhaust fumes and something about the inappropriate
    placing of the liquid fuel storage tanks close to the pad, etc.
    
    -parthi

    re 9
    yes you are right, I fogot that there was a pad problem with the
    venting of Hydrogen gas
    
    as for the landing, it could be done in the salt flats, I think
    the only serious problem was on short runways, and I think the
    glide path could be adjusted to help the tire problem.
    
    re 10
    No serious problem with an accident with the shuttle an a populated
    area, they have had there share of explosion and I hope they know
    what flight paths are resonable.
    
    I agree, that the bigest problem would be is the possible lost of
    another Shuttle, but if the all the risk are know and the work around are
    well understood then the gamble  would be the same if the Shuttle
    was fixed or not, it would be a new unknow problem.
                                   
    and I think the MIL version of the shuttle had plans for fiber boosters
    with external straps, however I dont know the status of actually
    implimentation and testing of these boosters.  This was done in
    part to incress the payload and incress the  integrity of the joints.
    
    So I gues the best argument against laucnch would be the venting
    of the PAD - However - I don't think the USAF wanted the shuttle
    and the support needed as a Large Booster would do what they wanted
    to do , most likly they are right but it let Politics get in the way.
    
    
                                

    In general the shuttle could and probably should have continued
    to fly. If there had been one already under construction I would
    have said it definitely should have flown.
    
    As for WTR (Vandenburg), there are number of reasons leading to its
    mothballing. The USAF missions planned for polar orbit required the use
    of lightweight, filament wound SRBs, use of the SSMEs at 109% thrust
    and usually the Centaur G upper stage. All of these have been canned
    for vaious safety reasons. I don't know of the lightweight SRBs have
    been test fired but they were basically similar to the current SRB
    design. As an aside, the new uprated SRMs for Titan 4 followons use
    similar filament wound casings, in three segments rather than 7. I
    expect that these will be built at Hercules' new automated solid
    propellant plant. If they are successful, my guess is that a similarly
    redesigned SRB will appear on the shuttle. 
    
    Aerojet wanted to build monolithic SRBs, i.e. the propellant is
    loaded in one large pour with no segments, at a plant in Florida.
    
    There is also the hydrogen venting problem, which could allow for
    a buildup of gaseous hydrogen if there was a pad abort. They would
    not have had this problem with Titan-3M, the vehicle that SLC-6
    was originally built for, so it may be a basic design problem.
    
    Titans and other large vehicles have been launched for years from
    WTR so I doubt that would affect the shuttle.
    
    The bottom line I think is that the shuttle can no longer carry
    the USAF/DoD's big payloads so they have lost interest in SLC-6.
    They are putting their money into SLC-4 and other Titan pads.
    
    gary
        

Heard on BBC World Service program "Science in Action" last night... 

The planned date for the next shuttle launch is early June (can't recall
the exact date). 

There have been *lots* of modifications to the shuttle - example was over
40 mods to the SSME - to try to get rid of serious problems the high
pressure turbine blades cracking.

jb

Re: a couple notes back:

The comment about a launch from Vandenberg over populated areas may be true,
but there are other complications.

A southerly launch into a polar orbit takes the shuttle over some very
desolate areas of the Earth, with very few places for an emergency landing.
In fact, if you trace the typical southerly launch path, it takes you out
over the southern Pacific, west of South America.

After a very short time into the launch, the *only* place that a shuttle
could make an emergency landing is on Easter Island.  (You know the place -
the one with all of those weird, inexplicably large stone heads standing
all around.)  In fact, for a long time, there was no agreement with the US
about a landing - and the only runway was too short.  (That was recently
fixed.)

							Jeff Diewald

    Re: Vandenberg
    
    Its nice to know that they mothballed Vandenberg.  The shuttle
    complex a VAB cost something like $0.5B, about 1/3 of a new 
    shuttle or enough for several (3?) planetary missions.  It
    doesn't seem like the military spends its large space budget 
    very well.