Mike Malkin, head of the shuttle program through most of its development phase (and before that, GE's general manager for MOL), dies at 70.
USAF continues to push for consolidation of military space activity under USAF auspices, claiming this is "a reinventing government issue" rather than a turf battle, and that the USAF is the natural manager for space activities. The Army and Navy oppose consolidation and particularly oppose consolidation under one of the three services.
Adm. Jeremy Boorda, chief of naval operations, comments: "We tend to use as much commercial capability as we can. It costs us a little under $300 for every contact we have with a satellite. In the more classic way, it costs nearly $3000 a contact." By "more classic", he means "USAF-run military satellites".
Sheila Widnall, Air Force Secretary, pleased with a new demo of real-time space info in the cockpit: "First, it was an example of how we're exploiting our space assets to the fullest potential. And second, the demo simulated an attack on the Pentagon."
NASA announces plans for the X-33 and X-34, undertaken with unusually large industry participation (both in design and in funding). The X-33 is to be an SSTO technology demonstrator, the X-34 a small reusable launcher (not necessarily single-stage). NASA has asked for industry comment on the proposed Cooperative Agreement Notices, albeit on short notice.
The X-33 is to be an unmanned suborbital demonstrator, proving SSTO technology to the point where private industry could build an SSTO as a successor. The government's involvement in the successor system would be as an anchor tenant, not a source of development funding. Industry says this is fine, provided anchor tenancy means a binding commitment, not vague promises subject to annual modification by Congress: "Neither the companies nor the financial community make that kind of investment on market projections."
The main X-33 requirement is that it lead to an operational SSTO capable of carrying 25klbs to a 220nmi 51.6deg orbit -- the space-station orbit. (Some think this is too big for a first-generation system.) The X-33 has to do its job in time for a decision on the successor by 1999. The successor is to be capable of carrying passengers (but not pilots). The X-33's job is to resolve technical uncertainties and, more important, prove economic feasibility by demonstrating streamlined operations (including seven-day turnaround and 95% probability of on-schedule launch).
SSTO enthusiasts are wary, citing NASA's past bias toward maximizing performance regardless of cost and complexity, its tendency to meddle, and a perceived prejudice toward systems with wings. NASA officials say that keeping bureaucracy at bay is their top priority and that the people running *this* project do not have any preconceived ideas about configuration or propulsion system. The current plan is to pick 2-4 proposals for design and technology work, and in 1996 pick 1-2 for full-scale development.
The X-34 requirements are even simpler: deliver 1-2klb to some useful orbit at a "substantial" reduction from current costs, and finance at least half of the development yourself. The project evolved out of an OSC proposal for a Pegasus-derived reusable-technology testbed, which Goldin converted to a general competition. There is widespread concern that OSC might be the pre-chosen winner. There is also concern that NASA will settle for modest cost reductions rather than revolutionary ones, serving only to divert money from efforts like the X-33 that might have greater impact.
Total funding (to 1999) is planned as $660M for X-33 and $70M for X-34. Industry says this is tight but not impossible.
Hubble observations pick out Cepheid variables in the galaxy M100, giving a much-improved distance estimate for M100. More significantly, this leads to a new and fairly solid value for the Hubble constant (80+-17 km/s/mPc), and hence to a new and fairly solid age for the universe (8-12 Gyr). This is lower than expected, and reconciling it with other observations will not be easy.
ESA Science Program Committee about to meet to confirm preliminary choices for major new science missions: a new Earth-orbit telescope ($700-800M) to search for planets around other stars, map the Milky Way galaxy, and study stellar-mass distributions in other galaxies; a Mercury orbiter ($500-600M) with imaging and geochemical instruments; and a vaguely-defined $400M Mars mission to be done in cooperation with other nations, perhaps a Mars orbiter that would carry landers supplied by others. Launch dates would be 10-20 years from now, funding permitting, and decisions on which missions would fly first would be made later.
FAA-sponsored GPS precision-landing trials conclude, quite successfully, with extremely consistent landings and one incident in which the equipment noticed and coped properly when the USAF shut down a satellite during a landing approach.
Atlantis launch, carrying the Atlas-3 solar/atmospheric payload (including the Crista-Spas free-flyer), imminent.
ESA planners studying lunar landers have reportedly been told to back away from "faster-cheaper-better mode" in favor of a somewhat more traditional style of program.
There is more to life than getting a job | Henry Spencer and making a living. --Barbara Morgan | henry@zoo.toronto.edu