DOCSLIB.ORG

Statement of Lieutenant General James A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statement of Lieutenant General James A STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT GENERAL JAMES A. ABRAHAMSON ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR SPACE FLI GHT NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 1 t 1983 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to appear before you to present NASA's Office of Space Flight's FY 1984 budget request. The primary responsibility of the Office of Space Flight (OSF) is to establish a fully operational cost effective National Space Transportation System as quickly as possible. To this end, we are requesting $3.498 billion in FY 1984 for Space Transportation Capability Development and Space Transportation Operations. There is little that I can add to the volumes that have been said and written about the Space Shuttle since its inaugural flight nearly two years ago, except to say that in nearly every aspect it has exceeded the hopes and expectations that anyone had for it. The men and women who worked for it with selfless dedication over the years to turn this idea into a reality earned the praise they have received. The members of this Committee through their support, encouragement and their patience through the problems which we went through are already members of this team which brought the Space Shuttle to fruition. Together, we have successfully completed the initial phase of this considerable venture. With this phase behind us, we must now focus our attention on the work to be done over the next several years to make this system fully operational. The past year marked not only the completion of the orbital flight tests and the initial operational flight, but also the delivery of the second flight orbiter, Challenger. The delivery of Challenger on schedule last summer was a major accomplishment for the government­ industry team. Crallenger is now on the launch pad being readied for its maiden flight. We completed a first flight readiness firing on the Challenger main propulsion system in December and found higher concentrations of gaseous hydrogen in the aft fuselage than we found on the flight readiness firing for the Columbia. A search for the source of the hydrogen, under the best conditions possib:~ without system teardown, did not yield conclusive results. We repeated the Challenger flight readiness firing o~ January 25 following installation of an extensive instrumentation set. This test validated very low levels of oxygen in the aft fuselage. The leak was found on engine number one which is being replaced with a flight spare engine. We should be able to proceed with a launch of STS-6 in March and to minimize our delays for subsequent flights. Additionally, we are developing operational tests and procedures to insure that future flights will not be subjected to this type of delay. Obviously, we shall not commit to flight until we are totally satisfied that Challenger is safe to fly. Despite this current problem, the the program is showing signs of rapidly maturing. We are seeing efficiencies in hardware production, mission preparations and operations, and program management across the board. The skill and dedication of the NASA team of contractors and government employees are evident in the delivery ahead of schedule of the first lightweight External Tank; the on-time delivery of Challenger; the progress made to date on the third orbiter, Discovery; and, the progress which is being made in the development of the additional performance of the Solid Rocket Booster, the Main Engine, and the many other program elements. I would like as well to point out the valuabl';l contributions of the Canadians in the development of the remote manipulator system, the European Space Agency in the Spacelab development, and the Department of Defense in the development of the Inertial Upper Stage. In the orbiter production program, we are proceeding with the manufacture of the third and fourth orbiter vehicles. Discovery is now well along in the installation of its thermal protection system and final onboard systems, and delivery on schedule in September of this year appears achievable. The fabrication of Atlantis is also proceeding well, toward its delivery in December 1984. Although this budget request does not include authorization of a fifth orbiter, we are requesting funds to procure additional structural assemblies and components for the orbiter fleet. This will ensure the long-term operational viability of the four-orbiter fleet by providing the capability to repair or replace structural components in the event of damage to those components. This action will also reduce the lead time for expansion or replacement of the four-orbiter fleet should optimistic estimates of demand materialize and other conditions dictate. The first lightweight External Tank (ET) was delivered ahead of schedule last September. The reduction in weight for this ET over the current tanks was 8,000 pounds--2,OOO pounds over the established goal. The changeover in structural tools from the heavyweight to the lightweight configuration was also completed successfully. Based on heating data obtained during the initial flights, we have been able to reduce the amount of thermal protection applied to the tanks. This change, coupled with improvements in the techniques for applying insulation to the surface of the tank and its components, will assist us in achieving the reduction in the number of manufacturing hours to build a tank that we had previously projected. We are also making a major effort to improve the production flow and tooling at the Michoud Assembly Facility to ensure that the required increases in production build rates can be reached. This has been a subject of considerable interest to you and the other NASA committees. At the request of Congress, a team from the National Research Council (National Academies of Science and Engineering) is working with NASA to validate what needs to be done in this area as well as others to meet the higher flight rates of the future. The Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB' s ) have performed to specifications on the ascent phase of each flight, although there has been more water impact damage than anticipated. The loss of the STS-4 boosters due to problems experienced with the parachute deployment was unfortunate and costly, but the problem was resolved in time for STS-5. We are continuing to work on changes to the SRB, and particularly to the aft skirt, that will reduce the water impact damage to a mi nimum I evel. Significant progress has been made in the development and readiness for flight of the new high performance motor this year. We anticipate a payload carrying capability increase of 2,000 pounds from this effort. As in the ET program, we are reviewing the future facility and equipment requirements for the SRB. We are particularly concerned with the question of refurbishment facilities, and how we can best meet the future needs for faster and more cost-effective refurbishment of reusable hardware. The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME) have set an excellent flight record, demonstrating the reuseability for which they were designed. Columbia's engines are now being disassembled and inspected. Afterward, they will be rebuilt to the full power level and returned to service. Difficulties have been encountered in the Full Power Level (FPL) development and certification testing requiring that we acquire one additional engine and sufficient long-lead hardware to replace engines and components lost in test incidents. We have accelerated the production schedules to meet orbiter delivery dates and provide one spare engine per orbiter, as planned. Flight operations of the Challenger will use the more powerful SSME full power level configuration engine rated at 104%. Three of the four certification cycles on this configuration have been completed and completion of the fourth cycle is expected this spring. Our ground test fleet ~eader for this configuration has now accumulated over 40 test firings with nearly 15,000 seconds of cumulative service (30 missions). The principal launch capability developments at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) last year included the activation of the second orbiter processing facility bay and the second mobile launcher platform to allow processing two orbiters simultaneously. The second set of vehicle assembly building bays and a DOD-secure third firing room will be activated this fiscal year. Major strides have been made in strengtheniag management of launch and support operations at the KSC. An important step was the award of a Base Operations Contract (BOC) which is already demonstrating the benefits of consolidation of fourteen small individual contracts into a single integrated effort. The BOC which was awarded to EG&G, I~c. last November will streamline the launch support functions. It will provide a clear assignment of responsibilities and will reduce management interfaces. A secon~ important step in both efficiency and in the concept of a single National Space Transportation System to meet all national requirements--civil, scientific and military--was the release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Shuttle Processing Contract (SPC). This contract, like the BOC, will consolidate separate contractor operations and envisions a streamlined management operation as well. Both the BOC and the SPC are incentive type contracts to further motivate the contractors toward ever improving efficiency while maintaining the required high level of competance. The SPC will provide Shuttle processing at both Kennedy Space Center and at Vandenberg Air Force Base. The advantages we expect to gain by having the same contractor team process the Shuttle at both launch sites are improved reliabi~ity, safety, efficiency and operational scheduling. This SPC competition should be complete early this fall, and it represents an important contractual initiative. We have also undertaken additional initiatives incorporating incentive-type contracts in the manufacturing of both the External Tank and the Solid Rocket Booster.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MARS an Overview of the 1985–2006 Mars Orbiter Camera Science
    MARS MARS INFORMATICS The International Journal of Mars Science and Exploration Open Access Journals Science An overview of the 1985–2006 Mars Orbiter Camera science investigation Michael C. Malin1, Kenneth S. Edgett1, Bruce A. Cantor1, Michael A. Caplinger1, G. Edward Danielson2, Elsa H. Jensen1, Michael A. Ravine1, Jennifer L. Sandoval1, and Kimberley D. Supulver1 1Malin Space Science Systems, P.O. Box 910148, San Diego, CA, 92191-0148, USA; 2Deceased, 10 December 2005 Citation: Mars 5, 1-60, 2010; doi:10.1555/mars.2010.0001 History: Submitted: August 5, 2009; Reviewed: October 18, 2009; Accepted: November 15, 2009; Published: January 6, 2010 Editor: Jeffrey B. Plescia, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University Reviewers: Jeffrey B. Plescia, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University; R. Aileen Yingst, University of Wisconsin Green Bay Open Access: Copyright 2010 Malin Space Science Systems. This is an open-access paper distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract Background: NASA selected the Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) investigation in 1986 for the Mars Observer mission. The MOC consisted of three elements which shared a common package: a narrow angle camera designed to obtain images with a spatial resolution as high as 1.4 m per pixel from orbit, and two wide angle cameras (one with a red filter, the other blue) for daily global imaging to observe meteorological events, geodesy, and provide context for the narrow angle images. Following the loss of Mars Observer in August 1993, a second MOC was built from flight spare hardware and launched aboard Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) in November 1996.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions
    CASSINI FINAL MISSION REPORT 2018 CASSINI FINAL MISSION REPORT 2019 1 Glossary of Acronyms and Definitions A A/D Analog-to-Digital AACS Attitude and Articulation Control Subsystem AAN Automatic Alarm Notification AB Approved By ABS timed Absolute Timed AC Acoustics AC Alternating Current ACC Accelerometer ACCE Accelerometer Electronics ACCH Accelerometer Head ACE Aerospace Communications & Information Expertise ACE Aerospace Control Environment ACE Air Coordination Element ACE Attitude Control Electronics ACI Accelerometer Interface ACME Antenna Calibration and Measurement Equipment ACP Aerosol Collector Pyrolyzer ACS Attitude Control Subsystem ACT Actuator ACT Automated Command Tracker ACTS Advanced Communications Technology Satellite AD Applicable Document ADAS AWVR Data Acquisition Software ADC Analog-to-Digital Converter ADP Automatic Data Processing AE Activation Energy AEB Agência Espacial Brasileira (Brazilian Space Agency) AF Air Force AFC AACS Flight Computer AFETR Air Force Eastern Test Range AFETRM Air Force Eastern Test Range Manual 2 CASSINI FINAL MISSION REPORT 2019 AFS Atomic Frequency Standard AFT Abbreviated Functional Test AFT Allowable Flight Temperature AFS Andrew File System AGC Automatic Gain Control AGU American Geophysical Union AHSE Assembly, Handling, & Support Equipment AIT Assembly, Integration & Test AIV Assembly, Integration & Verification AKR Auroral Kilometric Radiation AL Agreement Letter AL Aluminum AL Anomalously Large ALAP As Low As Practical ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable ALB Automated Link
    [Show full text]
  • Planned Observations of the Diffuse Sky Radiation During Shuttle Mission Sts-4
    PLANNED OBSERVATIONS OF THE DIFFUSE SKY RADIATION DURING SHUTTLE MISSION STS-4 J.L. Weinberg, R.C. Hahn, F. Giovane, and D.W. Schuerman Space Astronomy Laboratory State University of N. Y. at Albany Albany, N. Y. 12203 ABSTRACT The Skylab flight spare 10-color photopolarimeter (Weinberg, et al. _, 1975; Sparrow, et al.^ 1977) is being refurbished for use in Space Shuttle mission STS-4, a test flight currently scheduled for October 1980. Obser­ vations will be made of zodiacal light, background starlight, and the Shuttle-induced atmosphere (spacecraft corona), with emphasis on regions of sky closer than 90° to the sun. A ten color (near UV to near IR) photopolarimeter was used during Skylab missions SL-2 and SL-3 to measure diffuse sky brightness and polar­ ization associated with zodiacal light, background starlight, and space­ craft corona (Weinberg, et aL.y 1975; Sparrow, et dl.3 1977). The photo­ polarimeter and boresighted 16 mm camera (Fig. 1) were attached to an alt-azimuth mounting which was part of an astronaut-operated facility which could deploy an instrument out to a distance of 5.5 m beyond the Skylab orbital workshop using scientific airlocks (SAL's) in either the solar or antisolar di­ rection (Henize and Weinberg, 1973). The instrument was designed to make fixed-position or sky-scanning measurements during spacecraft day or night, including mapping the entire sky to within 15° of the sun. Unfor­ tunately, the solar SAL could not be used because a heat shield (parasol) Fig. 1. The Skylab photopolarimeter and was permanently deployed camera and their sunshields.
    [Show full text]
  • NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics Greenbelt, Maryland 20771
    1 NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics Greenbelt, Maryland 20771 @S0002-7537~90!01201-X# The NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ~GSFC! The civil service scientific staff consists of Dr. Mario Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics ~LEP! performs Acun˜a, Dr. John Allen, Dr. Robert Benson, Dr. Thomas Bir- experimental and theoretical research on the heliosphere, the mingham, Dr. Gordon Bjoraker, Dr. John Brasunas, Dr. interstellar medium, and the magnetospheres and upper David Buhl, Dr. Leonard Burlaga, Dr. Gordon Chin, Dr. Re- atmospheres of the planets, including Earth. LEP space gina Cody, Dr. Michael Collier, Dr. John Connerney, Dr. scientists investigate the structure and dynamics of the Michael Desch, Mr. Fred Espenak, Dr. Joseph Fainberg, Dr. magnetospheres of the planets including Earth. Their Donald Fairfield, Dr. William Farrell, Dr. Richard Fitzenre- research programs encompass the magnetic fields intrinsic to iter, Dr. Michael Flasar, Dr. Barbara Giles, Dr. David Gle- many planetary bodies as well as their charged-particle nar, Dr. Melvyn Goldstein, Dr. Joseph Grebowsky, Dr. Fred environments and plasma-wave emissions. The LEP also Herrero, Dr. Michael Hesse, Dr. Robert Hoffman, Dr. conducts research into the nature of planetary ionospheres Donald Jennings, Mr. Michael Kaiser, Dr. John Keller, Dr. and their coupling to both the upper atmospheres and their Alexander Klimas, Dr. Theodor Kostiuk, Dr. Brook Lakew, magnetospheres. Finally, the LEP carries out a broad-based Dr. Ronald Lepping, Dr. Robert MacDowall, Dr. William research program in heliospheric physics covering the Maguire, Dr. Marla Moore, Dr. David Nava, Dr. Larry Nit- origins of the solar wind, its propagation outward through tler, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Venus Exploration Themes
    Venus Exploration Themes VEXAG Meeting #11 November 2013 VEXAG (Venus Exploration Analysis Group) is NASA’s community‐based forum that provides science and technical assessment of Venus exploration for the next few decades. VEXAG is chartered by NASA Headquarters Science Mission Directorate’s Planetary Science Division and reports its findings to both the Division and to the Planetary Science Subcommittee of NASA’s Advisory Council, which is open to all interested scientists and engineers, and regularly evaluates Venus exploration goals, objectives, and priorities on the basis of the widest possible community outreach. Front cover is a collage showing Venus at radar wavelength, the Magellan spacecraft, and artists’ concepts for a Venus Balloon, the Venus In‐Situ Explorer, and the Venus Mobile Explorer. (Collage prepared by Tibor Balint) Perspective view of Ishtar Terra, one of two main highland regions on Venus. The smaller of the two, Ishtar Terra, is located near the north pole and rises over 11 km above the mean surface level. Courtesy NASA/JPL–Caltech. VEXAG Charter. The Venus Exploration Analysis Group is NASA's community‐based forum designed to provide scientific input and technology development plans for planning and prioritizing the exploration of Venus over the next several decades. VEXAG is chartered by NASA's Solar System Exploration Division and reports its findings to NASA. Open to all interested scientists, VEXAG regularly evaluates Venus exploration goals, scientific objectives, investigations, and critical measurement requirements, including especially recommendations in the NRC Decadal Survey and the Solar System Exploration Strategic Roadmap. Venus Exploration Themes: November 2013 Prepared as an adjunct to the three VEXAG documents: Goals, Objectives and Investigations; Roadmap; as well as Technologies distributed at VEXAG Meeting #11 in November 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Structural Dynamic Data from Skylab August 1976 Volume I - Technical Discussion 6
    E NASA CONTRA CTOR 8' ... " 2 REPORT E h N h N I CIL U ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL DYNAMICDATA FROM SKYLAB Volume I - TechnicalDiscussion F"' - f" ~ATIONALAERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D. c. AUGUST 1976 " TECHNIC14L REPOF ~~ 1. REPORT NO. 2; GOVERNMENTACCESSION NO. NASA CR-2727 ~" ~ ~ -I== A TITLEAN0 SUBTITLE 5. REPORTDATE Analysis of Structural Dynamic Data from Skylab August 1976 Volume I - Technical Discussion 6. PERFORMINGORGANIZATION CODE ' .M-i76 7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REP0R.r U Leonard Demchak and Harry Harcrow ~ . ~~ 9. PERFORMINGORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS ,O. WORK UNIT, NO. Martin Marietta Corporation P. 0. Box 179 I 1. 'CONTRACT OR GRANT NO. NAS8-31224 Denver,Colorado 80201 13. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIODCOVEREL .....=.- _~____ ~- ~~ 12. SPONSORINGAGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Contractor Report Final National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546 1.1. SPONSORINGAGENCY CODE __ _____ "" .. ~ 15. SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES I _.-.-- 1.~- 16. ABSTRACT This report presents the resultsof a study to analyze data and document dynamic program highlights of the Skylab Program. Included are structural model sources, illustration of the analytical models, utilization of models and the resultant derived data, data supplied to organization and subsequent utilization, and specifications of model cycles. This analysis is published in two volumes: Volume I - TechnicalDiscussion - NASA CR-2727 Volume a -- Skyla$ Analyticaland Test Modal Data - NASA CR-2728 - ~~ . ~ ~~ 17. KEY WORDS 18. DISTRIBUTIONSTATEMENT STAR Category 15 ." - "= ~~~~ ~ ~-. ". ~~ ~ ~~~ 19. SECURITYCLASSIF. rmpcrt) 20. SECURITYCLASSIF. (of this psgq 21. NO. OFPAGES 22. PRICE Unclassified Unclassified 220 $7.25 - - .- - . For sale by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,.Virginia 22161 I iii CONTENTS Introduction ........................
    [Show full text]
  • NI\SI\ National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C
    NI\SI\ National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D.C. 20546 APR 13 \989 Reply to Attn of EL TO: A/Administrator FROM: E/Associate Administrator for Space Science and Applications SUBJECT: Magellan Prelaunch Mission Operations Report The single Magellan spacecraft will be launched from KSC on board Atlantis (STS-30) on April 28, 1989, at 2:24 p.m. EDT. The nominal launch period extends from April 28 to May 24; the overall launch period can be extended to as late as May 28 if certain compromises are made in the deployment constraints and Venus orbital insertion changes accepted. The daily launch window increases from 23 minutes the first day to 121 minutes on the 16th day and remains at 121 minutes through the remainder of the period. Following Shuttle insertion into a 296 km parking orbit inclined at 28.85 0 , the combined Magellan spacecraft/2-Stage IUS will be deployed from Atlantis on Rev 5 (6:17 hrs MET). Approximately one hour later, the IUS will ignite and inject the Magellan spacecraft onto an Earth-Venus transfer trajectory. Separation of the Magellan spacecraft from the depleted IUS will occur at 7:42 hrs MET. The Magellan spacecraft is powered by single degree-of-freedom sun-tracking solar panels. The spacecraft is 3-axis stabilized by reaction wheels using gyros and a star sensor for attitude reference. The spacecraft carries a large solid rocket motor for Venus Orbit Insertion (VOl). A small hydrazine system with thrusters ranging from O.9N to 445N provides Delta-V for trajectory correction maneuvers and certain attitude control functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Mariner 2 to Venus in 1962: Dawn of a New Age
    Mariner 2 to Venus in 1962: Dawn of a New Age — By Dr. Paul M. Schenk, Lunar and Planetary Institute This year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of mankind’s first true steps beyond the Earth-Moon system and into deep space, for on December 14, 1962, Mariner 2 encountered the planet Venus. Scientists had been anticipating a flight to our nearest neighbor, Venus, for several years. The planet was literally shrouded in mystery, as its opaque cloud decks prevented us from determining even its rotation rate until radar beams suggested a very slow venusian day lasting months. There were no observable surface features on which to hang credible anthropomorphic concepts, such as the “canals” on Mars that were such a powerful stimulant to the imagination. The clouds thus gave free rein to fantasy, leading to lurid ideas of steaming jungles and large reptiles, bubbling oily wastes, or windblown craggy sand heaps. There were hints of very warm signals from Venus, but were they from the surface, or from high in the Latmosphere? The only way to know was to go there. In the race to Venus, politics intervened. With Sputnik in 1957, the road into space was finally opened, and thus began the Space Race. Venus was on the short list of targets to reach first by the two competing nations, the USA and the USSR. The Soviets launched first in 1961, but the mission failed when contact was lost after only a few weeks. The Americans knew that the Soviets would try again, so a pair of Ranger- derived spacecraft, Mariner-R, were built in a record time of 11 months.
    [Show full text]
  • Testimony of Ralph Mcnutt 4 October 2017.Rev2
    Testimony of Ralph L. McNutt, Jr., Ph.D. Chief Scientist for Space Science Space Exploration Sector The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Before the Subcommittee on Space for the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives October 4, 2017 “Powering Exploration: An Update on Radioisotope Production and Lessons Learned from Cassini” We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all of our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. - T.S. Eliot (1942) Introduction The world changed 60 years ago today when the Soviet Union launched the artificial satellite Sputnik I into Earth orbit. While plans had been announced in the United States to launch such an object as part of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957, Sputnik caught the United States off guard. A 23-inch diameter sphere weighing just over 184 lbs (83.6 kg), much of Sputnik’s weight was made up of 112 lbs. (51 kg) of three silver-zinc batteries, which regulated the temperature and powered the radio transmitter. The battery power lasted for 22 days and the satellite itself for 3 months before reentering the Earth’s atmosphere. Although it is commonplace now for most satellites to be powered – and very efficiently so – with solar arrays, this was not always the case. The first American satellite, Explorer I, launched at the end of January 1958 was also battery powered. Vanguard I, the fourth artificial satellite, a 6.4-inch diameter sphere weighing 3.2 lbs. was powered by six solar cells producing a watt of electricity, which allowed one of the transmitters to operate until 1964 (a separate transmitter was powered by a battery until 1958).
    [Show full text]
  • Of the National Air and Space Museum
    Rockets, Missiles, and Spacecraft ^ of the National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution 7\* Rockets, Missiles, and Spacecraft of the National Air and Space Museum Rockets, Missiles and Spacecraft of the National Air and Space Museum Smithsonian Institution Compiled by Gregory P. Kennedy Published by the Smithsonian Institution Press Washington, DC. 1983 Copyright © by Smithsonian Institution. All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data National Air and Space Museum. Rockets, missiles, and spacecraft of the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution. Rev. ed. of: Rockets, missiles, and spacecraft of the National Air and Space Museum. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. D.C. 1976. Supt. of Docs, no: SI 9.2:R59 1. Astronautics—United States— Exhibitions. 2. National Air and Space Museum. I. Kennedy, Gregory P. II. Title TL506.U6W376 1983 629.47'0973074'0153 83-600049 Cover: Vanguard, Minuteman 3, Scout D, and Jupiter-C in the National Air and Space Museum, Washington, D.C. (Courtesy Harry N. Abrams, Inc.) Title page: View of Gallery 114: Space Hall (Photo: Smithsonian Institution) Smithsonian Institution photographs by Dale Hrabak First edition 1976 Revised edition Printed in the U.S.A. Contents 7 An Extraordinary Collection 86 Mercury Space Suits 88 Orbiting Solar Observatory 1 Pioneering Efforts, 19th and Early 20th Centuries 90 AneJ 7 and 2 Satellites 92 Mariner 2 Planetary Probe 8 Congreve Rockets 94 Relay 7 Communications Satellite 10 Hale Rockets 12 Tsiolkovsky Spaceship Model Lunar Conquest, 1965-1969 14 Goddard 1926 Rockets 16 Goddard 1935 Rocket 96 Gemini 4 Spacecraft 18 Goddard 1941 Rocket 98 Gemini 7 Spacecraft 100 Gemini Space Suits World War II Developments 102 Agena B Upper Stage 104 TIROS Operational Satellites 20 V-2 Missile 106 H-1 Rocket Engine 22 V-1 Missile 108 RL-10 Rocket Engine 24 Hs.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Management Insights from NASA’S Goddard Space Flight Center
    Goddard Space Flight Center Transforming Concepts Into Reality: Project Management Insights from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center David Mitchell Director of Flight Projects Directorate Presentation to the National Science Foundation and Smithsonian Institution at the 2016 Large Facilities Office Workshop May 24, 2016 Humanity’s Big Questions Translate the knowledge and technologies derived from these areas of exploration to practical applications today. 2 NASA GSFC Installations • GSFC Greenbelt, MD • GSFC Wallops Flight Facility, VA • IV&V Facility, WV • Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NY • Ground Stations at White Sands Complex, NM Wallops Flight Facility White Sands Complex Independent Verification and Validation Facility Greenbelt Campus Goddard Institute for Space Studies 3 Our People Technicians/Other 6% Clerical 5% Scientists & Professional/ Engineers Administrative 61% 28% GSFC Workforce Total Civil Servants: 3,400 Total Contractors : 6,400 Total Workforce: 9,800 4 Flight Projects’ FY 2015 Annual Portfolio As of March 2016 FY 2016 Funding Earth Science – 15% 15% Earth Science Reimbursable – 42% FY16 NOA $479.9M Missions in Development: 5 FY16 NOA: $1,376.3M Total in Operations: 13 Missions in Development: 7 Total in Operations: 1 42% Funded Communications & $3.5B Astrophysics – 23% Navigation –10% annual 23% FY16 NOA: $750.0M FY16 NOA: $316.0M Missions in Development: 5 Missions in Development: 1 NOA Total in Operations: 5 Total in Operations: 10 Heliophysics – 5% Planetary – 3% 2% 5% FY16 NOA: $148.9M FY16 NOA: $155.9M
    [Show full text]
  • International Space Station Systems Engineering Case Study
    International Space Station Systems Engineering Case Study Dr. Bill Stockman InternationalJoe SpaceBoyle Station Systems EngineeringDr. John Bacon Case Study Air Force Center for Systems Engineering Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The views expressed in this Case Study are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the official policy or position of NASA, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. FOREWORD One of the objectives of the Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFCSE) is to develop case studies focusing on the application of systems engineering principles within various aerospace programs. The intent of these case studies is to examine a broad spectrum of program types and a variety of learning principles using the Friedman-Sage Framework to guide overall analysis. In addition to this case, the following studies are available at the AFCSE website. Global Positioning System (space system) Hubble Telescope (space system) Theater Battle Management Core System (complex software development) F-111 Fighter (joint program with significant involvement by the Office of the Secretary of Defense) C-5 Cargo Airlifter (very large, complex aircraft) A-10 Warthog (ground attack) Global Hawk KC-135 Simulator These cases support practitioners of systems engineering and are also used in the academic instruction in systems engineering within military service academies and at both civilian and military graduate schools. Each of the case studies comprises elements of success as well as examples of systems engineering decisions that, in hindsight, were not optimal. Both types of examples are useful for learning. Plans exist for future case studies focusing on various space systems, additional aircraft programs, munitions programs, joint service programs, logistics-led programs, science and technology/laboratory efforts, and a variety of commercial systems.
    [Show full text]