Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
REFERENCE COPY FOR LIBRARY USE ONLY Fost-Challenger Assessment of Space Shuttle Flight Rates and Utilization Prepared by a Panel Convened by the Committee on NASA Scientific and Technological Program Reviews Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council Tedtt»te« 22151 Ordar Ho.. NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS October 1986

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in l9l6 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. The Council operates in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy under the authority of its congressional charter of l863, which establishes the Academy as a private, nonprofit, self-governing membership corporation. The Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the conduct of their services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. It is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine were established in l964 and l970, respectively, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences. This study was supported by Contract NASW-35ll between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Copies available from: Committee on NASA Scientific and Technological Program Reviews National Research Council 2l0l Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 204l8 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
fCLC I* 3 Members of the Panel EDWARD E. DAVID, JR., President, EED, Inc., Bedminster, New Jersey, Chairman W. BOWMAN CUTTER III, Partner, Coopers & Lybrand, Washington, D.C. DAVID D. ELLIOTT, Vice President, Science Applications International Corporation, LaJolla, California HERBERT FRIEDMAN, Retired Chief Scientist, E.G. Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. NORMAN R. PARMET, Retired Vice President-Engineering and Quality Assurance, Trans World Airlines, Fairway, Kansas BRYCE POE II, Consultant, Retired Commander, U.S. Air Force Logistics Command, Alexandria, Virginia EBERHARDT RECHTIN, President and Chief Executive Officer, The Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California HARRISON H. SCHMITT, Consultant, Former Astronaut, Albuquerque, New Mexico ABE SILVERSTEIN, Consultant, Retired Director, NASA Lewis Research Center, Fairview Park, Ohio GEORGE E. SOLOMON, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Electronics and Defense Sector, TRW, Inc., Redondo Beach, California EUGENE E. COVERT, Professor of Aeronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Ex Officio Member ROBERT H. KORKEGI, Study Director JoANN C. CLAYTON, Assistant Study Director ANNA L. FARRAR, Administrative Assistant iii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface The Committee on NASA Scientific and Technological Program Reviews was created by the National Research Council in June l98l as a result of a request by the Congress of the United States to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that it establish an ongoing relationship with the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering tor the purpose ot providing an independent, objective review of the scientific and technological merits of NASA programs whenever the Congressional Committees on Appropriations so direct.l To date five tasks have been undertaken.2-6 ^he sixth task, which is the subject of this report, resulted from a request by the House Committee on Appropriations to the NASA Administrator in late April l986 for an examination of space shuttle flight rates and utilization following the loss of the Orbiter Challenger (Appendix A). ^Congressional Conference Report 9b-l47b, November 2l, l980. ^National Research Council, The International Solar Polar Mission—A Review and Assessment of Options, l98l, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. -^National Research Council, Aeronautics Research and Technology—A Review of Proposed Reductions in the FY l983 NASA Program, l982, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ^National Research Council, Assessment of Constraints on Space Shuttle Launch Rates, l983, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ^National Research Council, Review of NASA's Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Program, l984, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. ^National Research Council, Assessment of Candidate Expendable Launch Vehicles for Large Payloads,l984, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
At its meeting on May l6, l986, the Committee nominated a panel to undertake the task. The areas of expertise sought included launch vehicle systems, airline operations, propulsion systems, aerospace logistics, and user requirements—space station, military, space science and applications, and commercial. In appointing such a group of individuals to make scientific and technical assessments, it is essential that most have a high degree of knowledge in the subject of the study. Since such individuals may appear to have a potential for bias, every effort was made to achieve a balance in backgrounds and attitudes of the panelists in order to present as objective a report as possible. The short period during which the review had to be undertaken put severe demands on the Chairman and members of the. panel, who deserve much credit for their effective and timely response. Norman Hackerman Chairman, Committee on NASA Scientific and Technological Program Reviews vi

OCR for page R1
Contents l. INTRODUCTION 1 Background, l Approach of the Study Panel, l 2. PREAMBLE 3 3. POST-CHALLENGER ASSESSMENT OF SPACE SHUTTLE FLIGHT RATES AND UTILIZATION 7 Assessment One, 7 Assessment Two, 9 Payload Off-Loading, l0 Commercial Satellites, l0 Availability of Launch Vehicles, ll Assessment Three, l2 Assessment Four, l3 4. SUMMARY l5 Policy Assumptions, l5 Flight Rates, l5 Fleet Concept, l5 Launch Demand, l6 Payload Partitioning, l6 5. APPENDIXES A. Background Information l9 Edward P. Boland Letter of April 2l, l986, 20 List of Briefers and Participants, 23 Committee on NASA Scientific and Technological Program Reviews Membership, 27 B. Shuttle Launch Rates 29 Turnaround Time, 30 Flight Rates, 3l C. Logistics Considerations 33 D. Shuttle Utilization 39 E. Cost Trade-offs 43 F. A Sustained Manned Spaceflight Program 47 G. Reference Materials .49 VII

OCR for page R1