Hypersonics program leaders from various nations to meet in December in hopes of laying groundwork for a multinational program. The biggest obstacle will probably be the US belief that the US has all the worthwhile technology and shouldn't give it away to competitors.
Intelsat relaxes its limits on what sorts of competitors member nations may approve.
Inmarsat is planning a Proton launch for an Inmarsat 3 in 1995.
State Dept says it is "facilitating" a US/Russian private effort to have a memorabilia-carrying Russian spacecraft land in the Pacific off the coast of Washington Nov 22 (for recovery by a Russian tracking ship that will bring it to Seattle). Organizers say they tried but failed to get approval to land the capsule on land in the western US.
X-30 program managers, scrambling to save something from impending budget disaster, propose a series of Minuteman-launched experiments on scramjet combustion and boundary-layer transition. The hope is to clear up some of the recently-cited technical uncertainties using cheaply-available surplus Minuteman 2s. Perhaps ten Minuteman tests would be followed, late in the decade, by flight tests of a small experimental aircraft, details yet to be determined.
NASA panel to assess satellite rescues recommends limiting such attempts to NASA-owned satellites, cases that advance national-security or foreign-policy objectives, and cases with significant benefit to NASA or the US. The panel observed that charges for such missions are a question of policy rather than accounting, but suggested generally higher charges, partially via agreements that (in the event of a successful rescue) would give NASA a share of satellite revenues until rescue costs were paid. The panel agreed that the justification of such efforts in the past -- learning more about EVA -- was valid, especially given that four out of five such efforts have encountered significant problems, but suggested that future rescues would probably make only incremental additions to what has been learned thus far.
ESA ministers' meeting generally successful, despite problems due to French dissatisfaction. Cooperation with Russia endorsed, with reservations about the possibility that Russian launch-service marketing might "ignore free market pricing" [that is, charge lower prices thanks to lower costs] and thus hurt Ariane sales. Member nations encouraged to lean on their comsat operators to use Ariane (a call that came on the same day that Inmarsat signed a launch contract for a Proton at $25M less than an Ariane). Polar-platform development approved. Data-relay satellite development approved. The real fuss was over the Columbus space-station module, with France asking for a "complete reassessment" and Germany and Italy saying "no way". The eventual compromise was that there will be a reassessment in 1995, but neither France nor anybody else will be allowed to pull out without a 2/3 vote approving it. Meanwhile, a serious effort will be mounted to pin down what ESA's share of station costs is going to be -- "we are not handing over a blank cheque" -- and to investigate the possibility of ESA's share being paid in services, e.g. Ariane launches or data- relay satellite bandwidth, rather than cash. Columbus participants committed enough money to get development started, but only just; member nations will be pressed for slightly larger contributions and industry will be pressed for slightly lower costs. At the same time in 1995, there will be a review of what to do about ESA manned spaceflight, with substantial spending between now and then to look into three options: Hermes as a joint ESA/Russia project, building the space-station lifeboat, or pure ESA efforts.
Managers are generally unhappy about indications that ESA is sinking in a swamp of politics and has "lost its vision". A group of British and German engineering students presented a petition calling for more aggressive programs: "in years to come, no one will be prepared to take responsibility for Europe's lost chance".
SDIO issues draft RFP for its Topaz 2 test launch, calling for 1995 launch from the Cape into a 1600km orbit of a satellite carrying the reactor and a variety of instruments and experimental electric propulsion systems. The project would cost about $150M, and will probably involve purchase of more Topazes from Russia. There are several reactor-specific concerns to be addressed, notably preheating the NaK coolant before launch, safeguarding the reactor's bomb-grade fuel beforehand and during preparations, and supporting massive paperwork needed. The RFP's sketch of satellite dimensions showed it inside various fairing outlines including that of a Proton (!), but SDIO says the Proton fairing was included only as a "reference" and there are no plans to use Proton. [It sure would simplify things, though...]
Goldin creates new Office of Advanced Concepts and Technology to pursue "innovative concepts".
USAF/McDD investigation underway as to why a Nov 6 Delta launch at the Cape (carrying a GPS satellite) did not achieve main-engine ignition. Everything was fine up to T-0, at which point the two small vernier motors (which provide roll control etc.) lit but the main engine did not. The booster was shut down and secured. This sort of thing has happened before, most recently in 1989 when a LOX valve failed to open.
USAF awards contract to Lockheed for the Milstar 2 development and testing, including upgrading the last of three Milstar 1 satellites to the 2 configuration. Milstar 2 will have higher communications bandwidth to support tactical operations. The revised Milstar constellation will be four satellites in Clarke orbit plus some as-yet-undefined way of covering the poles; the original concept put the satellites in high-inclination orbits for polar coverage, but the number of satellites needed for that is too high for current budget projections. The first Milstar 1 is set for Titan-Centaur launch next summer, assuming Centaur is flying again by then.
ESA launches new Maxus 1B sounding rocket Nov 8 from northern Sweden, demonstrating both real-time teleoperation of experiments in flight and rapid return of experiments after recovery. The first Maxus launch (May) was a failure, attributed to inadequate thermal protection of control cables. The next is set for May 1994 (the Esrange rocket range launch seasons are May and November, when there is enough daylight for recovery but the many lakes in the area are firmly frozen).
Investigators determine causes for four out of five of the failures of the tethered-satellite test (and recommend redesign of the umbilical-retract system, whose failure could not be entirely explained). Post-flight tests indicate that slack tether coming off the reel could cause binding in the masthead mechanism, accounting for the initial separation failure and the stall at 224m during retraction; the investigation board recommends increasing the margins of the mechanism, designing for variable startup speed, and enlarging the satellite's thrusters. The other two stalls, at 179m and 256m, were due to a protruding bolt blocking the winding mechanism; the bolt was added as part of last-minute structural improvements. The board criticizes NASA for discovering the structural problems so late, for not having up-to-date drawings that would have allowed discovery of the interference between bolt and mechanism, for inadequate tests under off-nominal conditions, for not having detailed requirements for such testing, and for not giving more attention to the risks of last-minute modifications.
Editorial criticizing mismanagement of the GetAway Special program, saying NASA waited much too long to re-open the queue (with the result that several GAS cans have flown carrying only ballast, when GAS experimenters hit last-minute snags and no alternates were available), has set an awkward requirement that the exact mass of payloads be known a year in advance, and has jacked up the prices for no good reason (neither old nor new price covers the costs) and in a way that will require more bureaucracy and paperwork (because "purely educational" users get the old price). "Worse, Slower, Costlier."
C++ is the best example of second-system| Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology effect since OS/360. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry