NASA Task Force Urges Fletcher to Buy Elvs for Civilian Use

Home , Jarvis (rocket)

Page 1

1 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

December 22, 1986

NASA Task Force Urges Fletcher To Buy ELVs for Civilian Use

SECTION: SPACE TECHNOLOGY; Pg. 26

LENGTH: 981 words

DATELINE: Washington

NASA's mixed launch vehicle fleet assessment, completed last week, urged the agency to reintroduce expendable launchers for civilian missions, and offered policy options that could result in a $ 3-billion initiative beginning in 1987 to buy unmanned boosters. Under the plan, about 35 expendable rockets would supplement the space shuttle, launching the equivalent of more than 30 orbiter cargo bays of payloads in 1988-95 that the shuttle will not be able to accomodate. NASA would need a supplemental appropriation to start an ELV program in 1987. The recommendation to proceed with expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) resulted from a mixed-fleet study completed Dec. 15 by a NASA task force. The study found that Defense Dept. requirements of five missions per year, combined with space station requirements of eight annual flights, left inadequate launch capacity to carry out other government and civilian programs. The assessment found that the shuttle would be able to fly 85-100 missions in 1988-95, but approved payloads require more than 135 missions. NASA officials believe the Defense Dept. will need five shuttle flights per year despite the large number of ELVs the military has purchased. Payloads that would be transferred to ELVs, if NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher approves, include NASA science spacecraft, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- ministration satellites, several commercial payloads and possibly some space station cargo. While immediate demand for expendable launchers is coming from the space science program, the space station office could make substantial use of the vehicles in the 1990s if Fletcher initiates an ELV program.

Strategy Briefing Fletcher last week was briefed on NASA strategy and policy options for a mixed fleet by Darrell Branscome, special assistant to the associate administrator for space flight. Fletcher is expected to reach a decision in the next few weeks on a mixed-fleet plan that would provide direction on acquisition of expendable launchers, how to pay for them and how many to purchase. The task force recommended six to nine options for a mixed fleet that covered various combinations of the shuttle and existing ELVs, including Delta, Atlas-Centaur and Titan 34D. The Titan 4 also was included because it is in advanced development, but other vehicle concepts, such as the Boeing/Hughes Jarvis, were not. Page 2 NASA Task Force Urges Fletcher To Buy ELVs for Civilian Use Aviation Week & Space Technology December 22, 1986

NASA program officials are not in complete agreement on how extensive the use of expendable vehicles should be. They also disagree on what numbers should be projected for future shuttle flight rates, with space shuttle officials continuing to endorse 16 missions per year. Other agency officials question the accuracy of that estimate, and believe that a National Research Council figure of about 12 shuttle missions per year at the most is more realistic (AW&ST Oct. 20, p. 35). Agency officials said that Fletcher's plan to acquire expendable vehicles will be shaped by many factors, including the varying estimates of achievable shuttle flight rate, estimated future Defense Dept. requirements and the availability and price of the medium launch vehicle. An economic analysis conducted by space science officials found that transferring some satellites from the shuttle to ELVs could be justified on a cost basis. The analysis assumed a marginal cost of $ 40-80 million per shuttle flight, compared with an ELV cost of $ 60-70 million for Delta, $ 80 million for Atlas-Centaur, $ 100 million or more for Titan 34D and $ 250 million for Titan 4. Space station and space science officials have completed internal program studies on use of ELVs. Station officials decided against changing the program to incorporate expendable launchers, but have left options open to allow the introduction of ELVs if Fletcher adopts an overall mixed-fleet plan. Space station officials decided against including expendable launchers in the station design that will be the basis for the upcoming hardward contract competition. The benefit of accelerating station assembly by 6-9 months with ELVs was outweighed by the risks and costs associated with them, a station manager said. But NASA will retain an option in the contracts to use Titan 4s for the polar platforms to guarantee their launch from the West Coast, even if the Vandenberg AFB shuttle facility is not operating.

Station Resupply Station managers are interested in using ELVs for resupply, but have not developed a firm plan to do so. Station planning calls for eight shuttle missions per year to exchange crews, and if the shuttle can meet that flight rate, additional ELVs for station logistics would not be required. Several important factors have not been considered by station managers in concluding that the station does not require ELVs. The question of assured access must be addressed. Station managers must decide whether they can allow the station to depend on the space shuttle as the sole means of transportation. Station officials also have accepted the projected flight rates of the shuttle program office without question. If the space shuttle is unable to provide 16 missions per year, then the space station is not likely to get the eight yearly flights it requires. Space science managers have voiced the strongest demand for expendable vehicles and would like Fletcher to approve procurement of several additional ELVs in 1987 to supplement the Delta for the Cosmis Background Explorer that already has been approved. Space science officials hope to get approval to purchase an Atlas-Centaur for Rosat, the German/U.S. Roentgen Satellite that will conduct an all-sky survey of X-ray sources. Science managers also believe that some of the smaller, secondary shuttle payloads could be launched on ELVs if they were grouped together on a free-flying platform.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

Page 3 NASA Task Force Urges Fletcher To Buy ELVs for Civilian Use Aviation Week & Space Technology December 22, 1986

SUBJECT: SPACECRAFT (93%); SPACE EXPLORATION (92%); SCIENCE NEWS (90%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (90%); SPACE STATIONS (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (90%); SPACE SHUTTLE (89%); ASTRONOMY & SPACE (89%); DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS (74%); APPROPRIATIONS (70%); SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS (70%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

2 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

December 15, 1986

Boeing Offers to Underwrite New Jarvis Development Concept

BYLINE: By Edward H. Kolcum

SECTION: SPACE TECHNOLOGY; Pg. 22

LENGTH: 1176 words

DATELINE: Kennedy Space Center

Boeing Aerospace Co. has told NASA and the Air Force it is willing to commit its own money to develop the Jarvis heavy-lift vehicle into a system able to put more payload into orbit than any other launcher and with the potential of substantially reducing the time and cost of making the space station operational. Boeing estimates total development costs for the unmanned Jarvis system at $ 1 billion, to be shared by Boeing and Hughes Aircraft Co., with Boeing paying the larger portion. Boeing said that, at this point, it is still gathering data on which to base a corporate decision on whether to invest in the project. The company forecasts an annual requirement for at least six Jarvis-class launchers to meet the needs of the Srategic Defense Initiative Organization, the Defense Dept., NASA and commercial customers. Boeing maintains that five Jarvis flights committed to space station missions would: * Reduce the number of shuttle flights for space station assembly from 17 to five. * Cut space station assembly costs by $ 700 million. * Permit station completion two years earlier than if shuttle-only flights are used. * Facilitate permanent manning a year sooner than planned. The Air Force is expected to issue a requirement for a heavy-lift vehicle in March or April, which Boeing will respond to with the Jarvis system. Boeing said that, assuming a go-ahead within the next three months, it will be able to conduct its first Jarvis launch and flight hardware.

Independent Studies Boeing has said that Jarvis is not competing with the Titan 4 or space shuttle launchers and that the company is not seeking funding or subsidies from NASA. Rather, Boeing is asking for NASA's cooperation in determining whether a market for the Jarvis exists. Four independent studies have shown there is such a market, the company said, adding: "We want to be brought into the launcher family as a cooperating member." The Boeing presentations to NASA and the Air Force represent a significant shift in a roles in the Jarvis project. Until early November, Hughes Aircraft Co. had been the lead industrial company and the project was known as the Hughes/Boeing Jarvis. Boeing has now taken over Page 5 Boeing Offers to Underwrite New Jarvis Development Concept Aviation Week & Space Technology December 15, 1986 responsibilities estimated at 70-80% of the hardware and value of the program, and company leaders are expressing a willingness to assume that portion of the development risk. Boeing wants NASA to provide help in assessing the market and to enter into understanding on such program elements as facilities use and technical cooperation. Jarvis launcher responsibilities now are divided this way: * Boeing -- Core stage and solid boosters, fairing, vehicle integration and launch, launch site activation and logistics. In addition to boosters, the core stage consists of shuttle main engines and external tank. * Hughes -- Mission planning and control, payload integration and Jarvis transfer platform. The Jarvis vehicle underwent a radical design change in September, and the concept is now based largely on space shuttle elements (AW&ST Oct. 6, p. 24). The orginal design was based on Saturn propulsion and was an entry in the Air Force medium launch vehicle proposal. With the current shuttle-based design, Jarvis was eliminated from the MLV competition because it was considered too powerful for the MLV role, which is keyed to launching the Navstar satellite. Boeing said it is still gathering data prior to making a corporate commitment to proceed with Jarvis. The company also needs an agreement with the government for reimbursed use of facilities and services. And, just as important, it needs a kickoff customer. Boeing believes Jarvis will be most cost-effective if existing processing and launch facilities at Kennedy Space Center are used. The company consequently began its marketing effort with what it identifies as a "commercial offering" here. The objectives are to develop a business relationship for sharing and possibly modifying some Kennedy facilities, and to collaborate on a commercialization agreement. Boeing has obtained NASA permission to conduct working meetings with Kennedy technical and business representatives to assess the Jarvis concept and to conduct a summary briefing on the concept later this month. Boeing told NASA that it is not looking for a quick return on its investment and does not anticipate a profit on the Jarvis program for at least 15 years. The company said it recognizes that "front-end funding will be very, very expensive." Boeing plans to offset this somewhat by procedures such as exchanging flight hardware. Boeing intends to procure the solid rocket boosters, external tanks and space shuttle main engines through NASA. Initial flights will require thrust levels of 90-95% of engine capacity, which offers the potential of flying with used main engines. This will be done if Boeing can assure itself that the engines are totally reliable, Boeing said. Jarvis is designed to put 31,000 lb. into polar orbit from Kennedy, 58,000 lb. into polar orbit from Vandenberg AFB, 79,800 lb. into a 150-naut.-mi. circular orbit and 76,500 lb. into a 220-naut.-mi. space station orbit from Kennedy. With a Centaur G Prime upper stage, Boeing said it can put 17,000 lb. in geosynchronous orbit from Kennedy. Jarvis would have a payload fairing 27.5 ft. in diameter with a volume of 50,000 cu. ft... This is four times the volume of the shuttle orbiter, which has a 15-ft. payload diameter. Boeing said there will be significant cost saving through multiple manifesting possible with the large diameter and volume. Assessments were made on side mount and in-line payload accommodations. The in-line method has been selected because it scored better in performance, cost-to-orbit, payload accommodation and growth potential. Page 6 Boeing Offers to Underwrite New Jarvis Development Concept Aviation Week & Space Technology December 15, 1986

In the heavy-lift category, Boeing has projected there will be six Titan 4 missions and 9-12 shuttle missions annually and that Jarvis must have at least a mission cost equivalent to these vehicles to be acceptable. The most optimistic Jarvis market would total 10 per year, Boeing said. These would be two SDIO, three military, three NASA and two commercial launches. The company is using as its baseline two each for SDI, military and NASA, and one commercial, saying that "once Jarvis is implemented, the payload community will design to its throw weight, diameter and volumetric capability." With a new cryogenic upper stage, Boeing said, Jarvis could conduct all planetary missions identified through the early 21st century. With its large fairings, including a hammerhead configuration 35 ft. in diameter by 70 ft. long, Jarvis can support SDIO work, including neutral particle beam experiments, target vehicle deployment experiments and test of space-based laser elements. Growth versions of Jarvis could support initial deployment of an operational SDIO system. Versions using as many as three space shuttle main engines would have a low orbit capability of as much as 185,000 lb., Boeing said.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACECRAFT (92%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (90%); AIR FORCES (90%); AEROSPACE INDUSTRY (90%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); AEROSPACE SECTOR PERFORMANCE (90%); SPACE STATIONS (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (89%); AVIONICS (78%); SPACE PROPULSION (78%); DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS (73%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Illustrations 1 through 4, Baseline Jarvis heavy-lift vehicle could be adapted to three other launchers as shown. All vehicles would have two shuttle solid rocket boosters. The baseline version would have a single shuttle main engine; the second, two engines, and the third, three. The vehicle would have two shuttle main engines that would be recoverable along with reusable avionics. The performance figures indicate payload weight into a 220-naut.-mi. orbit at 28.5 deg. inclination, which is normal for a Kennedy Space Center launch.

3 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

December 8, 1986

New Defense Space Policy Supports Manned Flight Role

BYLINE: By Craig Covault

SECTION: ADVANCED MILITARY PLANNING; Pg. 18

LENGTH: 1407 words

DATELINE: Washington

Defense Dept. is completing a new U.S. military space policy expected to accelerate development of technology to protect Strategic Defense Initiative spacecraft from Soviet attack and provide strong Pentagon support for future manned military space operations. For more than 20 years, the Defense Dept. has been unable to define a strong operational role for U.S. military astronauts in orbit. Final drafts of the new Defense Space Policy, however, call for a more thorough examination of future manned military operations. The Defense Dept. is taking this position in part because of impressive Soviet manned military demonstrations on the Salyut 7 space station, which have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies, a senior U.S. space official said. The Defense Space Policy also will endorse a move toward development of a new unmanned heavy-lift booster, such as the Jarvis or similar concepts. The policy will influence billions of dollars of defense space development across varied mission areas into the 21st century. Final reviews of the draft policy were to begin Dec. 5 before the plan is submitted to Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger for his approval. Reagan Administration officials believe formation of the new policy demonstrates that they are reacting quickly to deficiencies in U.S. space capabilities. As further evidence, officials point to a new White House National Security Council initiative to revise the earlier National Space Policy and National Space Strategy. The new military space policy has been completed by a Defense Dept. working group including the Air Force, Navy, Army, Joint Chiefs of Staff and SDI Organization. It has been circulated among senior space managers in these services for final comment. The working group that formulated the policy is headed by Charles W. Cook, deputy asistant secretary of the Air Force for Space Plans and Policy. The new plan will replace a policy formed in 1982, now outdated after significant changes in the U.S. space program. An increasing Soviet capability, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the shuttle Challenger accident and the move to a fleet capable of both manned and unmanned flight are all significant factors in the new policy. A key theme throughout the draft policy is how U.S. military space systems are becoming a more integrated part of U.S. military operations. As such, those systems need to Page 8 New Defense Space Policy Supports Manned Flight Role Aviation Week & Space Technology December 8, 1986 be as survivable as their ground-based counterparts -- and more so if there are no other systems providing complementary support. This aspect is particularly important in reference to SDI. Since SDI spacecraft would be extremely critical systems during war, the policy stresses the importance of beginning development efforts to make the systems survivable if attacked by the Soviets. Future SDI spacecraft, as well as existing military satellites, require protection against attack by Soviet ground-based laser systems, radio interference and kinetic attack systems. In the areas of space-based intelligence and surveillance, the new Defense Space Policy is expected to call for an expansion of capability that could be used by commanders in the field, an area stressed by U.S. Army space officials. Army and Marine Corps commanders are interested, for example, in satellite imagery of the local and regional tactical situation. The policy will call for a broadening of U.S. reconnnaissance technologies -- to new radar systems, for example -- and proliferation of reconnaissance satellites. The policy will strongly endorse a move toward unmanned launch operations for most U.S. military space cargo and eventual development of a new heavy-lift unmanned booster. It further endorses modification of existing critical military spacecraft and development of future satellites to allow them to be launched on either the shuttle or unmanned boosters. Dual compatibility modifications already are being added to critical payloads such as imaging reconnaissance spacecraft, electronic intelligence vehicles and missile early warning satellites. Drafts of the Defense Space Policy also recognize that the shuttle, space station and follow-on vehicles such as Shuttle-2 and the aerospace plane are opening new manned military opportunities in areas such as ocean surveillance, strategic reconnaissance, command and control and the servicing of spacecraft in orbit. Cancellation of the USAF Manned Orbiting Laboratory military reconnaissance program in the late 1960s and the inability of USAF Air Staff Studies in 1978 to define the utility of military space crews occurred because of limited flight experience in military space areas. Since then, however, shuttle astronaut experience in ocean observations, satellite deployment and repair and extensive Soviet manned military space demonstrations have changed the basis from which future operations can be assessed. One USAF officer noted that the Soviets already have demonstrated significant manned ocean surveillance, command and control and military technology efforts, including those characterized as Soviet SDI technology demonstrations in space. Observing such activity has been an extremely valuable, low-cost method of demonstrating to U.S. planners what military astronauts could accomplish. The potential for satellite servicing is already leading to an increased role for NASA in future military space operations. NASA and Defense Dept. recently signed a joint agreement on development of in-orbit satellite maintenance and repair capabilities. The agreement has the potential of making the civil space agency an inherent part of developing or implementing the the servicing of existing military payloads, such as reconnaissance satellites, and future payloads, such as SDI spacecraft. A joint NASA/Defense/SDI team is conducting an extensive study of the type of spacecraft refueling and servicing that will be possible, both from manned vehicles such as shuttle and with unmanned robotic spacecraft. During the next several months, specific servicing demonstration missions that could be done in the early to mid-1990s will be recommended, with the emphasis on doing a mission much more Page 9 New Defense Space Policy Supports Manned Flight Role Aviation Week & Space Technology December 8, 1986 operationally oriented than previous in-orbit efforts, such as the Solar Max satellite refurbishment. Such capabilities will be essential for the operational deployment of large, long-term SDI spacecraft, and could save costs on smaller military spacecraft, such as reconnaissance satellites, for which orbital refueling could provide significant operational benefits. Since 1971, Central Intelligence Agency and USAF space reconnaissance operations have used about 25 large imaging reconnaissance satellites with a total value of several billion dollars. With orbital refueling and film replenishment, fewer spacecraft could have flown extended missions.

Joint Effort Lockheed and TRW both have contracts expected to total more than $ 1.5 million to study spacecraft assembly maintenance and servicing under the joint NASA/Defense/SDI effort. The two military organizations are each contributing 40% of the funding, while NASA is contributing 20%. The effort has been under way since March and is expected to be extended until October, 1987. Although the study is not part of the new Defense Space Policy, it is in direct support of a key element of the policy, which states that when block changes are made in existing military spacecraft design or new spacecraft are proposed, orbital servicing should be considered to reduce costs and increase mission operations. The contractors first developed mission models to help indicate which planned and future spacecraft had commonality for various servicing factors. Between 6 and 10 design reference missions were then derived by each contractor to help narrow common requirements. Among the demonstration missions that could be proposed in 1987 is development of a space tanker system for use in the space shuttle. This could be used in the early 1990s to refuel a demonstration spacecraft. The tanker design could then be adapted by NASA, Defense or SDI as needed to refuel operational spacecraft, such as Earth resources satellites and military reconnaissance vehicles. A robotic servicing demonstration of a free-flying satellite could be recommended in order to make use of a robotic system before it is integrated with the station.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: AEROSPACE REGULATION & POLICY (92%); SPACECRAFT (90%); MILITARY OPERATIONS (90%); DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS (90%); DEFENSE & MILITARY POLICY (90%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); ARMED FORCES (89%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (89%); AIR FORCES (89%); SPACE STATIONS (89%); LASER WEAPONS (79%); ARMIES (79%); NAVIES (79%); DEFENSE ELECTRONICS (79%); PUBLIC POLICY (78%); LASERS (74%); NATIONAL SECURITY (74%); DEFENSE INDUSTRY (74%); INTELLIGENCE SERVICES (74%); SPACE SHUTTLE (71%); SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY (70%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Pictures 1 and 2, Strategic Defense Initiative neutral particle beam spacecraft is shown firing in the McDonnell Douglas concept, illustrating the type of projected space operations covered under the new Defense Dept. space policy. The device would be launched folded in the shuttle cargo bay and after deployment would unfold to 100-120 ft. long. McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed are competing for the development that would demonstrate how SDI systems could discriminate between Soviet warheads and decoys in space.

4 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

December 1, 1986 Correction Appended

Financial Impact of Challenger On Space Industry Analyzed

BYLINE: John Egan is executive vice president of the Center for Space and Advanced Technology (CSAT), an Arlington, Va.-based consulting firm providing services to NASA and companies involved in commercial space activities. Prior to joing CSAT, Egan was the director of the Commercial Space Consulting Practice of Coopers & Lybrand. He specializes in business planning and financial and market analysis for the space industry

SECTION: Note: This table may be divided, and additional information on a particular entry may appear on more than one screen. VIEWPOINTS; Pg. 101

LENGTH: 2141 words

Since the Challenger loss, the pages of AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY have chronicled the impact of that tragedy on NASA and the U.S. space program. But what impact has it had on the commercial development of space and the companies that were heavily involved in it? Did the Challenger accident impact match that of Three Mile Island on the nuclear power industry, or have its effects been less profound and enduring? To date there is no broad agreement on the answer; the views expressed by industry players depend upon where they sit. The shock has passed, and we have had time to begin to assess the impact of the tragedy from a number of perspectives. These include the viewpoints of investors toward companies involved in the space program as reflected in the performance of their stocks, of proponents of space-related R&D programs within major companies and of the newer space entrepreneurs.

Stock Price Reflection Classic financial theory suggests that, given perfect information, changes in stock prices will accurately reflect the impact of an event on a particular company. While one might argue that information about the Challenger accident was imperfect, it certainly was prolific. An analysis of the effects of the accident on the stock price movements of several aerospace firms involved in the space program yields some interesting insights. A more precise analysis would require taking into account individual risk/return relationships as well. However, because the dividends of these firms did not change markedly over this period and the riskiness of individual stocks remained about the same, it seems valid to Page 11 Financial Impact of Challenger On Space Industry Analyzed Aviation Week & Space Technology December 1, 1986Correction Appended use price changes as a measure of investor reaction to the news and impact on the firms. Of six aerospace companies studied, the four most closely associated with the shuttle program -- Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, Morton Thiokol and Rockwell -- saw a price drop the day of the accident. Two more broadly based companies less associated with the shuttle -- Boeing and General Dynamics -- enjoyed the same kind of gain the general market did. On the following day, the prices of McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell began to recover as news of the accident's cause centered on the rocket boosters and the external fuel tank. Over the six month period following the accident, all of the aerospace companies except Morton Thiokol showed gains. Three company-based commercial space R&D programs touted in press accounts prior to the accident were the electrophoresis program of McDonnell Douglas, the major experiments in organic and polymer chemistry at 3M and the metal casting work of the John Deere Co. The prices for 3M and Deere gained on the day of the accident after sustaining losses the previous day. This suggests that the market did not view the space R&D portion of either company's business as significant enough to affect its stock value and that the previously mentioned loss incurred by McDonnell Douglas may have had more to do with its role as provider of space hardware, such as PAM-D, than with concern for delays in its electrophoresis program. In comparing the percentage of change in stock prices for these companies with the general market between Jan. 27 and the end of July, three of the aerospace companies significantly outperformed the general market. Boeing was helped by substantial profit improvement based on aircraft sales, Martin Marietta in all likelihood benefited from the fact that Titan expendable launch vehicles would be needed to service the mixed fleet and Rockwell profited from the probability that it would build the replacement orbiter. General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas, while showing gains, were below the market average, no doubt in part because of the loss of an Atlas Centaur and a Delta rocket, the cancellation of the shuttle/Centaur program and poor short-term prospects for PAM-D sales. Only Morton Thiokol, clearly affected the most, showed a loss. But even for this company, the long-term outlook is not that gloomy. Moody's Handbook of Common Stocks reported last summer: "Morton-Thiokol's strong portfolio of mixed businesses (including well-positioned salt and specialty chemical operations, as well as strategic and tactical weapons systems that provide over 40% of aerospace segment income) should otherwise perform well, cushioning the temporary loss of some shuttle contract revenue." During this same period, 3M showed significant gains based on a strong corporate picture while John Deere sustained a substantial loss as a result of layoffs and other information that was not related to its space activity.

Mixed Impact From the persepctive of the market, then, the impact of the accident on these major companies has been mixed. For aerospace companies heavily involved in the shuttle and other space programs, there have been both setbacks and benefits. For companies leading in space experimentation, no impact is evident. Most of the small companies involved in the commercial space programs, such as Orbital Sciences Corp., are not publicly traded, so no such analysis can be performed. Astrotech International is publicly traded, but it is not entirely a space-related company, for its subsidiaries include specialty metals and computer-oriented companies as well as Astrotech Space Operations, operator of a facility near the Page 12 Financial Impact of Challenger On Space Industry Analyzed Aviation Week & Space Technology December 1, 1986Correction Appended

Kennedy Space Center to process communications satellites commercially, and General Space Corp., a new venture formed to explore commercial space opportunities, one of which is the purchase of an additional shuttle orbiter. The fact that the accident had no immediate impact on its stock price is puzzling, given the knowledge that a principal money-making subsidiary, Astrotech Space Operations, would be seriously affected by the shuttle loss. Traders may have believed that its stock already was extremely low given the value of the company. Astrotech's stock rose 175% as the commercial purchase of a replacement by its chairman, Willard Rockwell. When Administration support for such a purchase failed to materialize and reports on the performance of its nonspace divisions proved less than promising, Astrotech's stock fell to its previous low level of $ 1.00 per share by Oct. 1. It is fair to conclude that Astrotech's stock benefited from the Challenger loss briefly, but not in the long run. Astrotech International recently discontinued operations of its General Space subsidiary, ending its quest to purchase the replacement orbiter commercially. The shuttle accident did not impact nonaerospace companies. But the question remains of what impact it has had on the advocates of commerical space R&D programs within these companies. The job of persuading management that there is value in continuing to invest in space research programs, while never easy, grew considerably more difficult. Prior to the accident, several managements perceived real benefits from space-based R&D in the form of basic scientific knowledge and the promise of new and improved products. Conferences on the commercial development of space were held almost monthly, providing opportunities to share the latest information and to discuss important policy issues. All of this generated support for advocates of commerical space programs as they competed for resources within their companies. NASA programs designed to help companies move ahead with space-based research, including joint endeavor agreements and modified launch service agreements, also were important incentives. There is no indication that management or the core of outside believers in the commercial potential of space activities has had a change of mind about the ultimate value of space-based research. For now, most are continuing their programs and their advocacy, respectively. However, companies are less confident that future policy will continue to support long-term space research programs or that their experiments will receive priority once shuttle flights resume. Once this confidence is reestablished, it will be far easier to argue in favor of allocating further company resources for the extensive ground-based experiments that will be necessary for an eventual strong space-based experimentation program -- one that will prepare companies for work on the space station. If NASA fails to give such assurances in the near future, these companies will find other ways to spend their research funds.

Space Entrepreneur Impact The Challenger accident has severely affected space entrepreneurs, those small businesses that have grown up around the emerging space industry. Some, but not all, have been badly hurt. Astrotech Space Operations, processor of communications satellites for shuttle launch and once hailed as the first successful commercial space venture since communications satellites, has lost virtually its entire market and must pin its hopes on the emergence of a commerical expendable launch vehicle industry. Page 13 Financial Impact of Challenger On Space Industry Analyzed Aviation Week & Space Technology December 1, 1986Correction Appended

Orbital Sciences Corp., which raised $ 62 million to finance the development of a shuttle-compatible commercial upper stage, also has been severely affected. Although OSC won a NASA contract to provide the stage for the Mars Observer mission, difficulties related to the accident may cause delays and program uncertainties that will jeopardize OSC's future. That future is now dependent upon winning contracts for government payloads on future shuttle missions or adapting their stage to a future commercial ELV. Smaller entrepreneurs who worked with Getaway Special canisters or who provided specialized consulting services are undergoing severe problems. The key issue for all these entrepreneurial ventures is to marshal their resources to last through the hiatus in space flight. The companies that have benefited are those that have turned to developing alternative launch capabilities. These include major companies as well as newer entrepreneurs. General Dynamics, Martin Marietta and McDonnell Douglas are all looking seriously at commercial applications of their respective launch systems. Hughes Aircraft and Boeing have joined forces to propose the development of the Jarvis launch system. Smaller companies including Space Services, Inc., and American Rocket also are looking at how they can enter the launch vehicle market. Such vehicles are being taken far more seriously than before. This suggests investment money is available from large companies and other investors for space-related projects for which there is a clear and present need. Some firms have been helped by the absence of a NASA launch capability, but most have been hurt by the delays. The question is if those companies that are active in and support commercial development in space can hang on through the delays. Most probably can -- if they are assured there is a reason to continue. If the commercial development of space dies in the wake of the Challenger loss, it will not be the accident that killed it but rather the inability of NASA and other government leaders to promptly establish policy that will reassure investors in and supporters of commercial applications that their activity has an important, long-term place in the U.S. space program. They need to know that there will be a position and priority for them on future flights and on the space station. Without such assurance, even the strongest supporters will be unable to ride out the wait. If support is allowed to dwindle, it will be extremely hard to revive, and both the long-term program and the national interest will suffer.

Stock Prices for Leading Aerospace Companies Compared Between January and July, 1986 Price General John Martin McDonnell Morton at Close Astrotech Boeing Dynamics Deere Marietta Douglas Thiokol Jan 27 1 46 3/4 68 3/8 28 5/8 34 75 36 7/8 Jan 28 1 47 5/8 69 28 3/4 33 1/2 75 1/4 32 1/2 Jan 29 1 47 3/4 70 3/4 28 7/8 33 1/8 76 1/4 32 Jan 30 1 47 3/4 71 1/4 27 7/8 33 1/8 76 7/8 32 1/4 Jan 31 1 48 1/4 70 28 1/8 33 1/4 77 1/4 31 1/4 Feb 12 2 3/4 50 73 5/8 29 34 3/8 78 33 3/4 July 28 1 1/2 59 3/4 73 1/4 23 1/2 44 1/4 83 35 1/4

Percent Change 27.31 6.15 (19.93) 27.39 9.93 (4.37) 24.11

Dow Price Industrial at Close Rockwell 3M Average Page 14 Financial Impact of Challenger On Space Industry Analyzed Aviation Week & Space Technology December 1, 1986Correction Appended

Dow Price Industrial at Close Rockwell 3M Average Jan 27 35 1/4 86 1/2 1537.61 Jan 28 34 3/8 87 1/2 1556.42 Jan 29 35 88 3/4 1558.94 Jan 30 34 5/8 88 3/4 1552.18 Jan 31 35 5/8 90 7/8 1570.99 Feb 12 36 7/8 95 7/8 1629.93 July 28 43 3/4 111 7/8 1810.04

Percent Change 29.23 17.72 --

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SCIENCE NEWS (90%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (90%); AEROSPACE RESEARCH (90%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); SPACE INDUSTRY (90%); EDITORIALS & OPINIONS (90%); RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (89%); AEROSPACE MANUFACTURING (89%); AEROSPACE INDUSTRY (89%); AEROSPACE SECTOR PERFORMANCE (89%); PRICE CHANGES (87%); NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS (78%); SPACE PROPULSION (78%); ENTREPRENEURSHIP (77%); RISK MANAGEMENT (74%); POLYMERS (73%); CHEMISTRY (73%); ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY (72%); NUCLEAR ENERGY (56%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

CORRECTION-DATE: December 15, 1986

CORRECTION: The table lists changes in stock prices for some leading aerospace companies between Jan. 28, the day of the Challenger accident, and July 28, six months later, compared with the Dow Jones Industrial Average for the same period. The percent changes in the bottom row should read as follows: Astrotech, 50%; Boeing, 27.81%; General Dynamics, 6.15%; John Deere, (17.93%); Martin Marietta, 27.89%; McDonnell Douglas, 9.93%; Morton Thiokol, (4.37%); Rockwell, 24.11%; 3M, 29.32%, and the Dow Industrial Average, 17.72%. There were incorrect figures in the table that appeared on p. 103 of the Dec. 1 issue in an article entitled Financial Impact of Challenger on Space Industry Analyzed.

GRAPHIC: Picture, no caption

5 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

November 24, 1986

Jarvis Elimination

BYLINE: WASHINGTON STAFF

SECTION: WASHINGTON ROUNDUP; Pg. 15

LENGTH: 232 words

The Boeing/Hughes Jarvis heavy-lift booster concept was eliminated from the USAF medium launch vehicle competition (MLV) last week by Air Force Space Div. because the heavy vehicle is overqualified for the role. Both USAF and the contractors, however, will continue to study Jarvis for its payload potential. The MLV competition is keyed to launch of the Navstar global positioning system, and the Air Force is actively discussing the possibility of using the European Ariane booster to supplement U.S. launch capability if necessary, Air Force Secretary Edward C. Aldridge, Jr., told the Air Force Assn. recently. USAF is conducting Ariane/GPS compatibility studies and evaluating what cooperative space arrangements with the Europeans could be negotiated as part of an Ariane/GPS deal.

Some of the current problems with the Air Force/Rockwell B-1B strategic bomber are serious and will be the subject of Senate Armed Services subcommittee hearings next year, Sen. Sam Nunn (D.-Ga.), putative committee chairman, said last week (AW&ST Nov. 3, p. 34). Although the B-1B will be useful in a quasi-conventional role as a standoff missile carrier, Nunn said, its high cost far outweighs its value, given a presumed short life expectancy against Soviet air defense. "My big objection to the B-1 has been the squeeze on the stealth [bomber]" now in development, he added.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: AIR FORCES (91%); ARMED FORCES (90%); MISSILE SYSTEMS (90%); FIGHTERS & BOMBERS (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (90%); SPACECRAFT (78%); BOMBINGS (78%); AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS (78%); DEFENSE & MILITARY POLICY (73%); GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (71%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

6 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

November 24, 1986

NASA Set to Release Draft Station RFPs on Nov. 26

BYLINE: By Richard G. O'Lone

SECTION: INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION; Pg. 19

LENGTH: 796 words

DATELINE: Mountain View, Calif.

Draft requests for proposals on the four major U.S. space station work packages are scheduled to be released Nov. 26, a National Aeronautics and Space Administration official said here last week (AW&ST Nov. 3, p. 42). After receiving industry comments on the proposals, NASA plans to issue the formal RFPs in January, according to Andrew J. Stofan, the agency's space station chief. Proposals would be returned in the spring, and contracts to develop and manage the space station effort would be awarded in midsummer, he said. Stofan, NASA's associate administrator-Office of Space Station, also said he expects a contractor to supply systems engineering and integration support to the new space station program office in Washington, D.C., will be selected in the spring. This results from the sweeping management changes that followed the Challenger accident (AW&ST Sept. 15, p. 24). Stofan, visiting NASA's Ames Research Center here to review the center's capabilities and hear a pitch by Ames officials for space station assignments, also said: * Negotiations with the European Space Agency have become difficult because "a bit of nationalism is getting in the way of science and technology." He cut short his visit here so that he could return to Washington, D.C., to meet with NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher and ESA Director General Reimar Luest to try to break the impasse. * NASA has a "closer working relationship with the scientific community" than in any previous program. Those who feel a manned program drains resources from more vital scientific pursuits are "very vocal . . . but don't represent the scientific community," Stofan said. "We clearly understand that we are building something for the users. I think they realize that. The design has been driven in the main by the requirements of the users." He pointed out that scientists have direct access to him through Space Station Program Scientist David Black, whose position did not even exist on past NASA programs. * The total space station program cost that he and Fletcher are attempting to ascertain probably will not be "grossly different" from the earlier $ 8-billion figure, although this number did not include launch or operating costs. * It is "technically feasible" to use expendable launch vehicles during assembly of the station, but the "availability of the vehicle is another entire question." It is more probable that ELVs will be used for logistics missions after the crew is in Page 17 NASA Set to Release Draft Station RFPs on Nov. 26 Aviation Week & Space Technology November 24, 1986 place. The Titan 4 and Atlas/Centaur are possibilities, and NASA is conducting studies in the event that such proposed heavy-lift vehicles as the Boeing/Hughes Jarvis and United Technologies Corp.'s unmanned payload carrier become realities (AW&ST Nov. 17, pp. 13, 19). European and Japanese boosters also will be considered. * The Soviet Union will have a five-year jump in space science by the time the U.S. station becomes productive, but the U.S. will pass the Russians "a few years after we have our station operational." The NASA official said that the U.S. and Canada, which is contributing the mobile servicing center, are close to agreement, and that while negotiations with Japan are going slowly, there is "no major differences of opinion or hangups." Japan is contributing a research laboratory and experiment logistics module.

ESA Autonomy One of the primary issues with ESA, which is to provide a pressurized laboratory module and a polar-orbiting platform, is that the Europeans insist their module be autonomous, Stofan said. "They want to control it . . . which is physically and technologically impossible," he said. ESA and NASA also disagree over the relationship of contributions to benefits, he said, with the U.S. proposing "equity -- you get out what you put in" and the Europeans seeking a partnership arrangement. "We can get along without them," Stofan said, but he is optimistic that the present situation is just a negotiating posture and will be solved. "I see nothing fatal," he said. The scientific and technological communities have solved this type of problem before, but unfortunately, "they are not the people who do the negotiating." Ames will not be managing any of the major space station work packages, but it is hoping to acquire a significant supporting role in science and technology. Stofan was shown examples of Ames' work in space suit design, including the recent AX-5 hard suit. He also was briefed on Ames' traditional significant capability in life sciences, which, along with materials research, is one of the station's primary planned activities. Ames also has a strong capability in artificial intelligence, which Congress has said should be an important space station objective.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (92%); SPACECRAFT (90%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); CONTRACTS & BIDS (90%); SPACE STATIONS (90%); SCIENCE NEWS (89%); SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (89%); AEROSPACE RESEARCH (78%); SPACE INDUSTRY (78%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (77%); ENGINEERING (74%); TALKS & MEETINGS (72%); RESEARCH INSTITUTES (67%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

7 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

November 17, 1986

SECTION: INDUSTRY OBSERVER; Pg. 13

LENGTH: 86 words

Boeing Aerospace Corp. has taken over the prime contractor role for the Jarvis unmanned heavy-lift booster proposal, replacing Hughes Aircraft Co., which remains part of the project as a subcontractor. The Jarvis proposal, submitted to the Air Force in late October for the medium-launch vehicle competition, was made with Boeing as prime contractor (AW&ST Aug. 4, p. 34). Boeing significantly modified Hughes' original Jarvis design into a vehicle using space shuttle type liquid and solid propulsion systems.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACE PROPULSION (88%); SPACECRAFT (86%); AIR FORCES (86%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

8 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

October 6, 1986

Revised Jarvis Design Includes Increased Use of Shuttle Components

BYLINE: By Bruce A. Smith

SECTION: SPACE TECHNOLOGY; Pg. 24

DATELINE: Los Angeles

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACE SHUTTLE (86%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Illustration, Hughes Aircraft Co. and Boeing Aerospace Co. have changed the design for their proposed Jarvis launch vehicle in a move to decrease cost and schedule risks by making increased use of available space shuttle components (AW&ST Aug. 4, p. 34). The original design concept called for use of two liquid propellant boost stages, using Saturn launch vehicle engines, structure from the shuttle external propellant tank and electronic systems derived from the shuttle orbiter. Present Jarvis design has a single liquid propellant stage using a modified shuttle external tank with a single shuttle main engine attached to a structure on the bottom of the tank, in addition to two shuttle solid rocket motors attached to the side of the tank. The original design was an all-liquid propulsion system design that did not have strap-on motors. The top of the tank structure would be removed and replaced with a payload platform and shroud. The system would be capable of being launched from shuttle launch sites at Kennedy Space Center in Florida or at Vandenberg AFB, Calif. Hughes is discussing with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration use of shuttle launch facilities. Decision deadline for development of the vehicle would be early 1987 to be able to launch the Jarvis in the early 1990 target date. Development of the booster could significantly unload the payload manifest for the space shuttle orbiters since shuttle payload performance is being reduced and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will not be able to make the projected 24 launches per year. Page 20 Revised Jarvis Design Includes Increased Use of Shuttle Components Aviation Week & Space Technology October 6, 1986

Engineering tradeoffs being studied include use of the space shuttle main engine on the expendable Jarvis launch vehicle. One option is to reduce the cost of the engine by taking out some of the features that make it reusable, such as the use of certain materials, or the possibility of developing a means to recover the engines after launch. The program would take advantage of improvements to both the main engines and the solid rocket motors, which currently are under way. The booster would be able to lift about 80,000 lb. into low Earth orbit. The earlier design was to be capable of boosting 85,000 lb. into low Earth orbit and 17,500 lb. into geosynchronous orbit. Hughes, stressing cost effectiveness of further use of shuttle hardware, is considering private financing for the program in the event MLV contract funding is not received. The program could utilize engine test facilities in Mississippi. Hughes also is studying the possibility of igniting the booster's main engine after the solid rockeet motors have fired and the booster has ascended from the pad in a launch from Vandenberg, in the event the potential problem of gaseous hydrogen entrapment at Vandenberg's shuttle launch site was not resolved. The Air Force has been studying the potential for gaseous hydrogen to be trapped in the shuttle main engine duct at Vandenberg, which could lead to a detonation in the duct and damage to the aft end of the orbiter in the event the orbiter remained on the launch mount in a launch abort or a flight readiness firing. Development schedule for the present Jarvis design would be essentially the same as for the previous design, which included an F-1 engine for the first stage and a J-2 engine for the second stage. The new concept would be significantly less costly to develop and would have less risk involved in schedule and cost estimates. Per- formance and reliability would be similar to the initial Jarvis design. Uncertainties of the manufacturing processes for the Saturn engines and the tooling for the engines were major reasons for changing to a design using the shuttle main engine, two solid rocket motors and the shuttle tank. Various growth options also are being studied, such as the use of two shuttle main engines that would be recovered once the boost phase of a mission had been completed. In addition to use of available shuttle engines and solid rocket motors, the system also would be able to be tested on shuttle test stands. A series of options for a transfer platform mounted on top of the external tank is being studied. The platform would place payloads into orbits as high as geosynchronous or into escape trajectories for planetary missions. Option of using a wide-body shuttle/Centaur upper stage system also is being evaluated. The booster would be kept within suborbital altitudes so that its reentry could be maintained in the Indian Ocean. The original Jarvis design was proposed to the Air Force for the planned medium-launch vehicle (MLV) program, which has the primary purpose of launching Navstar global positioning system spacecraft. Prior to loss of the Challenger, GPS spacecraft were to have been launched exclusively on the space shuttle. The MLV booster also is expected to be used for other Defense Dept. payloads, and could be the basis of a vehicle to be used as a commercial launcher. The original Hughes design -- along with designs proposed by General Dynamics, Martin Marietta and McDonnell Douglas -- was selected last August by the Air Force for the first phase of the program (AW&ST Aug. 18, p. 22). The six-month first phase will end in a preliminary design review.

Page 21 Revised Jarvis Design Includes Increased Use of Shuttle Components Aviation Week & Space Technology October 6, 1986

9 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

September 29, 1986

ELV Company Schedules Tests Of Industrial Launcher for 1988

SECTION: SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION; Pg. 18

LENGTH: 518 words

DATELINE: Washington

American Rocket Co. (Amroc) intends to conduct three test flights of its Industrial Launch Vehicle in early 1988, boosting two Defense Dept. payloads at no charge and General Electric Space Systems Div.'s Space Reentry Vehicle into low Earth orbit. George Koopman, Amroc President, said last week he believes a large market will develop for low Earth orbit launchers. Amroc has been contacted by National Aeronautics and Space Administration officials interested in transferring Spacelab experiments to expendable launchers and by newsgathering organizations that want their own reconnaissance satellites, he said. The Defense Dept. has numerous small experiments that could be transferred from shuttle to Amroc's launcher, Koopman said. Industrial Launch Vehicle (ILV) commercial launches will begin in late 1988, Koopman said. Amroc will charge $ 5-8 million per mission. Amroc recently has been trying to raise investment funds of about $ 40 million through a private offering for its commercial launch program, according to space investment analysts. Space Services, Inc. (SSI), also is marketing low Earth orbit launch services for smaller satellites. Like Amroc, SSI is optimistic about the market potential of its vehicle, the Conestoga. However, SSI has been marketing the Conestoga for several years and has yet to identify a firm customer for its first commercial launch. The company has a contract to launch cremated human remains into space. Although several thousand people have signed up to have ashes placed in orbit, SSI does not know when there will be sufficient remains ready for a launch. Other private ELV companies have made progress in getting their commercial booster programs started since President Reagan decided to bar the space shuttle from competing for future commercial satellite launches. Among recent developments: * General Dynamics officials have approved the purchase of long-lead items to get the Atlas-Centaur production line started again, even though General Dynamics still has no firm orders, William F. Rector, General Dynamics Space Systems Div. vice president, said. * Hughes Aircraft Co. has asked NASA for a cooperative agreement allowing Hughes to use external tank tooling and facilities to build the Jarvis launch vehicle, a NASA official said. NASA also was asked to price 26-30 surplus Apollo J2 and F1 Saturn engines in storage at Marshall Space Flight Center that could be used in the Jarvis. Page 23 ELV Company Schedules Tests Of Industrial Launcher for 1988 Aviation Week & Space Technology September 29, 1986

The external tank tooling belongs to NASA, but the tank facility is owned by Martin Marietta, and Hughes would likely meet some resistance from Martin in using the tank facility to build the Jarvis vehicle, which is considered a competitor to Martin's Titan program. * American Satellite Co. (ASC) is one of two firms -- the second has not been disclosed -- that has signed a letter of intent to use a Transpace Carrier-supplied Delta launcher, an ASC official said. However, Transpace is unable to meet the early launch date that ASC wants, so it is not certain that Transpace will be able to turn the letter into a sale.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACECRAFT (90%); SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY (90%); NEW PRODUCTS (90%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (90%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (89%); DEFENSE CONTRACTING (89%); ASTRONOMY & SPACE (89%); MILITARY SURVEILLANCE (78%); MARKET RESEARCH (78%); US PRESIDENTS (72%); APPROVALS (71%); CREMATION (65%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Illustrations 1 and 2, no caption; Picture, American Rocket Co. speci- fications for a four-stage expendable booster called the Industrial Launch Vehicle (ILV) is shown. The vehicle would use 19 nearly identical hybrid rocket engines to place 3,000 lb. into polar orbit or 4,000 lb. into equatorial orbit. Configuration shows how the arrangement of 12 first-stage hybrid motor nozzles around the base of the common oxidizer tank forms a "plug" nozzle that improves motor performance in the atmosphere. Stage two, three and four motors are mounted in hexagonal cluster above the first stage. Artist's concept shows ILV One lifting off from Vandenberg AFB, Calif., CARTER B. EMMART

10 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

September 15, 1986

NASA Attempting to Revitalize U.S. Space Station Effort

BYLINE: By Richard G. O'Lone

SECTION: SPACE TECHNOLOGY; Pg. 24

LENGTH: 1251 words

DATELINE: Reno, Nev.

Two NASA task forces are attempting to reenergize the U.S. space station effort, one conducting a quick, short-term review of key design elements and the other taking a longer look ahead to operations after the current problems have been overcome. Formation of the operations task force was described here at a recent space station conference and labeled a "very positive step forward" by a NASA official. The conference attempted to look ahead to the "Space Station inthe 21st Century" -- its title -- despite the crisis atmosphere surrounding the entire U.S. space program. The first task force is scrambling to find answers to criticisms of the program before Congress adjourns, with the possibility that the program's next key step will be delayed until after Jan. 1 if the deadline is not met (AW&ST Sept. 8, p. 27). The second group, now being formed, has a more leisurely objective of developing over the next six months concepts for station operations and methods to assure they are taken into account early in the program. The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics meeting came at a time when the Challenger accident and the other launch vehicle failures that followed had left the U.S. space program in shambles. The crippling of the shuttle fleet has major implications for the space sation program, presenting serious tranportation problems for the effort and raisng the possibility of significant design changes. Despite this, no consideration was given to canceling the meeting, as was a similar space station event scheduled for several weeks ago in Washington, D.C., according to Angelo Guastaferro, the technical program chairman.

Primary Task "We thought it was important to keep to the task of looking ahead," the Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. official said. Although the program has been dealt a setback, "it is a very small blip in the curve when you look long range," he said. The task force taking the longer range look will have one cochairman each from NASA's manned and unmanned space operations communities, Jesse Moore, director of the Johnson Space Center, told the meeting. This was in line with an earlier plea by another NASA official to end the "institutional compartmentalization" afflicting NASA. Page 25 NASA Attempting to Revitalize U.S. Space Station Effort Aviation Week & Space Technology September 15, 1986

"At present, the manned and unmanned parts of NASA don't mix," Daniel H. Herman, the space station's director of engineering, told the group. He said steps must be taken "to make the agency whole." Herman said the current Critical Evaluation Task Force (CETF) review at Langley Research Center came about because of concerns that the station design was too complex (AW&ST July 21, p. 18). Among other items, the group is examining the number of shuttle flights required to assemble, maintain and supply the station -- a particularly crucial item now with a depleted shuttle fleet -- as well as what some critics contend is an inordinate amount of extravehicular activity. The CETF comprises about 55 persons from NASA and representatives from the international partners. It is divided into seven teams -- transportation, EVA, resource assessment, configuration, users, cost and safety. Its goal was to complete its work by mid-September, so the findings could be presented to Congress before it adjourns for the November elections -- a requirement if NASA is to issue requests for proposals for detailed design and hardware development this year. Herman emphasized that NASA is not redesigning the space station. The configuration is composed of building blocks, which are not in question, he said. "What we are reevaluating is the process of assembling the building blocks, and how you get from there to a space station" with a constrained shuttle fleet, he said. One speaker maintained that redesign could be appropriate. Owen K. Garriott, former NASA scientist-astronaut and Johnson Space Center official, said that development of a new medium- to heavy-lift launch vehicle could allow an increase in the station's limited volume -- now constrained by the shuttle's payload bay size. It would "not be unreasonable" to alter the station's design, removing the current volume-limitation handicap, if the new booster were to be available, he said (AW&ST Aug. 4, p. 23).

Orbiter Requirement Garriott, now an aerospace consultant, urged that industry impress upon NASA the need for the new vehicle. Without it -- and even with a fourth orbiter -- the number of shuttle flights available for the space station would be inadequate, forcing a reduction in payload crewmembers to fewer than the number used for Skylab and Spacelab, he said. It could take five years and 31 shuttle flights for the station to reach initial operating capability. He said USAF funding for preliminary design of the Hughes/Boeing Jarvis vehicle was encouraging (AW&ST Aug. 18, p. 22; Aug. 4, p. 34). It is important to get a start on the station in Fiscal 1987, he said, because if not, "we may lose the whole program." The prime contractors need funding now, he said, because some say they have been spending as much as $ 1 million per month of their own money on the station program. Looking further ahead, Johnson's Moore said the operations task force will be charged with applying to the space station the considerable knowledge and experience in operations that NASA has accumulated over the years. At the same time, the station will present some new challenges, in a variety of areas. Many of these grow out of requirements involved in the station's expected 30-year lifetime, such as multiyear resource scheduling and the need to incorporate new technologies as they develop. The fact that the station will be serviced by multiple launch vehicles from many launch sites and will be supported by multiple space and ground communication and tracking networks as well as orbiting vehicles are all new concepts that must be addressed. This task force will support the development of the Phase C/D requests for proposals as well as the preparation of memorandums of understanding with the U.S.'s international partners, Moore said. Page 26 NASA Attempting to Revitalize U.S. Space Station Effort Aviation Week & Space Technology September 15, 1986

These were among other developments discussed at the space station meeting: * Management changes recommended by USAF Gen. Samuel C. Phillips, ret., after the Challenger accident have presented NASA with a dilemma, according to Herman. As NASA does not have the capability to provide the systems analysis and engineering function to support the program's new Washington, D.C.-area technical program office Phillips recommended, a contractor must be selected. If a non-hardware firm is chosen, it may not have the competence to do the job, but a hardware firm would be faced with a possible conflict of interest, he said. NASA may ask industry for advice onhow to solve this, Herman said. * New division of work between Johnson and Marshall Space Flight Center "is still being discussed," Moore said. The changes have caused considerable distress to Johnson officials (AW&ST July 28, p. 22). "I want [Johnson] to be a team player on the space station, and get a reasonable allocation of work that matches our skills," Moore said. * Keynote speaker Laurel Wilkening, vice chairman of the National Commission on Space, warned that "a shift toward Soviet leadership in space is rapidly developing," and that the scientific community will not hesitate to jump on the bandwagon. "They will take whatever opportunity they can find to carry their science forward," she said.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACE EXPLORATION (92%); SPACECRAFT (90%); CONFERENCES & CONVENTIONS (90%); SPACE STATIONS (90%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (89%); ENGINEERING (78%); SPACE INDUSTRY (78%); TALKS & MEETINGS (76%); DELAYS & POSTPONEMENTS (74%); AEROSPACE INDUSTRY (73%); DEFENSE INDUSTRY (68%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

11 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

September 15, 1986

Space Leadership

BYLINE: SAUNDERS B. KRAMER

SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. 108

LENGTH: 491 words

DATELINE: Gaithersburg, Md.

The editorial "Who's in Charge?" unequivocally points out the distinct lack of leadership by the present administration vis-a-vis our country's civilian space program (AW&ST July 28, p. 11). That program is inadequately funded at least by a factor of 2.5 and more likely 3.0. If funding had merely kept up with inflation since the Apollo era, the NASA budget would now be some $ 20 billion per year. Soviet space activities are funded at $ 23 billion per year. The attempted micromanagement by both the Administration and Congress is deplorable and leads to Administration staffers and Congressmen (both with no commensurate experience) telling NASA how to run their shop. The fact is that contrary to the criticism offered, the orbiter still remains the most versatile (and spectacular) spacecraft ever. If this were not so, why are the Soviet Union, Japan and other countries building and studying -- and about to fly -- very similar spacecraft? For these shuttles yet to fly, the major difference appears to be the fact that they will be launched using liquid propellants entirely -- no solid booster. A wise choice. Would that we had done the same! Had the Nixon Administration used its smarts, the U.S. would have today the pair of nested spacecraft/spaceplanes originally conceived for the shuttle, and the Challenger nightmare never would have occurred. Trying to build a spacecraft at the (then) leading edge of technology by prescribing fixed, inadequate funding was a fundamental Administration error. The results of that folly will haunt us for years to come. The choice for the future of manned spaceflight is not to go back to the (now) insufficient Apollo hardware or anything like it, but to discard solid boosters and go with controllable liquid propellant boosters. The ESA/French Hermes program also should take keen note of that strong suggestion. I agree with J. M. Faunce Garcia (AW&ST Aug. 11, p. 84) that the public is quite ready to aid in supplementing funding for a new orbiter. The most painless manner for that would be via our tax returns where a choice of levels of contribution might be suggested based on gross income. Perhaps, the corporate world would be willing to join such an effort. It is time to back all of the talk with real bucks and not wait for the present administration or the next one to continue fumbling and bequeath to the U.S. second or third place in space activities. Four orbiters are far too few; we should build Page 28 Space Leadership Aviation Week & Space Technology September 15, 1986 one per year at least until the year 2000. Shall we sit on our collective hands till then? Finally, of course, we need expendable launch vehicles, and the Jarvis booster concept is easily the best suggested in the light heavyweight class and that can be built relatively quickly. The U.S. needs, in addition, a 500,000-kg. payload in Earth orbit if we ever are going to really explore and establish bases throughout the solar system.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACE EXPLORATION (92%); LETTERS & COMMENTS (92%); SPACECRAFT (91%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (90%); LEGISLATIVE BODIES (77%); BUDGETS (76%); ASTRONOMY & SPACE (73%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

12 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

August 18, 1986

Proposal Would Allow NASA to Purchase 15 ELVs Next Year

BYLINE: By Theresa M. Foley

SECTION: U.S. LAUNCH CAPACITY; Pg. 23

LENGTH: 1168 words

DATELINE: Washington

National Aeronautics and Space Administration would be authorized to purchase expendable launch vehicle services for at least 15 government payloads in Fiscal 1987 under legislation proposed last week by Rep. Bill Nelson (D.-Fla.), chairman of the House space science and applications subcommittee. Nelson's plan would enable the restart of expendable launch vehicle (ELV) production for civil space missions and allow the U.S. ELV manufacturers a better chance to compete with foreign booster companies by offering a version of the ELV commercially. Purchase of the civil ELVs also would ease the NASA shuttle backlog and aid the space science community by advancing the launch date for many science payloads that face lengthy delays due to the shuttle standdown. Nelson and Rep. Robert Walker (R.-Pa.), subcommittee ranking minority member, last weel criticized the lack of White House leadership over the last seven months in space policy. "The space program is in a state of disrepair. The nation's position in space is more precarious now than at any time since Sputnik," Nelson said. In response to what was characterized as a lack of Administration leadership, subcommittee members decided to act to take the lead in a space recovery plan. The House space science subcommittee approved legislation Aug. 14 that outlines a wide-ranging shuttle accident recovery plan and authorizes funding above the level requested by NASA for Fiscal 1987. Nelson's recovery plan includes a series of actions to assist NASA in returning to flight status: * Authorization for funding to construct a replacement orbiter. * Authority to spend sums necessary to "return the shuttle safely to flight status" and to meet the first quarter, 1988, date for resumption of flights. * Authority to begin spending money to acquire expendable launch services for government payloads that have been grounded because of the shuttle accident. Nelson prepared a separate bill that will require NASA to buy at least 15 launches with operations beginning in 1988 at a rate of two or three per year. The launchers would be capable of boosting 2,800 lb. to geosynchronous orbit. * A provision allowing the shuttle to serve as a backup to ELVs for launching commercial and foreign payloads and to launch shuttle-unique payloads. This policy is in conflict with an Economic Policy Council recommendation that would end shuttle Page 30 Proposal Would Allow NASA to Purchase 15 ELVs Next Year Aviation Week & Space Technology August 18, 1986 involvement in commercial satellite launches. Nelson's plan also would allow the shuttle to fulfill all outstanding launch contracts. * Amendment of the shuttle launch pricing policy to require that shuttle launches be priced higher than comparable services on commercial ELVs, thereby guaranteeing that the commercial U.S. ELV industry will not be threatened by low shuttle prices. NASA Adminstrator James C. Fletcher told the House panel on Aug. 13 that NASA would not object to Nelson's plan. A key problem with the plan is that no appropriations have been identified to actually pay for the spending authorized. Nelson said the subcommittee intended to find appropriations for all three items -- the replacement orbiter, fixing the orbiter fleet and buying ELVs -- that are not in the budget. "This is what we have to do and we can't be cowardly about it," Nelson said. NASA's Fiscal 1987 budget troubles were eased significantly Aug. 7 when the Senate voted to restore more than $ 500 million in shuttle reimbursement payments to the Defense authorization bill that had been deleted by the Senate Armed Services Committee several weeks ago (AW&ST July 21, p. 20). The restoration of that funding also will help NASA meet its Fiscal 1987 requirements.

Construction Start The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee last week approved a $ 7.795-billion authorization for NASA in Fiscal 1987. The bill would allow NASA to begin constructing an orbiter in Fiscal 1987 if the money is appropriated for it. Fletcher said he supported the purchase of expendable launchers for space science satellites, but he would prefer not to have the number or weight capability specified in legislation. "NASA is completely committed to a mixed fleet," Fletcher said. "We'll buy ELVs wherever we can. If there's a commercial industry out there, we'll buy them from those folks. . . . We're not going to buy very many of them in the near term." NASA will buy one or two Deltas, at a cost of $ 50 million each, for space science payloads, he said. NASA also probably will buy one Titan 4 to launch Galileo for $ 250 million, but is not likely to order any more Titans. "There won't be very many at $ 250 million a crack," Fletcher said. Some shuttle launch contracts with commercial satellite owners would be canceled if recommendations of the White House Economic Policy Council were followed. Transportation Dept. Deputy Secretary James Burnley testified Aug. 13 in favor of canceling the contracts. "While the U.S. government is not in the practice of reneging on contracts, the worst, most unrealistic message the government can send the satellite industry is that shuttle launch capacity will exist to carry all preaccident payloads for which a commitment of some sort was made," he said. If NASA is forced to cancel some of its launch contracts, NASA may be liable for loss of revenue payments to the satellite owners, Thomas Newman, NASA's comptroller, told the panel. In any case, NASA will not be able to meet shuttle contract commitments on a timely basis. Fletcher said that even in 1995, NASA will still have a backlog of commercial satellites that now hold shuttle contracts. "There's way too many commerical satellites on the books for us to launch, even with four orbiters," he said.

Financial Support The question of subsidies for a commercial U.S. ELV industry was raised by several witnesses. Some ELV industry analysts believe the U.S. companies cannot succeed in competing on the world market unless substantial financial support is provided by Page 31 Proposal Would Allow NASA to Purchase 15 ELVs Next Year Aviation Week & Space Technology August 18, 1986 the U.S. government through direct subsidy or by purchase of commercial ELVs for government use. "We're all guessing at the amount of subsidy that will be required for an ELV program," Fletcher said. "It will be hard to get an ELV program off the ground if the French don't raise their prices." Anthony J. Iorillo, Hughes Space and Communications Group president, said all ELVs have been subsidized through government payment of development costs. Hughes has proposed the Jarvis ELV, which would need about $ 1 billion in government support for development. After the development costs, each additional Jarvis will cost $ 150 million, Iorillo said. He urged the government to support Jarvis through selection by the Air Force of the Hughes/Boeing/Rocketdyne Jarvis design for MLV. Iorilla said Jarvis, unlike any other MLV candidates, would result in a "world-class launch vehicle" that could compete with new foreign launchers in the 1990s.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (91%); ASTRONOMY & SPACE (91%); SPACECRAFT (90%); LEGISLATION (90%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); US DEMOCRATIC PARTY (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (90%); SPACE SHUTTLE (89%); PUBLIC POLICY (79%); ECONOMIC NEWS (78%); ECONOMIC POLICY (78%); SPACE LAW (78%); AEROSPACE REGULATION & POLICY (78%); PRICE MANAGEMENT (77%); US REPUBLICAN PARTY (77%); APPROPRIATIONS (77%); DELAYS & POSTPONEMENTS (72%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

13 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

August 18, 1986

Jarvis Launch Site

BYLINE: RAYMOND CHUANG

SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. 100

LENGTH: 90 words

DATELINE: Sacramento, Calif.

While the Hughes/Boeing Jarvis medium launch vehicle is technically feasible thanks to the substantial use of off-the-shelf components, the cost of developing launch facilities for the vehicle could be very costly, especially if the launch site were to be located at Johnston Atoll (AW&ST Aug. 4, p. 34). Considering how large the Jarvis rocket is, there will have to be extensive construction work at Johnston to accommodate such a launcher. Launch pads at Johnston were designed for Thor rockets, the Jarvis MLF is much larger.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: LETTERS & COMMENTS (92%); SPACECRAFT (88%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

14 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

August 11, 1986

Three-Stage Jarvis Vehicle Could Launch Multiple Satellites

SECTION: SPACE TECHNOLOGY; Pg. 69

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SATELLITE INDUSTRY (86%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Illustrations 1 through 3, Hughes Aircraft Co./Boeing Aerospace Co. Jarvis medium launch vehicle (MLV) would be a three-stage vehicle with two large boost stages and a third stage serving as an upper stage and transfer vehicle. The launcher would be capable of placing multiple spacecraft in different orbits (AW&ST Aug. 4, p. 34). The third-stage transfer vehicle, which would be developed by Hughes space and communications group, could carry two Navstar satellites to their designated orbital altitudes, and then continue to geosynchronous altitude with two Hughes HS 393 communications spacecraft. The 27.5-ft. width of the booster, which is based on the space shuttle external tank structure, would allow multiple payloads to be carried horizontally on the transfer vehicle platform. Hughes has proposed to the Air Force that the vehicle be launched from Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean to provide maximum launch azimuth flexibility and launch pad availability for the MLV program, although the launch site could be at Vandenberg AFB or in Florida. Proposed launch pad would be a small, man-made island called East Island, which has an area of about three acres. East Island is about 2.5 mi. from Johnston Island, where launch control and other support facilities would be located.

15 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

August 4, 1986

Hughes Jarvis Launcher Would Use Technology From Saturn, Shuttle

BYLINE: By Bruce A. Smith

SECTION: SPACE TECHNOLOGY; Pg. 34

LENGTH: 1821 words

DATELINE: Los Angeles

Hughes Aircraft Co./Boeing Aerospace Co. proposal to the Air Force for the medium launch vehicle (MLV) program is a design that combines Saturn launch vehicle propulsion systems with structures and electronic systems derived from the space shuttle. The result is a large booster by today's standards, capable of launching multiple spacecraft with a combined weight of 85,000 lb. into low-Earth orbit or 17,500 lb. to geosynchronous orbit. By comparison, the space shuttle is capable of launching 65,000 lb. into low-Earth orbit from Kennedy Space Center. The Hughes/Boeing booster -- called the Jarvis launch vehicle after Hughes payload specialist Gregory B. Jarvis, who was killed in the Challenger explosion -- is 205 ft. tall and 27.5 ft. wide. There are no strap-on solid rocket motors in the all-liquid propulsion system Jarvis design. Hughes maintains that the all-liquid propulsion systems will add to the reliability of the vehicle because all systems will be capable of being tested prior to launch to evaluate performance. In addition, the size of the vehicle and the revenue generated by its multiple payloads would allow for added redundancy in critical flight sytems to improve reliability. Paul S. Visher, Hughes Aircraft Co. vice president, estimated that overall vehicle reliability would be 98.5%. Hughes has been evaluating booster systems for several years with an interest in gaining more assured access to launch of its communications satellites. Hughes has paid the National Aeronautics and Space Administration about $ 200 million for launch of satellites in the past, and presently has contracts with NASA valued at more than $ 300 million for future shuttle launches. Hughes space and communications group has five communications spacecraft in storage awaiting launch, and is working on two new major series of spacecraft -- Intelsat 6 and the HS 393 series -- which are so large that they can be launched only by the space shuttle or Ariane. Hughes began to focus its interest in a booster specifically designed for satellite launches following the twin failures of payload assist module (PAM-D) upper stage systems in launch of the Palapa B2 and Westar 6 spacecraft following space shuttle Page 35 Hughes Jarvis Launcher Would Use Technology From Saturn, Shuttle Aviation Week & Space Technology August 4, 1986 deployment. The loss of the orbiter Challenger and ensuing space program failures led the company to intensify efforts and bid for the first phase of the Air Force medium launch vehicle program. One of the major thrusts of the MLV program is the strong Defense Dept. requirement to begin building the 18-satellite constellation for the Navstar global positioning system (GPS). The Navstar program would be the initial customer for MLV although other Defense Dept. payloads are envisioned for the system, which later could be upgraded and used for commercial launches as well as Defense Dept. spacecraft. Visher said development of the three-stage Jarvis booster would take about 42 months, or 38 months on an accelerated schedule, based on availability for acquisition of F-1 and J-2 engines in storage for initial launches. The Air Force goal is availability of an MLV system in early 1989 at a minimum rate of four launched satellites per year. "We clearly will be able to installed the whole [Navstar] system faster than anybody else can install it because we can launch up to six satellites at one time," according to Visher, who is on special assignment as head of the Jarvis program for Hughes. "So we might start six to eight months late, but we will catch up very rapidly." Hughes said the booster would be capable of lifting the six GPS satellites with upper stages into low-Earth orbit, or placing four of the spacecraft without upper stages in their designated orbits at 10,900 naut. mi. The Jarvis also would be capable of launching two Navstar satellites in their proper orbit, and then continuing to geosynchronous altitude with two commercial communications spacecraft such as the HS 393. The Hughes MLV proposal is based on use of the space shuttle external propellant tank production tooling to build the propellant tanks for the first and second Jarvis, which defines the diameter of the launch vehicle at 27.5 ft. Width of the booster, compared with present manned and expendable launch vehicles, enables the Jarvis to launch multiple satellites positioned horizontally on the third-stage transfer vehicle platform Saturn F-1 and J-2 engines developed by Rockwell International's Rocketdyne Div. would be used on the first and second stages respectively, with the third-stage transfer vehicle developed by Hughes to place multiple payloads in different orbits for up to a week after launch. The vehicle tank structure would be produced at NASA's Michoud, La., facility, where the shuttle external tanks are manufactured, while electronic systems would be similar to shuttle and Boeing inertial upper stage (IUS) electronics systems. "It's the best existing, proven electronic configuration; the best proven configuration for tanks and the most advanced engine that uses kerosene and oxygen," Visher said. "So in some ways, it really is a very conservative solution. It's much stiffer. It's much larger. It has margins." In addition to Hughes developing the third-stage vehicle and Boeing building the first and second stage, Rockwell International's Rocketdyne Div. would build the F-1 and J-2 engines for the program, while Marquardt would supply main propulsion engines for the third stage. First stage of the booster would have two Saturn F-1 engines providing 3 million lb. of thrust burning nearly 2 million lb. of kerosene and liquid oxygen. The stage would have separate load-carrying tanks and semimonocoque dry bays, and would use existing or modified space shuttle components. The stage would have avionics subsystems fully redundant in areas of flight critical functions, with a flexible multiplexer/demultiplexer. (FMDM) to decode and distribute commands to systems and acquire data on the status of stage systems. Page 36 Hughes Jarvis Launcher Would Use Technology From Saturn, Shuttle Aviation Week & Space Technology August 4, 1986

Second stage would be based on the S-4B Saturn third stage, with a single J-2 engine burning 285,000 lb. of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to provide 230,000 lb. of thrust. The second-stage liquid oxygen tank is smaller in diameter than the vehicle and is supported within the intertank. Hughes officials said there are seven F-1 engines and nine J-2 engines, in sealed, environmentally controlled storage facilities, that could be acquired for the program. The engines would be torn down, inspected and have necessary parts replaced. The transfer vehicle, which would be used as an upper stage, would provide autonomous power, telemetry, thermal protection and other support functions to each spacecraft on the transfer vehicle platform. Acceleration loads of the Jarvis transfer vehicle would be less than 0.1g. Booster acceleration loads would be up to about 5g. The third stage would be built around an eight-sided core vehicle about 17 ft. wide. The bipropellant stage would have four 65-in.-dia. propellant tanks for storage of a total of 25,000 lb. of monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide. The stage would have eight 110-lb. Marquardt engines and four 14-lb. thrusters for control of the third axis. The three-axis stabilized transfer vehicle would have a 9-ft.-high cylindrical solar panel, similar to a Hughes communications spacecraft, as well as two batteries to support spacecraft during transport to their designated orbits. The transfer vehicle will maintain passive thermal control with a spin rate of about 1 rpm. and provide payload shields, if necessary. The third stage would have completely redundant guidance, control and telemetry systems. Hughes maintains the stage could perform all cases of delivery of spacecraft to geosynchronous orbits with any two of the stage's eight engines operating. The payload fairing would be a conventional honeycomb sandwich structure, with two additional 15-ft.-long cylindrical sections that could be added if necessary. The fairing would accommodate a 26-ft.-wide payload. Hughes is proposing launch of the booster at Johnston Atoll, a military base in the Pacific Ocean about 800 mi. southwest of Hawaii. Hughes maintains that Johnston would provide maximum launch assuredness by adding a third major U.S. satellite launch complex with launch azimuths ranging from zero to 90 deg. without range safety restrictions for equatorial as well as polar launches. The site also would aid in launching payloads in equatorial orbits because of its proximity to the equator. However, Hughes noted a Jarvis launch complex could be established at Vandenburg AFB, Calif., or Florida. Johnston Island, the main island of the atoll, would be the site of the major booster support facilities, such as the payload integration and fueling facilities and the launch control center. Lower stages of the booster and propellant would arrive at Johnston Island by ship, while the transfer vehicle and spacecraft would be transported to the site by aircraft using the island's 9,000-ft. runway. Launch control center would necessitate either modification of an existing facility or construction of a new control center, which would include a computer room and about 20 consoles for system checkout, launch and mission support. Hughes and Boeing would conduct vehicle integration and launch operations, integration of payloads and the transfer vehicle, mission design, engineering and schedule analysis, mission assurance, system safety and system logistics. Page 37 Hughes Jarvis Launcher Would Use Technology From Saturn, Shuttle Aviation Week & Space Technology August 4, 1986

Barges would transport individual stages and the sealed third stage and spacecraft to East Island, a 3-sq.-mi., man-made island located within the atoll and about 2.5 mi. from the main island. The launch facility would have an umbilical tower for propellant and utility service arms and a fixed access tower with extendable platforms. Both towers would be 275 ft. high. Propellant would be transported to East Island by barge, and be stored on the barges prior to launch with a network of pipes to move the propellant to the launch pad for fueling the booster. Integrated testing of the Jarvis would be conducted at the launch pad with the transfer vehicle computer and flight computer software under control of the launch control center computer system. A logistics management control center for the launch system would be maintained in the continental United States. Hughes is estimating less than a three-week turnaround following launch would be achievable at the site. The Hughes/Boeing plan for development of the system calls for emphasis and early validation on critical path elements such as refurbishment and integration of the first- and second-stage engines, development of avionics software and fabrication of the transfer vehicle's propellant tanks. The test program also would emphasize system level testing of full-scale hardware.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACECRAFT (93%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); SPACE PROPULSION (90%); AEROSPACE SECTOR PERFORMANCE (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (90%); ARMED FORCES (89%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (89%); SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY (89%); AIR FORCES (89%); DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS (89%); SPACE INDUSTRY (78%); GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (76%); TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT (64%); AEROSPACE INDUSTRY (58%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

GRAPHIC: Illustrations 1 and 2, Hughes/Boeing Jarvis medium-launch vehicle is shown in comparison to Titan 4, Ariane 4, space shuttle and Delta 3914. Design for the Air Force's MLV program is designed to place 17,500-lb. payload in geosynchronous orbit or payloads totaling 85,000 lb. in low-Earth orbit. The Jarvis booster is 205 ft. tall and 27.5 ft. in diameter.

16 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

July 21, 1986

Jarvis Booster

BYLINE: WASHINGTON STAFF

SECTION: WASHINGTON ROUNDUP; Pg. 17

LENGTH: 178 words

Hughes Space & Communications Group has briefed the White House on its intent to propose taking over the Defense Nuclear Agency/U.S. Air Force facilities on Johnston Island in the Pacific to launch Hughes' proposed commercial booster based on existing Saturn rocket hardware (AW&ST June 30, p. 15). Hughes and Boeing Aerospace together are expected to propose the new expendable launcher as the Air Force medium launch vehicle. Boeing, which would build the first and second stages, has asked Rocketdyne to provide cost, schedule and work content information on the F-1 and J-2 engines. Hughes was considering Jarvis or Christmas islands in the Pacific because of their proximity to the equator. Hughes is now focusing on Johnston Island, however, because it already has rooms for 3,000 people, a 9,000-ft. runway and a launch control center and launch pad facilities used earlier for Thor booster/antisatellite launches. The new booster is called Jarvis, after Hughes payload specialist Gregory B. Jarvis, who was killed in the challenger accident.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: AIR FORCES (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (90%); SPACECRAFT (70%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

17 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

June 30, 1986

Shuttle Rethink

BYLINE: WASHINGTON STAFF

SECTION: WASHINGTON ROUNDUP; Pg. 15

LENGTH: 266 words

White House potential approval of a new space shuttle orbiter to replace Challenger has been given new life by a reversal of senior Reagan Administration officials who earlier questioned the need for the $ 2-3-billion vehicle. The White House staff is now increasingly supportive of a new orbiter -- although may recommend procurement be delayed until the Fiscal 1988 budget. Presidential advisers are becoming convinced that a full four-orbiter fleet is required to ensure the U.S./International space station can be developed and operated as planned -- including an emphasis on commercial development -- while using the shuttle at the same time to launch advanced military spacecraft and reduce the growing payload backlog caused by the Jan. 28 accident. The need to honor U.S. commitments to Europe, Japan and Canada on the space station while maintaining a U.S. space lead over the Soviet Union is also viewed as important factors now in the White House. As the replacement orbiter decision moves toward presidential approval, Hughes Space & Communications Group and its parent General Motors Corp. have begun to question West Coast construction firms about resources needed to establish new unmanned booster operations on a Pacific site near the equator such as Jarvis or Christmas islands (AW&ST June 23, p. 15). One concept for the new Hughes booster is a first stage powered by Rocketdyne F-1 engines like those used on the Saturn 5 rocket. Three versions of the booster using one, two or three of the 1.5-million-lb. thrust engines for liftoff are under evaluation.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACECRAFT (91%); SPACE EXPLORATION (91%); US PRESIDENTS (90%); APPROVALS (90%); SPACE SHUTTLE (78%); SPACE & AERONAUTICS AGENCIES (78%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (78%); BUDGETS (77%); SPACE STATIONS (70%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH

18 of 18 DOCUMENTS

Aviation Week & Space Technology

June 23, 1986

New Booster

BYLINE: WASHINGTON STAFF

SECTION: WASHINGTON ROUNDUP; Pg. 15

LENGTH: 274 words

Hughes Space & Communications Group is studying commercial development of a new large expendable booster that could be developed by a company already manufacturing launch vehicles -- or by Hughes itself -- if it becomes necessary to ensure launches for customers buying Hughes satellites. The vehicle also would be applicable to other heavy new spacecraft such as those envisioned by RCA. Hughes is evaluating the launch of such a vehicle from a Pacific site such as Jarvis or Christmas islands located at the equator south of Hawaii.Hughes has completed about 50% of the new launch vehicle study, started because its customers have been seriously affected by the shuttle, Delta and Ariane accidents. The company also believes the 30-year-old technology embodied in current U.S. booster is not reliable enough for launch of advanced new communications satellites. President Ronald Reagan has endorsed designation of 1992 as an International Space Year (ISY) as a focal point for new international space science efforts celebrating the 500th anniversary of Christopher Columbus' voyage to America and the 35th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) that ushered in the space age (AW&ST May 5, p. 13). The White House last week submitted to Congress a NASA report showing strong international interest in coordinated space activities centering on 1992.The principal ISY objective is to coordinate existing projects, but could lead to major new cooperative endeavors such as a joint U.S./Soviet Mars unmanned sample return mission in the 1990s. Sen. Spark M. Matsunaga (D.-Hawaii) has led the ISY initiative.

URL: http://www.aviationnow.com

SUBJECT: SPACECRAFT (91%); SPACE EXPLORATION (90%); SATELLITE INDUSTRY (90%); GEOLOGY & GEOPHYSICS (73%); TELECOMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT (73%); ASTRONOMY & SPACE (73%); ANNIVERSARIES (72%); SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY (70%); CHRISTMAS (70%); US PRESIDENTS (69%);

LANGUAGE: ENGLISH