Conference 7.286::space

    Sounds to me like the Soviets have an ambitious and balanced program
    which puts us to shame.
    	I've always thought that a big station would need a big booster
    to launch its major components.  Is the shuttle big enough?
    	Comments?

    How do I find out more info about attending the Sept L-5/NSS
    annual ' The Soviet Year in Space ' talk, I would like to
    go but have no idea of how
    
    thanks john
    

    NY Times Tuesday 14 July carried an article about the Soviet offering
    to sell Photographs taken from space.  The Soviet space photographs
    have a resolution as high as six meters,  the French civil sat
    SPOT with about 10 meters and the US LANDSAT of 30 meters. It goes
    on to say that western experts believe that at least some of the
    Russian photographs were taken from the space station MIR.
    

    re .3
    
    They have been proposing selling photos for a while as part of the
    Glavkosmos effort. AW&ST had an article a few weeks ago including
    prices.
    
    re .2
    
    As far as I know, you just turn up at the meeting. All of the
    information that I have about location I put at the beginning of the
    note. I'll ask for more details and send them to anyone interested as I
    plan to attend. The Boston L5/NSS newletter is written mostly by a
    couple of people who are avid Soviet space watchers so it usually has
    interesting stuff and not too much rhetoric. I think it is worth the
    $10/year they charge.
    
    gary 

From: Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Read it and weep
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU

Space Calendar, 9/23 p 4:
 
ENERGIYA HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE, TYURATAM KAZAKHSTAN USSR: Opening
a new era in the exploration and exploitation of space. The 200-foot
Energiya rocket will be able to lift payloads into orbit nine times as
large as those lifted by the US Space Shuttle. It could cut launch
costs by a factor of ten, and all its elements are reusable. Energiya
consists of a central core surrounded by four to eight rocket
boosters. The four-booster Energiya will be used to launch the Soviet
version of the Space Shuttle. 
 
The six-to-eight-booster Energiya will be used to launch large items
such as a laboratory or factory modules weighing more than 250 Tons.
The Energiya has opened up vast possibilities for the Soviet space
program. The rocket will be capable of launching the following: 1) a
Mir space station to a 22,500-mile geostationary orbit or into lunar
orbit; 2) a series of Apollo-style Moon landings at any time; 3) a
manned fly-by misssion to Mars or its moons, Phobos and Deimos; 4) a
Mir space station placed in Mars orbit; and eventually 5) manned
missions to the asteroids or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. 
 
	(sketches with the following caption)
 
Energiya Family: The four-booster version of Energiya will be used for
launching payloads up to 60-90 tons in weight. The six-booster version
will be used for payloads up to 230 tons, and the eight booster
version will be used for payloads up to 270 tons.  
 
PS: I highly recommend subscribing to this publication, particularly
for those who haven't time to pore over each issue of AW&ST. Also,
although stories are just short news briefs, there are more of them
because  it covers ONLY space science, business, movement,
conferences, etc. It is primarily a 'what is supposed to happen this
week' newsletter, rather than a 'what happened last month' magazine. 

    Hmmm..
    
    a LOT of that is at variance with other sources. Its the first I've
    heard of the possibility of more than four strapon boosters on Energia.
    The test launch in MAY carried a 100 tonne dummy payload with four
    strapons. Jane's 87 Spaceflight Directory claims 100 tonnes to LEO.
    Going beyond 4 strapons would probably eliminate the side mounted
    payload.
    
    The Soviets have said that recovery of the strapons was a future
    option, implying that it is not recoverable in its current form.
    The core impacted in the Pacific.
    
    gary

    That report has since shown up in a recent Flight International.
    
    It is apparently derived from some Soviet press articles. I'm inclined
    to think these are blue-sky possibilities rather than firm plans.
    
    The 6 and 8 strapon configs are shown with payload and upper stages on
    top of the core vehicle, as they would have to be. If these are real
    configs and the core as it exists can take the stress of 8 boosters and
    a couple of hundred tonnes sitting on top of it, why bother with the
    side mounted payload??
    
    gary 

    	In the April/May 1989 issue of SMITHSONIAN AIR & SPACE magazine
    there is an article on the ENERGIA rocket booster discussed by four
    experts on the subject.
    
    	Larry
    

    More from this weeks AvLeak (Soviets visiting for AIAA)...
    
    Two more Energias are nearly ready for launch, although no date is
    scheduled.... no payloads large enough to warrant the launch. They talk
    of 5 being built originally of which two have flown, two were
    structural test articles and one was used for static testing the
    propulsion systems. It wasn't clear whether any of the test vehicles
    would ever fly. There is also talk of two new upper stages being
    considered for Energia and studies under way to try to add fly back
    recovery to the core vehicle. They admitted that the strapons are
    indeed the same as the SL-16 first stage.
    
    The Soviets have apparently suggested launching the major components of
    the US space station on a few Energias as a cheaper and quicker
    alternative to developing Shuttle-C. This is somewhat ironic, although
    it makes sense in some ways.
    
    The company representing Glavkosmos is proposing to bid Tsyklone ELVs
    for a Goddard RFP. An interesting twist is that they are proposing to
    launch them from the Cape. By drawing on its ICBM background, the
    Tsyklone can be launched from a transportable launch system.
    
    gary

    	The Soviet Union has released the first photos of their new
    Zenit launcher (known previously in the West as SL-16). This two
    stage launcher is based on the same technology used in the Energia.
    In fact the first stage, which generates 1.3 million pounds of thrust,
    is used as strap-ons on the Energia cryogenicly fueled core.
    	The Zenit is now being offered for commercial launch services
    through Space Services Corp. The two stage version is capable of
    launching 30,000 pounds into a 125 mile high orbit. At least 11
    Zenits have been launched since 1985 with one and possibly two
    failures. The Soviets plan to use this booster to launch a new version
    of the Progress resupply vehicle (the current version of the Progress
    weighs about 15,500 pounds and is launched by the SL-4 Soyuz launch
    vehicle).
    	The photos can be seen on page 19 of the July 3, 1989 issue
    of "Aviation Week & Space Technology".
    
    				Drew
    

    Would it make sense to contract to use Energia to boost the space
    station and moon base elements instead of developing Shuttle-C?
    (ie 1. Would it speed up the program and 2. Would it save some bucks?)
    Any savings resulting could be used to develop a follow on to Energia.
    
    Mike H

    Re:.11
    	Yes it would probably make sense to use the Energia for the
    US heavy lift needs both from a financial and scheduling point of
    view. BUT, from a political point of view it probably won't happen
    in the forseeable future mainly because of the mega-paranoid,
    McCarthy-era pepes on Capitol Hill who presently control the show.
    With present Federal regulations, it takes a mountain of paper work
    just to send an instrument (with parts not much more technically
    advanced than the wheel) to the Soviet Union to be placed on one
    of their spacecraft. The idiots in power in this country still kling
    to the notion that ANYTHING we send to the Soviet Union will be
    disassembled by the Soviet military and instantly turned into some
    sort of threat against the us. 
    	At present, US firms can not obtain an export license to launch
    communication satellites on Soviet boosters (but they can for Chinese
    launch services, go figure that one out). It is very unlikely that
    NASA could send much more complex and advanced Space Station modules
    to the Soviet Union for launch (even if they wanted to which is
    also unlikely).
    				Drew
    

The Soviets did tentatively suggest lifting some of the US Space Station
components on Energia, but as .11 says it is highly unlikely.

BTW, the exact status of the permit to launch AsiaSat and Aussat B on a
Chinese launcher is very unclear at the moment as a result of the recent limited
trade embargoes.

gary

    I think I'll write my congress critter with the idea.  I'll let
    you know what I get back.
    
    Mike H

    The Soviets have not given up, they are now suggesting 
    having the launch outside of the Soviet Union, possible
    the French Site.  This could get around the export law.
    
    john
    

Maybe.

The Co. that represents Glavkosmos in the US tried to bid Soviet Tsyklon ELVs
for a Goddard contract and was rejected even though they proposed to launch
from the Cape, or anywhere else that Goddard wanted. The Tsyklon can be launched
from portable launch equipment.

They are contesting this. If successful, it may open up some interesting 
possibilities.

gary

>================================================================================
>Note 310.11              The Future for MIR and ENERGIA                 11 of 14
>LEVERS::HUGHES "TANSTAAFL"                            6 lines  20-JUL-1989 15:09
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                        -< Use Energia in US program? >-
>
>    Would it make sense to contract to use Energia to boost the space
>    station and moon base elements instead of developing Shuttle-C?
>    (ie 1. Would it speed up the program and 2. Would it save some bucks?)
>    Any savings resulting could be used to develop a follow on to Energia.
>    
>    Mike H
>
No, that is a terrible idea.  When we spend money for our own rockets, we keep
the money in the country, we develop new technology, and we have a space
program.  If we pay the Russians to lift our payloads, we have none of the
above.  To me that is not political.  What *is* of a strategic nature is
that they could decide at some point (if relations sour) that they will stop
transporting us to our space station.  Then we can just look at it go by
overhead.

Regards,
David Tucker @ato

    re. .17
    
    Have you heard, contempt, breeds contempt.
    Well I think mistrust, breeds mistrust.

    re .-2  I wasn't thinking that the US would stop efforts to design new
    spacecraft.  Rather, I was thinking that ENERGIA would be of use to get
    the station in place.  The Shuttle or some follow on would be used to
    commute to the station.  Essentially ENERGIA would replace Shuttle-C.
    This would free resources for the US to work on what comes next.
    
    The issue of cooperation with the USSR is a big one. The deal should be
    worked so that the Soviets benefit as much as we do and have active
    incentives to participate.  The biggest stumbling block will likely be
    around technology transfer issues. 
    
    The benefits on our side would have to be weighed also.  I don't
    pretend to have looked at all sides of this idea, it's just a pretty
    obvious thing to look at that hasn't been mentioned before.  It
    could reduce the initial cost of the station by reducing the amount
    of on-orbit assembly required and therefore make the whole thing
    more possible.
    
    It's my beleive that once the country makes the step of putting up a
    station it will continue the commitment to support it.  (Yes, we
    fumbled skylab, but perhaps we learned from that.)  There seems
    to be a lot of resistance to getting started though and we ought
    to look at anything that can cut costs without compromising function
    or safty.
    
    Mike H    

    Not being of the states but the U.K. -  I think you should look
    to using other people's resources until your own can come on line.
    
    Shuttle - C or any new shuttle is a bad idea,  what you really want
    is somthing like a space plane to lift payloads and stop using
    expensive throw away bits..
    
    Chris                 

    Re: .20
    	Truly inexpensive reusable space launch systems (such as the
    US NASP, the British Hotol, or the German Sanger) are probably 20+
    years away. These first generation spaceplanes look real good on
    paper but so did the Space Shuttle almost 20 years ago (remember
    the claims for a launch a week with turn around times of two weeks
    at a cost of $25 million?). These first generation spaceplanes are
    going to be experimental just as the Space Shuttle is (or should
    be considered) today.
    	The simple fact of the matter is that for the forseeable future
    (i.e. 20 years) expendable launch systems are the cheapest, most
    reliable means to launch payloads into space. The technology for
    reusable systems is still too immature and expensive and in the case
    of the spaceplanes, some of the needed technology hasn't even made
    it off the drawing boards yet (the technology for expendable systems
    has been around for up to 50 years).
    	When it comes to launch systems, the West should take notice
    of the Soviet's  methods: use inexpensive, massed produced, time
    tested, highly reliable ELV's as your primary means of launching
    payloads and in the meantime carefully develop reuasable systems 
    and do not rely on them until they have withstood the test of time.
                    
    			Drew
    

    I don't think it likely that the U.S.S.R. would launch the Energia from
    anywhere other that its home port.  Considering how paraniod the U.S.
    is about technology transfer, is it reasonable that the U.S.S.R. would
    allow their biggest booster, plus the skilled manpower and extensive
    support facilities needed to launch it ever to leave their borders?
    
    Also, it would be very expensive.  Remember all the money that the U.S.
    spent trying to build a second launch site for the Space Shuttle, on
    the West Coast?
    
    I don't have any trouble with the notion of using other Soviet
    boosters from other locations, but I would be very suspicious of any
    proposal to launch the Energia from elsewhere.
        John Sauter

    I am not sure if it is a bluff or not but they have offered to
    export the Energia.  Yes you are right, Energia is launch by
    the Soviet Militray - it is a Military Rocket.  Buran seems to be
    non-military.  A good example would be to  watch the interviews of the
    Soviet workers, when it is an Energia launch or they talk to
    someone about the Energia they all have militray uniforms, 
    when they talk to someone about Buran they are in suites and ties...
    but this could be done to create that image.  The only real possibility
    that I could see would be if 'Down Under' gave up a piece of
    their land for  a Soviet Launch Pad...  Otherwise I think it
    is all talk... trying to find a way around the export law with
    many probes to test the waters.
    
    john
                                             

    RE: .11 et al.
    
    As much as I like Mike's idea, I'm too calouse concerning political
    realism.  NASA is pulling all the stopps to return the courage that
    put the US on the moon to returning to space and as a spacefarer.
    
    The climate and budgetary mentality that brought us to the moon
    and then caused us to scrap the booster, to bring us the shuttle,
    and have lost the first space station changes the cliamate from
    tolerance to task.  The great benefactor of the Mecurary plan was
    the Gemini plan.  From the Gemini plan came The first Apollo plan
    and its man killing disaster.  But the agonizing
    delay proved worth the wait.  Challenger's success stories are yet
    to be written, but we have learned politically that the space 
    business, especially manned space takes more than the old it would
    be nice to do and here's plenty of money as long as no one gets
    killed in the process (tollerence mentality).  The current revision
    of the shuttle cannot meet the more ambitious of those stated in
    its initial design plan (as mentioned in -.1) and the program is
    being beaten severly on several fronts (task mentality).
    
    The shuttle has brought the deliverables concept into the venaculate.
    Just as a lucky or planned success string to the moon financed a
    manned and mission oriented program for 25 years, a task deliverable 
    process may determine some options not before available, (energia.)
    
    The private sector is now pushing hard at the orginization that
    brought in the era of space, and turned thinking toward the true
    cost to society in letting the program fall fallow.  To politically
    insert an idea of Energia vrsus shuttle -c could only be successful
    with backing by the private sector, and not NASA not congress, and
    least of all, not the masses.  (No real money, just the source to
    bleed first by leaches then by the pint.)
    
    It is to this last point that the issue therefore rests.  During
    the shutdown of the shuttle operations,  the real weaknesses of
    the current US launch process became appearent and creative planning
    around NASA began to flourish for the private sector.  NASA's hand
    was forced to open, and lo and behold the single bird in hand was
    nearly strangled to death as it became known that there were many
    birds to be had.  The mighty eagle called Saturn had gone the way
    of the dinosaur, and in its lost immage, the shuttle stood manned
    but weak in performance, and now labeled an experimental killer.
    
    Now to these climates enter shuttle -c.  ITs very name may have
    killed its funding.  Its Poor performing predicessor, may be viewed
    as the recreation of the capability that was once obtained with
    Saturn.  
    
    Can the goal be "really" aligned to the primary task of getting heavy
    things in orbit cheaply. If the projections indicate that cheap is no
    better than Energia, the now voiceful private sector may swing away
    from NASA and its gold plated dinosaurs.  But if shuttle -c is burried
    deep in the economics of "OUR" space station, and "OUR" shuttle
    appears to remain successful by meeting private and public commitments
    in the near term, at least until the station components begin to
    suck the launch schedule dry or the next disaster polks out an ugly
    early head, the status quo of "our" space program will be maintained.
    
    Les 

    	In a recent interview with Boris I. Gubanov, the chief designer of
    the Energia, it was indicated that only a limited number of Energia
    rockets will be launched through the early 1990's. The major reason for
    this is a lack of heavy payloads to place into earth orbit. The Soviet
    Shuttle program has been stretched out primarily because of the program's
    cost and other large payloads will be slow in coming because of budget
    limitations. Currently, Energia's production line is running at about
    one rocket per year but it is capable of (and was designed for) a
    production rate of 5 or 6 per year.
    	The current Energia launch schedule is:
    
    1990:	A decision will be made on this mission's payload sometime
    this October or November. No mention was made of the potential
    payload's mission but it is to weight about 80 metric tons. The Energia
    launcher for this mission has been assembled and is currently being
    stored on its horizontal transport in the Energia intergration
    building.
    
    1991:	Another unmanned test of the Soviet Space Shuttle. It is
    expected to dock with the Mir space station using a docking port
    installed on the new module to be launched next February.
    
    1992:	The first manned test of the Soviet Space Shuttle.
    
    				Drew
      

Article         1638
From: clarinews@clarinet.com
Newsgroups: clari.tw.space,clari.news.military,clari.news.aviation
Subject: Soviets suffer major space failure
Date: 6 Sep 91 19:11:51 GMT
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A towering Soviet SL-16 Zenit rocket
carrying a spy satellite exploded moments after launch Aug. 30 in the
second major failure of a booster the Russians have been struggling to
market commercially, a magazine reported Friday. 

	Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its Sept.
9 issue that the 200-foot-tall rocket exploded at low altitude shortly
after takeoff from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Soviet Central Asia. The
cause of the failure is unknown. 

	The SL-16, valued at about $50 million and capable of boosting
30,000-pound satellites into low-Earth orbit, is used as a stand-alone 
rocket and also as a strap-on booster with the giant Energia rocket that 
serves as the Soviet space shuttle's launcher. 

	The Aug. 30 failure marked the first SL-16 launch attempt
since an identical rocket exploded five seconds after liftoff Oct. 4,
1990, destroying the booster's launch pad at Baikonur. 

	The latest failure occurred after the Soviets ran into problems
during launch tests earlier this summer that prompted engineers to send
one rocket back to the factory and to place a military intelligence
satellite on a fresh vehicle.  It was the second rocket that exploded.

	Aviation Week reported the back-to-back failures and the loss
of $100 million in space hardware could prompt cutbacks in the Soviet
space program. 

	``The SL-16s that failed also are used as strap-on boosters
for the Energia heavy lift system,'' the magazine reported. ``The
problems with the SL-16 will directly affect the Energia program,
which already is threatened with cancellation.  The next Energia
mission has been set for mid-1992 to launch the second Buran shuttle
orbiter on an unmanned flight.'' 

	The SL-16 also is being marketed on a commercial basis by the
Soviet Union to compete with American and European launchers. 

	``The two failures,'' Aviation Week reported, ``will cripple
marketing efforts for the vehicle.'' 

Article: 41324
From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Energia to launch Freedom: It just might happen.
Date: 8 Mar 92 21:33:09 GMT
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
 
There is a new effort under way to use Energia to launch Freedom. Some
well placed NASA engineers have concluded that Freedom cannot be
assembled using only the Shuttle. In addition, they are also
concluding that the money to do it just won't be there. 
 
In an effort to simplify assembly and save money a plan was developed
to use Energia for Freedom addembly. The plan would lift Freedom with
three Energia and three Shuttle flights. Energia and Shuttle would
meet in orbit and astronauts would perform EVA's to do the (much
reduced) assembly tasks. 
 
Flight one would lift the entire Truss assembly (complete with the
power system). The truss would be broken into three parts to fit
inside the Energia shrowd and would be assembled in orbit. Flight two
will lift the lab and hab modules fully integrated and tested. The
final flight would lift the modules provided by Europe and Japan. A
fourth flight would be held in reserve and may be used for logistics.
To do all this, the orbit of Freedom will change from 28 degrees to 51
degrees (which makes remote sensing applications available). 
 
This plan will cause a slip of FEL to 1997 but PMC will be achieved in
1998 which is two years ahead of schedule. Costs for the Energia
flights are estimated at about $400M each which includes a custom
shrowd. This reduces assembly costs from ~$15 billion with the Shuttle
to about $2.7 billion. 
 
A couple of years ago I asked some Freedom managers why they didn't
use Energia and they swore it just wasn't possible. Funny what a tight
budget will do. :-) 
 
  Allen

+----------------------427 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+

Article: 55642
From: ganderson@nebula.decnet.lockheed.com
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: MIR to Mars
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:34:26 GMT
Sender: news+@cs.cmu.edu
Organization: [via International Space University]
 
On the subject of MIR to Mars.
 
I was present at ISU '91 in Toulouse France.  The Soviets from NPO
ENERGIA gave a presentation on their version of a Mars mission and
there is no doubt that MIR was part of the plan.  The summer project
at ISU was an International Mars Mission and the Soviets (now
Russians) were interested in teaming up with anyone. 
 
the technical means for using a MIR to get to Mars were being worked
on right up until the lastdays of the Soviet Empire.  I'm sure I still
have the pictures in my notes but I can remember them well.  The idea
was to attach two VERY BIG solar arrays to a MIR complex and use
electric propulsion.  The trip times were long, but that is why Russia
was concentrating on long duration MIR flights.  This also was the
force behind their advanced electric propulsion research.  My
impression was that they were planning an attempt to Mars for about
1997 or so. I was left with the(perhaps mistaken) impression that the
Russians were going to accept a lot of risk in order to pull off the
trip.  I know that there were some questions as to whether MIR would
physically deteriorate over the long mission timeline (due to humidity
INSIDE the vehicle, not outside fluences.) 
 
P.S.  The ISU mission used artificial g through rotation of a truss
structure (not tethers).  We settled on 0.37 g (Mars) after a lot of
agruement with the Bio folks.  Anyone who is interested can get a copy
of the report from ISUU headquarters in Boston (its about 700 pages,
bound and costs $25-55, I can't remember how much.) 
 
Grant Anderson
Sr. Design Engineer
Lockheed Space Station WP-04
 
P.P.S  I maybe wasn't clear enough.  MIR was conceived as a trial Mars
Mission vehicle, not a space station in the Earth orbiting sense. 
That was the impression I received. 

Article: 66566
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Cosmonaut views on Freedom and Mir
Organization: Motorola
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1993 14:43:19 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
[What follows is part of an interview with cosmonaut Dr. Georgy
Mikhailovich Grechko made on April 7, 1993 by myself and James Plaxco.
Grechko has spent about 130 days in space on 3 space stations and his
viewpoint is both from that of an engineer (he worked for many years
for the Korolev Design Bureau as a flight ballistics speciallist) and
a researcher in space. The question of space station efficiency came
up and this was the result.] 
 
Grechko - I made many experiments about the Earths surface, ocean
surface, medical, biological, and I had many results, but the most
successful were my studies of the atmosphere. Then after my first
flight I understood and I thought about the efficiency of our space
station and with Segdayev he understood that the efficiency of our
station was very low and your NASA insists on the same low efficiency
of your Freedom station and my thought was, what can I do to have
designed to get more scientific results from a flight. First I tried
to write that the idea of our station was wrong, the more modules our
chiefs thought, and they still think now, the more scientific modules
the better, but it's wrong. The more scientific modules make the
efficiency of the station lower [experiments will interfere with each
other, require different orientations, are sensitive to human
movements, etc., diminishing the time each experiment can be active].
When I express it for the first time to Glushko (head of NPO Energia)
and his deputy, Semenov, they punished me, they striped me into
pieces, they ignored me for many years after this. I expressed this
idea in 1978 for the first time, that a manned station is a bad idea.
They are getting awards for this kind of space station and even the
first cosmonaut on board said that its a bad idea. But all new ideas
have three steps, first 'its impossible', next step is 'maybe', and
next is 'its obvious'.  A free-flyer design is best for efficiency. 
 
JP - How do you define space station efficiency?
 
Grechko - When I understood my new idea had no support, just like new
idea of Feoktistov for vertical take-off and landing shuttle project
he had no support also. I asked myself what else I could be, and I
understood that ..... we had good enough cosmonauts but our data
sometimes was not processed. I understood that now the main task was
not to have data from space but to process data from space and I
understood that for me it was one way to make our space station more
efficient form a scientific point of view and founded a new laboratory
to process all data that I had from space, but not astrophysics,
biological, medical, geophysics, I choose my atmosphere data. 
 
JP - What would your advice be to NASA about the space station Freedom
     program?
 
Grechko - I told NASA 2 or 3 years ago my opinion about free flyers,
they rejected and didn't appreciate my idea because it was too new for
them, because they are bureaucrats, because they had their money for
Freedom and nobody would speak up. It was my duty to say to America
that you have the wrong idea. 2 or 3 years ago when they discussed a
redesign to make Freedom a little smaller or bigger and I told them it
is not a thing for discussion, to make it bigger or smaller, you
should think about new ideas and one example of a new idea is a free
flyer. But, maybe you will have a new much better idea that my idea of
a free flyer but stop this monkey business to repeat our mistake with
many scientific modules on the same platform, but they were blind. 
 
JP - One of the arguments for having people on space stations for a
long period of time is that it helps us learn a lot about trips to
Mars. How do you react to that the assertion that Mir was a stepping
stone to manned mission to Mars? 
 
Grechko - Mir was really a step to Mars because before flight a to Mars 
we should fly for about one year about the Earth. Of course it is true. 
 
DN - Perhaps it is best to make a station with scientific modules that
can dock periodically for servicing by a crew? 
 
Grechko - When they began to make plans for Mir station it was crazy
that after docking they throw away the engine module and I told them
its crazy, "you should use this modules like free flyers with engines
and shouldn't discard the engines after docking" [like Kvant 1 did].
First of all you should use this module in fully automatic mode 24
hours a day for one or two months and only then you should dock the
module and discard the engines. You know it is said that in your own
country you can not be one who looks ahead for your own country. The
USA has the same problem. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 67017
Newsgroups: sci.space
From: dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com (Dennis Newkirk)
Subject: Cosmonaut lecture contact
Organization: Motorola
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 1993 15:08:29 GMT
Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News)
 
Cosmonaut Georgi Grechko may be planning a return tour of North
America in the next year of so. If you interested in having him as a
speaker his US contact is Lorna Waddell-Kremer (phone 716-352-1140). 
 
During his last trip his slide presentation included many stories
about his experiences during his flights, and some history of the
Soviet/ Russian space program. He usually took audience questions for
10 minutes and sold signed photos and nice posters of Salyut 7. Some
suggestions for paying venues are community colleges, planetariums,
foreign relations groups, and museums.  At his Chicago visit last
spring he spoke to about 1500 people at several events, so there is 
an audience out there. 
 
Dennis Newkirk (dennisn@ecs.comm.mot.com)
Motorola, Land Mobile Products Sector
Schaumburg, IL

Article: 67081
From: dbm0000@tm0006.lerc.nasa.gov (David B. Mckissock)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: US plans for Mir Utilization
Date: 9 Jul 1993 14:10 EST
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center / Cleveland, Ohio
 
I thought ya'all might want to read the "Mir Utilization" section out
of the Space Station Redesign Team Final Report, to find out what's
going on behind the scenes at NASA relative to Russian cooperative
activities. [My own editorial comments in brackets like this.] Sorry
about the mixed units, I was lazy & didn't feel like converting. 
 
Mir Utilization

The Space Shuttle is scheduled to fly to Mir in 1995. A United States
astronaut will have been onboard Mir for three months participating in
several United States and American life science experiments [anybody
know the difference between a US and an American experiment?]. This
astronaut will then return to Earth, with one or two cosmonauts, in
the Space Shuttle. Additional Mir capabilities for the conduct of a
scientific program expanded from the baseline Space Shuttle and Mir
program are being explored. This enhanced program could include the
following: 
 
 -   Flight of one US crew member on Mir, twice per year through
     1997 (approximately the end of life for Mir) [I'm sure
     everybody read the recent ESA press release stating they
     signed a $52 M (US dollars) agreement to fly European
     astronauts on Mir in two missions. The first mission
     is in September 1994 for 20 days, the 2nd starting
     in August 1995 for 135 days. The Atlantis docking with
     Mir on a 9-day Spacelab flight occurs between the two
     ESA missions.]
 
 -   Placement of US payloads on Mir in the Spektr and/or Priroda
     modules, with an emphasis on life sciences. Placement of the
     payload onto Mir could occur as early as 1995 and the data
     would be collected through 1997. [Spektr is a new Mir
     module, scheduled for launch in 1993/4. Spektr has mostly
     earth-observation equipment, weighs 44,000 lbs, is 42'x15',
     with a volume of 2,300 cubic feet. Priroda is the same size,
     weight, and volume, is dedicated to earth remote sensing
     (the word "Priroda" means "Nature"), and is scheduled for
     launch in 1994.]
 
 -   Use of the Space Shuttle to extend the life of Mir and
     enhance its capability to perform useful science and
     technology research.
 
The following options for US payload accommodation on board these Mir
modules were considered: 

 -   Use of available payload space on Spektr. Approximately 1
     kW, 100 kg, and 2-3 cubic meters of volume could be
     available for US payloads; launch and operations cold occur
     in January 1995, preceding the Space Shuttle/Mir mission,
     depending on payload availability. Payloads requiring crew
     members as test subjects or other crew interaction for
     operation would be moved from Spektr to the Mir core module
     for operation.
 
 -   Use of available space on Spektr and retrofit of Priroda as
     a research laboratory. Less than 2 kW, 1500-2000 kg, and 5-6
     cubic meters of volume could be available for US payloads.
 
Launch of Spektr and operations would occur in January 1995, and
launch of Priroda would occur in the third quarter of 1995, depending
on payload availability. 
 
The Russian Space Agency has been given a detailed list of US
payloads for accommodation in Spektr and Priroda and will report
back on the results of their analysis in the next few weeks.
 
Scientific objectives under consideration for the enhanced Space
Shuttle/Mir program include:

 1.  Understanding of health risks from long-duration missions
 2.  Determination of trends in adaptations to long-term space
     flight and implications to postflight performance
 3.  Validation of existing countermeasure effectiveness
 4.  Understanding plant physiology and seed-to-seed development in space
 5.  General gravitational biology
 6.  Effects of long-term space flight on piloting skills
 7.  Biotechnology
 8.  Acceleration and vibroacoustic mapping
 
NASA and the Russian Space Agency are both exploring the possible
implementation of a program to use the Space Shuttle to support
enhanced Mir operations and improve science and engineering research. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           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.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -