[Editor's Note: The following article is based on articles written by the author appearing in the June 28th and June 30th issues of The American Reporter, an Internet-based electronic newspaper. To view the original articles on the World Wide Web, use the URLs http://newshare.com/Reporter/reporter06-28.html and http://newshare.com/Reporter/reporter06-30.html ]
A new era in U.S.-Russian cooperation was born Thursday as the space shuttle Atlantis successfully docked with the Russian space station Mir, opening the way for multinational efforts to explore and develop space.
At exactly 9am EDT Thursday morning, Atlantis commander Robert "Hoot" Gibson brought the 100-ton spacecraft into contact with the 123-ton space station. The docking adapter on the shuttle immediately latched onto the airlock of the space station and automatically pulled the spacecraft together, creating a hard seal.
"We have capture," Gibson said as the two spacecraft mated 240 miles above central Asia. His call was echoed by Mir commander Vladimir Dezhurov when he told Russian controllers, "Podtverzhdayu zakhvat", or, "I confirm capture."
After a two-hour interval to allow systems to be checked out and cabin pressures between the two spacecraft to be pressurized, the hatches on each spacecraft were opened. Gibson and Mir commander Vladimir Dezhurov shook hands in the corridor connecting the two spacecraft. The rest of the Atlantis crew soon followed its commander into the Russian station for greetings and the exchange of gifts: flowers, chocolates and fresh fruit from the Americans, and the traditional bread and salt from the Russians.
Ground controllers also celebrated the successful docking. NASA administrator Daniel Goldin shook hands with Russian Space Agency director-general Yuri Koptev at Russian mission control in Kaliningrad after the docking. Koptev also gave Goldin a friendly slap on the back as other U.S. and Russian officials at the Russian space center exchanged congratulations.
The docking was a triumph not only of technology but of skill and experience. The docking adapter, fitted in the front part of Atlantis's cargo bay, was designed by Russian and American engineers to permit the otherwise-incompatible spacecraft to dock. For a successful docking, at least six of twelve small titanium hooks on the docking adapter had to latch onto six similar hooks on Mir's airlock. This required an extremely precise alignment of the shuttle and station: the shuttle could be off by no more than three inches and deviate by an angle of less than two degrees in order to successfully mate the spacecraft. Moreover, the docking had to be achieved within a two-minute time window, as the station passed over a Russian tracking facility to central Asia that permitted communications with ground controllers during the critical procedure.
Gibson, at the controls of the Atlantis, was up to the task. A former Navy fight pilot with combat experience in the Vietnam War, he steadily maneuvered the shuttle towards Mir. On the final stage the approach, the shuttle moved at barely one inch per second, to avoid hitting the station too hard when they docked. The spacecraft docked on the first attempt. Gibson compared the docking to mid-air refuelings he had accomplished as a fighter pilot.
The docking is the first time in almost exactly 20 years since American and Russian spacecraft met in space. In July 1975, a three-man crew on an Apollo spacecraft, commanded by original Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton, met a two-man crew aboard a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft. Unlike the Apollo-Soyuz, which was a largely symbolic gesture of superpower cooperation in the era of detente, the docking between Mir and Atlantis marks the first stage of an intensive period of cooperation between the two nations' space agencies. Six more docking missions for Atlantis and Mir are scheduled over the next two years as the first step in a multinational effort to build a new space station.
Atlantis's mission began on July 27 with its launch from the Kennedy Space Center. The launch had been delayed by several days due to stormy weather at the launch site, but conditions finally cleared for the Tuesday afternoon launch. The shuttle launched at the beginning of its 10-minute launch window and reached orbit without incident. The mission represents the 100th manned American mission.
With greetings and introductions out of the way, the two crews got down to business on Friday. A series of medical experiments, conducted in the European Spacelab module in the shuttle's cargo bay, will study how the two Russians and one American who have spent the last 3 1/2 months on the station have fared. The shuttle crew will also transport food, water, and other supplies onto the station, as well as a special tool to be used to fix a damaged solar panel on one of Mir's laboratory modules. Work will continue until the two spacecraft separate on July 4. At that time, Dezhurov, fellow cosmonaut Gennady Strekalov, and American astronaut Norm Thagard will stay on the shuttle, replacing cosmonauts Nikolai Buradin and Anatoly Solovyev, who flew up on the shuttle but will remain behind on the station as the relief crew. The shuttle is scheduled to land at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on July 7.
The docking was a special day for two American astronauts. For Atlantis co-pilot Charlie Precourt, the docking took place on his 40th birthday. "This is incredible," Precourt said as the shuttle approached Mir. For Norm Thagard, the docking marked the arrival of his ride home. Thagard, who has spent the last 3 1/2 months on the station since being launched on a Russian rocket in mid-March, had mixed emotions as the end of his record-breaking stay in space approached an end. However, Thagard does have one thing to look forward to: speaking with Russian and American officials at the Russian space center in Kaliningrad, NASA administrator Goldin told him, "I'm still saving a hot fudge sundae for you."
The failure of a Pegasus XL booster on June 22 has caused NASA to reconsider the booster's use for small scientific payloads and has given analysts cause to wonder if Orbital Sciences Corporation can carry out its ambitious booster development plans.
The Pegasus XL was launched from OSC's L-1011 aircraft off the California coast on the afternoon of June 22. The Pegasus launched as expected, but when the second stage fired, an interstage ring connecting the first and second stages was not jettisoned. The booster soon went out of control, and range safety officers were forced to destroy the vehicle.
The Pegasus was carrying an Air Force satellite known as STEP3. The satellite, built by TRW, carried the SAMME (Space Active Modular Materials Experiment), designed to test the effects of launch and the space environment on advanced materials that may be use on future missions.
As a result of the accident, NASA has formed a series of committees to study the problem created by the Pegasus XL launch and give the agency a set of options. NASA has planned to use the launch vehicle for a number of small scientific spacecraft, but with this accident, coupled with earlier problems, NASA has now expressed an interest in studying options for alternative launchers.
The U.S. may be willing to loosen or lift entirely quotas on commercial launches by Russian boosters, the director of the Russian launch form Khrunichev said last week.
Khrunichev Director-General Anatoly Kiselyov met with Vice President Al Gore Friday as Gore toured the Khrunichev facilities. Gore was in Moscow for a series of meetings with Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin. Gore also met with Russian Space Agency head Yuri Koptev on Friday.
Under a 1993 agreement, Russian launch firms are limited to a total of eight launches before the year 1999. The relatively low cost of Russian boosters, compared to American and European boosters of similar capabilities, have placed Khrunichev's boosters in much higher demand than what can be satisfied under the current quotas.
American launch firms, with the notable exception of Lockheed Martin, have been opposed to reducing or eliminating launch quotas, stating that the low costs of doing business in Russia would allow Russian forms to unfairly compete with American companies. Lockheed Martin's support of eliminated quotas stems from their partnership with Khrunichev and Energiya, another Russian launch firm, to market Proton boosters to Western companies.
Two Parisian papers reported Monday that the French aerospace giant Arianespace, which markets the popular Ariane 4 series of boosters and is working on the more-powerful Ariane 5, will bid on a U.S. Air Force launch system for surveillance and other satellites.
Arianespace made no effort to deny reports that it has allied with a consortium of firms headed by Alliant Techsystems Inc., formerly Hercules, of Minneapolis. Lockheed Martin is expected to be the other major bidder for the launch system.
The EELV, or Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, has been planned by the Air Force as a replacement for the Atlas, Delta, and Titan boosters currently used. The EELV will be used to launch a variety of large payloads, including surveillance satellites.
[Editor's Note: this review is based on a article written by the author appearing in the June 30th issue of The American Reporter, an Internet-based electronic newspaper. To view the original review on the World Wide Web, use the URL http://newshare.com/Reporter/reporter06-30.html ]
When the disparate worlds of Hollywood and history collide on the big screen, truth is often the first casualty, sacrificed at the altar of high drama. Historical events rarely conform to the expectations of drama, action, and suspense that movie directors and producers come to expect, with the result being that the events portrayed in the films bear little resemblance to actual events. A brilliant exception to the rule is the new film Apollo 13, a dramatization of the "successful failure" of the 1970 moon mission that is unlikely to be a failure in the eyes of movie audiences.
One reason that Apollo 13 was able to avoid the fate of other historical dramas was the exacting attention to detail and truth by all involved in the movie. Director Ron Howard spared no expense to make the movie as realistic as possible. Much of the hardware appearing in the movie, from the control panels inside the spacecraft to the gigantic crawler used to transport rockets to the launch pad, was loaned or given by NASA itself. The scenes of the crew of Apollo 13 floating in the spacecraft in weightlessness were filmed on a KC-135 aircraft (better, and perhaps more accurately known as the "Vomit Comet") used by NASA to simulate weightlessness for brief periods of time. Howard's efforts are aided by a strong screenplay, based on the book Lost Moon by Apollo 13 astronaut Jim Lovell (see the February issue of SpaceViews for a review of Lost Moon), and a cast led by Academy Award-winning (and self-described "space aficionado") Tom Hanks, whose acting lends an extra degree of realism to the movie.
The other reason why Apollo 13 succeeds is that it is already a filmmaker's dream drama. Had the events of Apollo 13 not taken place 25 years ago this past April, it would be hard to believe that the story was not the product of a screenwriter's overactive imagination. The events of Apollo 13 -- the sudden explosion 200,000 miles from Earth, the desperate efforts to keep the crew alive by using the lunar module as a lifeboat, the fear of running out of power, or oxygen, or building up too much carbon dioxide in the cabin -- create a powerful story of humankind's ability to deal with adversity and conquer even the most serious problems despite incredible odds. Ron Howard and crew wisely decided to let the actual events of the mission tell the story, thus creating a more exciting and a more credible drama in the process.
The story of Apollo 13 will be familiar to most people who see it; the ending will not hold any surprises to whose who remember the events of April 1970. However, the story is so well told that it will keep people glued to the screen for the entire 2+ hours. You will leave the movie theater with the same thought running through your head that Tom Hanks, as Jim Lovell, expresses at the end of the movie:
When will we be going back?
NSS hosted a screening of the movie Apollo 13 in Washington on June 29. In attendance were Jim Lovell and T.K. Mattingly, both members of the crew of Apollo 13 (Mattingly, of course, was grounded due to health reasons, but he was an original member of the crew). More than 650 space supporters attended the event, including Lockheed Martin Chairman Dan Tellup and Lockheed Martin President Norman Augustine. The event was co-hosted by Discover Magazine and sponsored by Lockheed Martin.
NSS chapters and activists are fanning out across the nation this weekend to distribute "Apollo 13 Special Edition Tabloids", produced by NSS and Universal Pictures. The tabloid carries information on the movie, current space activities, and NSS! More than 1,250,000 copies were sent out, chapters will be handling some 55,000 of that total; the rest were sent directly to theaters.
[Editor's Note: From the Moon Miner's Manifesto #86, June 1995]
The intellectual tribalism of space advocates never ceases to amaze me. Our numbers sort out into rabid Moon Onlies, rabid Asteroid Onlies, and rabid Mars Onlies. What can possibly lie beneath the need to "dismiss" alternatives and options by which one is not personally captivated - except intellectual insecurity and emotional immaturity? Beats me.
We are blessed to be situated in a Solar System with diversified assets. We have a natural mineral rich satellite, The Moon, and it is a major body, not a token. We have a rich Asteroid Belt of planetesimal debris that is itself handy, plus a considerable list of asteroid strays that are even handier to access. Of three other "terrestrial planets", we have one, Mars, whose climate and environmental conditions lie not too far beyond the limits of experienced home planet extremes. It would be stupidly self-limiting not to access all these assets. Yet the "Onlies" of the various tribes would have us do just that, each in their own way. What right have any of these to limit mankind's future so?
Today our subject is not the fundamentalist nonsense of either the Moon Onlies or the Mars Onlies, as ridiculous as each is in its turn. We want here to put into perspective the valid points made by (near Earth) asteroid fans, reigning in the ungrounded exaggerations which come from their refusal to consider the trade offs that will apply. For disadvantageous trade offs come with every asset, with every fork in the road. Isn't that just the common universal experience of everyone?
BASIC CLAIM: It takes "less round-trip fuel" to reach near Earth asteroidal resources (than it does to tap resources on the Moon)
For some near Earth objects, this is certainly true, and this is an important consideration. But as an advantage, it has limits within which it is overriding, beyond which it is outweighed by drawbacks and trade offs, and in effect irrelevant. In other words, it is an advantage with a price.
LIMIT ONE: The "Less Fuel Argument" is of major consequence in unmanned robotic missions only, whether exploratory only, or involving telerobotic resource recovery. Fuel is not the only payload of consequence.
For manned missions (where crews are needed to effect mining, processing, shipping, and resource recovery in general) fuel savings pale into insignificance in comparison to a far heavier burden of life support consumables. On the Moon we can derive at least the oxygen locally, and grow some needed food (savings again from incorporating local oxygen which is about 50% of all organic matter by weight). In contrast, on a long asteroidal mission all consumables will have to be brought along for the journey out, and the amount that can be tapped on site for the stay on location and for the journey back may be limited by the need to apply all available manpower to resource recovery.
LIMIT TWO: Missions to Near Earth Objects are by nature singular, not repetitive, ruling out resupply and growth.
For sustained human missions, another drawback to the asteroidal option is that the travel times and infrequent windows involved make resupply, reinforcement, and rescue virtually impossible. On the Moon, an industrial base can start out small, then grow and diversify naturally, logically, and opportunistically. Travel times are short, launch windows are frequent (when push comes to shove, the lunar window is always open). A mining outpost or shepherding operation (bringing back an astrochunk to Earthspace for handier processing) must take along all the equipment and personnel and supplies it will need for the duration, even though most of it/them may not be needed until later. This flies in the face of the modern business revolution based on "just-in-time" resupply and inventory management.
LIMIT THREE: Near Earth Asteroids are each individually objects of infrequent opportunity only, and not regularly accessible - by any stretch of imagination.
This is a consequence of orbital mechanics, the laws of which are a subject very poorly understood by most space advocates. Simply put, the closer in period (an object's "year") to Earth, i.e. the closer an object's orbit is to Earth's orbit, the longer the mutual synodic period between launch windows. For example, you can leave for far Jupiter every 13 months, for much nearer Mars only every 25 months, for many near Earth asteroids, only every decade or so - for the Moon, at any time. We DO NEED Asteroid Resources - But!
The third issue of SETIQuest Magazine is now available. SETIQuest is the new periodical of SETI and bioastronomy research. Subscription information at the end of this post.
The third issue contains the following articles:
You may receive the first issue of SETIQuest FREE by sending your *full regular mail address* to the following E-Mail account:
Or contact:
SETIQuest Magazine
Helmers Publishing, Inc.
174 Concord Street
Peterborough, NH 03458-0874
U.S.A.
Tel: (603) 924-9631
Fax: (603) 924-7408
On June 22, NASA officials, members of Congress, and the general public, were able to tour the latest addition to the shuttle fleet, Space Shuttle Blake. Blake is has already been promoted as a great success, despite the fact it has and will never leave the ground. That's because Blake's mission is to educate students about space.
Shuttle Blake began as a former Marine Corps bus that was transformed into a $3.1 million mobile classroom by art teacher Robert Boehmer and former principal Stephen Szilagyi of Schnecksville Elementary School, Schnecksville, PA.
The inspiration for Blake grew out of NASA's 1989 education program that offered American students the opportunity to name the replacement Orbiter in recognition of both their remembrance of the Challenger and their enthusiasm for space exploration.
Szilagyi and Boehmer -- whose student team was a Pennsylvania state finalist in NASA's orbiter-naming competition -- wanted Blake to continue the Challenger mission. They chose the name "Blake" in honor of America's first oceanographer, Alexander Agassiz, who expanded the research conducted on the renowned British oceanographic vessel Challenger.
Blake was designed to simulate space travel and allow students to use education technology out of the traditional classroom. The simulations of a launch and various aspects of a Shuttle mission provide real-time problem-solving and applied learning for students.
The 45-foot, road-ready educational Shuttle laboratory is equipped with a microcomputer network featuring interactive hypermedia, laser disc technology, optical data laser discs, computers, a flight simulator and software to amplify lessons in physics, English, math and geography. Other equipment includes a miniature robotic arm, weather systems, cellular communications, and ham-radio equipment for real-time contact with the Space Shuttle and Russian Mir space station.
OV-104 Atlantis lifted off from pad 39A at 1932:18 UTC on 1995 Jun 27. Ascent was normal through main engine cutoff and external tank ET-70 separation at 1941 UTC. The OMS 2 orbit circularization burn was carried out at 2015 UTC. Expected post-OMS 2 orbit was 157 x 295 km x 51.7 deg, period 89.0 min. Docking with Mir is expected on Thursday.
The second flight of the Pegasus XL air-launched rocket ended in failure on Jun 22. The Lockheed L-1011 Stargazer carrier aircraft took off from Vandenberg AFB around 1900 UT and flew to the Point Arguello Warning Area over the Pacific Ocean off the California Coast. The Pegasus was dropped at 1958 and the first stage fired successfully. However, an interstage ring failed to jettison prior to second stage ignition at 1959 UT. This caused loss of vehicle control, and at 2000 UT the range safety officer destroyed the vehicle at an altitude of 144 km. STEP 3, built by TRW, had a mass of 265 kg. It carried the SAMME (Space Active Modular Materials Experiments) payload to study exposure to space of solar cells and advanced materials, as well as vibration suppression technology and experimental computer disk drives. The first Pegasus XL flight last year also failed to reach orbit. The latest failure is bad news for manufacturer Orbital Sciences Corp. and for the small satellite owners whose launches will be delayed; NASA's science program was planning to use the Pegasus XL intensively over the next year.
Date UT Name Launch Vehicle Site Mission INTL.
DES.
May 14 1345 USA 110 Titan 4 Centaur Canaveral LC40 Sigint? 22A
May 17 0634 Intelsat 706 Ariane 44LP Kourou ELA2 Comsat 23A
May 20 0333 Spektr Proton Baykonur LC81 Mir module 24A
May 23 0552 GOES 9 Atlas Centaur Canaveral LC36B Weather 25A
May 24 2010 Kosmos-2312 Molniya-M Plesetsk LC16 Early Warn 26A
May 31 1527 UHF F/O F5 Atlas Centaur Canaveral LC36A Comsat 27A
Jun 8 0443 Kosmos-2313 Tsiklon-2 Baykonur LC90 Recon 28A
Jun 10 0024 DBS 3 Ariane 42P Kourou ELA2 Comsat 29A
Jun 22 1958 STEP 3 Pegasus XL/L1011 PAWA Science FTO
Jun 27 1932 Atlantis Space Shuttle Kennedy LC39A Spaceship 30A?
May 23 Progress M-27 Deorbited May 31 Kosmos-2311 Landed? Jun 8 Kosmos-2258 Reentered
Orbiters Location Mission Launch Due OV-102 Columbia OPF Bay 3 STS-73 Sep 21 OV-103 Discovery LC39B STS-70 Jul 13 OV-104 Atlantis LEO STS-71 Jun 27 OV-105 Endeavour OPF Bay 1 STS-69 Jul 30
ML1/RSRM-48/ET-72 VAB Bay 1 STS-69 ML2/RSRM-44/ET-71/OV-103 LC39B STS-70 ML3 LC39A STS-71
An complete version of the calendar is available from JPL.
Originally meant to support the Soviet Union's manned lunar program, the third generation Luna missions (Luna 15 to Luna 24) became the Soviet's answer to the American Apollo missions. This series of spacecraft was designed to return samples from the Moon, deliver large rovers to the surface, as well as explore the Moon and its enviroment from orbit. In this latest lecture by local spaceflight historian Andrew LePage, we will learn about the history of this program, its scientific accomplishments, and what we can learn two decades later from this program as we again contemplate similar missions to the Moon. Note: This talk is scheduled for July 13th, not July 6th as stated last month.
Our August meeting has a different date and time!! Join us for a potluck party at Roxanne Warnier's house (5 Driftwood Rd., Acton), rain or shine! Bring your family or guests and your favorite summer picnic food. We'll have badminton, frisbee, a kid's pool and fun. We will also plan a shuttle to the West Concord commuter train station for our commuting picnic-ers. RSVP to Roxanne at (508) 266-2625. See you there!
Look for more information about Chip's talk in a future issue of SpaceViews.
This is a series of comic tragedies caused by poor communications, lack of knowledge, and the need of firm direction by NASA, which ended in a farce. I will let the audience decide if it was a tragedy, or a comedy. When I worked on it, I found it to be humorous.