Houston Section

---

Horizons - November 1998

---

Table of Contents

• AIAA Houston Section Leadership List
• Chairman's Corner
• Arts Alliance of Clear Lake and AIAA to Host Dr. Leonard Shlain
• Notes from the Operations Chair
• Mach 1 Breakthrough for F-22 Raptor
• AIAA Associate Fellows Announced
• Virtual Reality Lunch-n-Learn
• AIAA Technical Committee's October Meeting
• James Oberg's Testimony Before The U.S. House of Representatives
• Public Policy News Brief
• Houston Section Holds Retreat
• USA's Howard DeCastro Speaks at October Dinner Meeting
• Educator Night Open House at Space Center Houston
• AIAA Student Branch Is Taking Shape at the University of Houston

• Russ Filler - Chairman
• Phil Mongan - Chairman-Elect
• Dr. George Nield - Past Chairman
• Dan Selters - Vice-Chairman, Operations
• Mike Theoret - Vice-Chairman, Technical
• Steve King - Secretary
• Dave Parrish - Treasurer
• Bill Atwell - Councilor
• Bonnie Cooper - Councilor
• Winston Goodrich - Councilor
• Bill Hartwell - Councilor
• Nick Johnson - Councilor
• Bill Langdoc - Councilor
• Mike Lisano - Councilor
• Karen Loftin - Councilor
• Joe Mayer - Councilor
• Merri Sanchez - Councilor

Chairman's Corner

by Russ Filler, Chairman

I first want to thank everyone that stepped in to help keep the Section going during my recent family emergency that required me to return to Indiana for two weeks. My father had a medical emergency, and I had to catch the next plane home. I thank everyone for your thoughts, words of encouragement, and prayers.

I was pleased to see the support and cooperation from the Section leadership during this time. It again demonstrates how fortunate the Section is to have a fine set of capable and dedicated officers. I especially want to thank Chairman-Elect Phil Mongan and Past-Chair George Nield. Phil got to chair his first Executive Council Meeting, which included relocating the meeting the day of the meeting due to flooding! Great Job. The Section is always appreciative to have such fine and experienced talent as Dr. George Nield, who is always willing to step in when he is called upon. Thanks.

The Section has much to be proud of this month. AIAA President Sam Iacobellis recently announced the selection of the 1999 Associate Fellows. The Houston Section is proud to have been awarded 13 new Associate Fellows. In addition, on October 8, the 1997/1998 Section awards were announced. First Place for Outstanding Section (Large Category) went to The Houston Section. The Houston Section also received First Place for: Membership, Newsletter, Pre-College, and Young Member activities. The Section received Second Place for Career Enhancement and Public Policy. While it takes more than one person to make it first place, the following officers must be thanked: Shayne Westover (Membership), Bill Best and Cynthia Collins (Newsletter), Cal Seaman (Pre-College), and Allison Westover (Young Member). We received Second Place for Career Enhancement (Charles Halliman) and Public Policy (Wayne Rast). A pat on the back is well deserved. If you see these officers, be sure to thank and congratulate them for their leadership to the Section.

Fall is generally the time we encourage membership involvement in AIAA. The JSC community has a lot of new talent that are not yet members of AIAA; in fact, many still do not recognize the purpose and value of belonging to a professional society. If you have a office mate or co-worker that does not yet belong to AIAA, invite them to a meeting or AIAA function. Pass along your monthly newsletter or make sure they surf our website.

Membership also means member involvement. Be sure you are doing more than receiving Aerospace America and the Horizons. We have plenty of activities underway that need additional people to help make the events successful. We still need help on several Operations committees such as College, Co-Op and Professional Development.

In our College area, the University of Houston is in the process of establishing a Student Branch. The Executive Council has been supporting their planning efforts. The Student Paper Conference is also planned for this April at the University of Texas in Austin. We need people to help organize the SPC and to serve as judges. It is an excellent way to meet potential employees.

The Executive Council is also looking into the Dan Goldin's New Frontiers of Engineering initiative as a cornerstone of our professional development this year. He recently brought this initiative to the Rice University President's Lecture Series. This offers some excellent opportunities for exploring new techniques and new ways of doing engineering. We plan to establish some goals on how the Houston Section can support this effort. Check our website for the latest plans and upcoming meetings.

Young member lead, Bill O'Hara, organized a Young Members cookout/volleyball event in September. The event drew around 30 young people. Most were not members and we hope to see them at future events as new members! Keep up the motivating opportunities, Bill. Hope you have recovered from the heat and mosquitoes.

Our Section Technical Activities are off and running. Lunch 'n' Learns continue to present new ideas and advancing technologies, including some fine L&Ls presented by the Life Science and Space Processing Technical Committee and the GN&C TC. Be sure to look into our Technical Committees. They offer a great opportunity to expand your technical insight. The Section is also sponsoring the Houston Section International Space Station Servicing Vehicles Conference to be held in Houston, March, 1999. Mike Lisano, GN&C TC Chairman, announced a call for papers due December 11, 1998. Our annual technical conference in May will be held in conjunction with the National Space Society's national meeting The 18^th Annual International Space Development Conference, which will be held at the Houston Hobby Airport Radisson Hotel.

We will need help from section members to make these things happen. These are excellent opportunities to personally gain from AIAA and to help advance the aerospace industry at the same time. We need people to get involved to make these events happen.

There are excellent opportunities to get involved. Visit our section website at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/aiaa/ or come to the September meeting to find out more. I encourage you to contact me or any member of the executive council to discuss how you can contribute.

Looking forward to seeing you at AIAA this year.

Russell E. Filler

Chairman 1998-99

---

Arts Alliance of Clear Lake and AIAA

to Host Dr. Leonard Shlain

Dr. Leonard Shlain will discuss his new book, The Alphabet versus The Goddess, at a function jointly sponsored by The Arts Alliance Center at Clear Lake and the AIAA (please see the flyer in this issue). The experience of listening to Dr. Shlain at last year's event was entertaining, controversial, intellectually stimulating and thoughtful. This talk promises to be the same. This is our Mind Extension University. A good $5.00 investment!

---

Notes from the Operations Chair

by Dan Selters,

Vice Chair - Operations

NOVEMBER PROGRAM

Boeing will co-host our November dinner meeting at their Ellington Field location on Space Center; they will give highlights of their organization and then speak about the Liquid Fly-Back Booster. Tom Mulder is looking into a possible tour of the NBL with Station mockups after the program.

DECEMBER PROGRAM

Astute readers will note that we have moved our 777 Distinguished Lecture to be our December dinner program instead of the breakfast program mentioned last issue.

Gordon McKinzie will speak about his unique experience participating in the Boeing 777 design effort as a United Airline employee. The infiltration into Boeing's sacred design community was a major cultural realignment that has been widely reported in management journals as a classic case study in "re-engineering".

Our speaker will share his thoughts on why he feels this extraordinary development journey with Boeing will forever alter the manner in which future airplanes are designed, produced, and supported.

Join us Tuesday, December 1^st, for a presentation that Sections around the country are describing as one of the best they've seen!

OCTOBER REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (RAC) AND BOEING C.A.P. TOUR

I attended the October RAC meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma this past Friday. In addition to keeping abreast of the latest AIAA National issues, we exchanged ideas between Sections in our Region. The Oklahoma Section also treated us to a fantastic "Global Hawk" presentation by Teledyne Ryan's Chief Engineer, Hermann Altmann.

I found the RAC meeting to be an excellent opportunity to network with professionals from around the Region and a great chance to experience the job climate in a different industry. John Madden, Region IV Director (and Chief Engineer for Boeing CAP), invited the council to tour Boeing's Tulsa facility. We were treated to a hands-on tour of Space Station IEA and P3 Truss structures. No amount of publicity could relate how incredible these structures are.

Photographs of Station do not relay the intense labor that goes into machining the structures. Technicians explained that the structure was transformed from a 12 inch thick "billet" of solid aluminum to a 4 inch thick artwork of beams and honeycomb cells.

The IEA is very robust; however, it also has an intricate web of ammonia radiator lines that resemble a circuit board. Boeing has transformed entire WWII-era aircraft hangars into CLASS I clean rooms to keep the delicate ammonia radiator lines clean from impurities.

Highlights from this RAC will be posted on the Region IV website as soon as possible: (http://seat1a.jsc.nasa.gov/aiaa ).

Major topics included; membership, Section awards, and financial rebates! (Be sure and congratulate last year's Chairman, George Neild - The Houston Section nearly swept all seven categories, including "Outstanding Section").

The next RAC is scheduled for April 16^th in Austin, Texas. Please contact Russ Filler if you would like to participate in representing the Section at the next RAC.

Mach 1 Breakthrough for F-22 Raptor

by Dan Selters,

Vice Chair - Operations

"F-22 Raptor Update" [For those of you that attended our September dinner program, read about our featured speaker, Jon Beesley, breaking the sound barrier for the first time in the F-22!]

Raptor One Goes Supersonic

[USAF Press Release, 10/12/98]

Another major milestone in the F-22 flight test program was achieved on Saturday October 10, 1998 when Lockheed Martin test pilot Jon Beesley flew the first F-22 faster than the speed of sound for the first time. Powered by two Pratt & Whitney F-119-PW-100 engines, Beesley broke the sound barrier as he pushed the F-22 to a speed of 1.1 mach during a flight that lasted nearly three hours over the skies of Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. When the F-22, Raptor 4001, reached Mach speed, it was flying at an altitude of 29,000 feet at approximately 3:25 Pacific Daylight Time.

"From all indications, the Raptor flew past the sound barrier with ease," said Lt. Col. C.D. Moore, commander of the F-22 Combined Test Facility, minutes after the F-22 exceeded Mach 1. "This is just one step of many for the program," said Moore.

In fact, the flight moved the Raptor one step closer to demonstrating its revolutionary ability to supercruise, i.e., fly at supersonic speeds for extended periods without the use of afterburners. An afterburner is an auxiliary power source that provides extra thrust by injecting fuel into the engine's hot exhaust gasses and burning it.

While Beesley reached a speed of only 1.1 Mach during the flight, the F-22 is capable of supercruising at much higher supersonic speeds for much longer periods of time. To date, high-performance fighters have had to rely on afterburners to sustain supersonic speeds; however, the F-22's advanced engines are designed to allow supersonic flight without afterburners, which avoids consuming large amounts of fuel.

"The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 and Pratt & Whitney F119 engine are designed to take us into a new frontier - sustained supersonic flight," explained Brig. Gen. Michael C. Mushala, F-22 System Program Director. "The dream has always been to sustain supersonic flight so we could take full advantage of the supersonic frontier in an air superiority fighter."

Noting the place of the Raptor's first supersonic flight in aviation history, General Mushala said, "Supersonic flight began nearly 51 years ago over the skies of Edwards Air Force Base, marshaling in a new dimension of aerospace capability. It's a fitting tribute that this was done at Edwards, the place where it all began."

The F-22 Combined Test Facility, a joint Air Force/contractor team located at Edwards, conducts the F-22 flight test program. It currently has two F-22s. The second F-22 off the Lockheed Martin assembly line in Georgia joined its sister ship, Raptor 01, at Edwards in August.

"Today marked a significant event in the F-22 Raptor flight test program," said Tom Burbage, F-22 Program Vice President and General Manager for Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems. "With less than 100 hours of flight testing under its belt and less than 50 hours on Raptor 4001, the F-22 already has proven one of its most important advanced capabilities by flying supersonically without the help of an afterburner," he said. "Our confidence in this aircraft grows daily as we continue to achieve milestone after milestone in the air.

At the same time, all team members and suppliers are working extremely hard to control costs on the ground.

"Together, we are producing a revolutionary aircraft that will give U.S. forces an advantage that will endure well into the next century." The F-22 is widely regarded as the most advanced fighter in the world, combining a revolutionary leap in technology and capability with reduced support requirements and maintenance costs. It will replace the F-15 as America's front-line, air superiority fighter, with deliveries to operational units beginning in 2002.

The F-22's combination of stealth, integrated avionics, maneuverability and supercruise will give Raptor pilots a first-look, first-shot, first-kill capability against the aircraft of any potential enemy. The F-22 is designed to provide not just air superiority, but air dominance, winning quickly and decisively with few U.S. casualties. The F-22 also has an inherent air-to-ground capability.

Said General Mushala, "Advances in aerospace have been a tradition for aviation pioneers in the United States and today marks a new milestone in the quest for aerospace excellence - sustained supersonic flight without the fuel penalty of an afterburner."

AIAA Associate Fellows Announced

AIAA President Sam Iacobellis recently announced the selection of the 1999 Associate Fellows.

Associate Fellows are persons who have accomplished or been in charge of important engineering or scientific work, or who have done original work of outstanding merit, or who have otherwise made outstanding contributions to the arts, sciences or technology of aeronautics or astronautics. They must be Senior Members with at least 12 years of professional experience. Only 15% of the Institute's members are Associate Fellows.

The Houston Section is proud to have been awarded 13 new Associate Fellows:

• Michael E. Begley
• Larry J Brown
• Frank T. Buzzard
• Frank L. Culbertson
• John E. Granahan
• Don J. Hull
• Edward J. Jablonski
• Steven R. King
• Joseph T. Mayer
• Wendell W. Mendell
• Ellen Ochoa
• Jayant V. Ramakrishnan
• Andre J. Sylvester

Congratulations to our new Associate Fellows.

If you see any of these new Associate Fellows, be sure to congratulate them.

Overall, 133 new Associate Fellows were announced to be officially confirmed at the inaugural Associate Fellows Dinner that will be held in conjunction with the 37^th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit in Reno, Nevada, January 11-14, 1999.

The Houston Section was awarded more Associate Fellows than any other single section this year! The Section has Dr Jayant Ramakrishnan, the Honors and Awards chairman, to thank for his outstanding efforts in coordinating and facilitating the work required to make these awards possible.

Virtual Reality Lunch 'n' Learn

by Karin Loftin, Ph.D

Life Sciences TC Chair

Virtual reality is a new and exciting learning tool, but how does it compare to other learning methods? AIAA Life Sciences, Space Processes, and Human Factors Technical Committee presents a Lunch and Learn, entitled A Comparison of the Features of Virtual Reality and Multimedia for Use in Learning, on November 17, 1998, from 11:30-12:30 PM, at Building 15, Room 267, NASA/JSC. Please join us, bring your lunch and a friend, and enjoy listening to Ms. Cynthia Chmielewski, who is a Human Factors Engineer and supports the Usability Testing and Analysis Facility of the Flight Crew Support Division. She is also a Ph.D. student studying Human Factors Psychology at Rice University. Her projects involve workstation ergonomics, remote training, and human factors engineering evaluations of various payload equipment. We look forward to seeing you. Watch for the December announcement: Dr. Michael Barratt will present a discussion of Russian Landing Medical Operations. Please, to RSVP or to apply for a temporary badge to attend, contact Karin Loftin at (281) 244-1122 or kloftin@ems.jsc.nasa.gov.

AIAA Technical Committee's October Meeting

by Karin Loftin, Ph.D.

Life Sciences, Space Processes, and Human Factors TC Chair

The Life Sciences, Space Processes, and Human Factors Technical Committee met on Tuesday, October 13, 1998, in the Building 11 Cafeteria from 11:30-12:30. We would like to invite others with interest in this area to join us on the second Tuesday of every month - next month on Tuesday, November 10, 1998, and give us your input for committee activities. You can call me at 244-1122 or by e-mail at kloftin@ems.jsc.nasa.gov.

For the AIAA October monthly meeting at Gilruth, the Life Sciences, Space Processes, and Human Factors Technical Committee was invited to present topics for show and tell. At the committee meeting we discussed several options, the Phantom torso, Human Research Facility display, telemedicine, neurolaboratory results, and other biomedical technologies, along with names to contact. It was also suggested that displays for Inspection 98 may be viewed for candidate topics. The display should compliment the topic of the guest speaker, "Future Plans for Space Operations" and be portable. The appropriate individuals will be contacted to select a display.

Several topics for Lunch and Learn seminars were also discussed. We need more volunteers to present. Our goal for the year are 5 Lunch and Learn seminars. They are very informal and a great opportunity to learn more about the various areas of our technical committee. If you have a topic to share with the JSC community, please contact me.

Next month we will also discuss ways to interact with the national AIAA Life Sciences Committee and consider the co-sponsorship of an EVA workshop with the EVA Technical Committee. Thanks for your ideas and support.

James Oberg's Testimony Before

The U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Sciences

I departed from the prepared statement to discuss the FGB launch set for six weeks from now, which would orbit for seven or eight months, across a hundred million miles of space, and NASA could only HOPE that at the end of its voyage it would meet up with the intended Service module, Progress, and eventually Soyuz vehicles... I called it "the longest 'Hail Mary' pass in historyand history must judge whether it turns out to be an bold, inspiring breakout or a doomed, foolhardy gamble." - James Oberg

The International Space Station and The Administration's Proposed Bail-Out for Russia - Committee on Science, US House of Representatives

October 7, 1998

10:00 am - 12:00 noon

2318 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

OPENING STATEMENT

Good morning. I am pleased to be able to raise some independent issues about the Russian space partnership for the International Space Station.

I want to address the following points:

- Russia's inability to fulfill its promises is NOT due to any temporary conditions which will easily go away;

- as we get closer to first launch, the wobbly assembly strategy is a clear warning that something is fundamentally wrong;

- based on recent actual Russian spacecraft experience, alarm bells should be ringing about the reliability of the latest promises that the Service Module is "almost finished" and nearly ready to fly;

- NASA overestimates the effectiveness of massive cash infusions into the Russian space industry, in part because of deliberate blindness towards ample evidence of corruption;

- recent Russian attempts to prolong the life of Mir for another two or more years would violate promises to NASA and would shatter any hope of adequate Russian launch support for ISS;

- every promised benefit of bringing on the Russians as ISS partners has collapsed, including the idea of making the project faster and better and cheaper, and the hope that it would forestall the flow of Russian missile technology into rogue states;

- the rush to launch the first elements six weeks from now is an attempt to prevent proper independent assessment of the new situation, and amounts to holding the future of the US space program hostage to continuing a failed strategy.

After consistently being wrong about Russia's ability to fulfill itsspace promises, NASA still clings to the hope that the problem with our relationship is only superficial, only temporary, and that there's light at the end of the tunnel. In previous years, we were told that full financing would surely come after the end of the Chechen War, or after the presidential runoffs, or after the presidential elections, or after this or that new treaty or new summit meeting or new Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission session. And it never, ever did.

But the lack of Russian government funding for ISS is not the result of the current financial crisis, as has been claimed. It is instead the policy set more than a year ago when the Russian Space Agency was told to take bank loans and sell off its assets to obtain required funds. The Russian government has not simply NOT paid the required money: it has demandedincrediblythat IT receive money FROM the Russian Space Agency in the form of value-added taxes ("delivery taxes") on space hardware that the Russian Space Agency has somehow managed to fund.

Certainly, we know from history that all major new space projects prove more difficult than expected. But there is a fundamental difference between what it looked like as we approached the first flight of Apollo, or Skylab, or Shuttle, and the way things are shaping up as we approach the International Space Station. For those previous programs, the complexities and difficulties often required major adjustments in design or schedules. But because of the quality of technological management, those difficulties were confronted and solved well in advance of the final countdowns.

For example, although the space shuttle marched in place for almost two years at the Launch Minus Twelve Months point, once all the pieces fell into place those last months proceeded almost without pause toward a successful launch. But for ISS, the closer we seem to get to launch, the more the pieces are falling apart, the greater the uncertainty is about critical downstream support. This should tell us something about the technological and management inadequacies that must be repaired before committing any hardware to flight.

Using the wrong metrics is another source of problems. For example, measuring the completion of spacecraft in general, and of the Service Module in particular, by weight of installed hardware is silly. Two years ago we were told the module was 90% complete, now it's supposed to be 98% complete with only a few systems missing. But as NASA has been told, those are often critical systems from contractors that in some instances no longer even manufacture such hardware (for example, the Solid Fuel Oxygen Generator, which caused the near-fatal fire in February 1997 for which the Russians have STILL not provided NASA the final accident report). There remains a great deal of assembly work to be done that remains out of sight and out of mind for NASA.

And software, one of the most notorious "long poles" in the ISS tent, weighs nothing, so its impact on work-yet-to-be-done gets slighted in this measurement scheme. Compare these claims with that from a manager of the ill-fated "Lewis" spacecraft who testified that the vehicle was 95% complete, even before a contract had been signed to produce the flight software.

Let's also not judge the Service Module's likely completion process by the smooth schedule we saw for the FGB. That module was amply funded and was built by a healthy, highly motivated organization. But things are different for the Service Module. A better analogy for a highly complex Russian spacecraft being built by a bankrupt space organization would be the Mars-96 probe. Two years ago, after years of delay, of cutting corners, of appeals for foreign financial support, of corruption scandals, and finally of frantic work to meet an interplanetary launch window, this most sophisticated ever Russian spacecraft was launched towards Mars, and promptly failed.

By the way, it's interesting to note how international diplomacy has interfered with accurate assessments of safety issues in this case (as in others). To this day, space officials in Moscow and Washington BOTH prefer to believe that the off-course probe and its eighteen plutonium batteries fell harmlessly into the Pacific Ocean, when the best evidence is that the wreckage is on dry ground in the Andes Mountains near the Chile-Bolivia border. Pretending otherwise is an abdication of responsibility to the health of the local populationbut it's convenient, and doesn't threaten to embarrass the Russians.

More relevant to the Service Module's future, and to the future of the ISS, the Mars-96 accident investigation team was led by the same Professor Utkin who assists the Stafford Commission on assessing the safety of Russian spacecraft. After months of work, Utkin's team reportedly failed to find ANY reason for Mars-96 to have failed, even with the knowledge that it already HAD failed. This does not encourage our hope that these same experts can accurately assess the future reliability of the Service Module, now being under conditions just as bad as those which doomed Mars-96.

There are plenty of other things about our Russian partners that NASA has simply not wanted to see, or has even wanted NOT to see. For example, NASA has made certain that evidence of corruption within the Russian space industry would not distract its decision makers. Regarding these notorious cosmonaut mansions at Star Citywhich some White House experts still blindly dismiss as merely "allegations"within NASA it was a strict rule NOT to see or mention them. When one NASA official was outraged enough to describe them in a trip report, he was ordered to rewrite and resubmit the report after deleting mention of the mansions. Other NASA workers at Star City have told me that it was made clear to them all that any overt interest in these houses would be severely "career limiting". Such a policy makes it easier for higher officials to act surprised and incredulous when confronted with independent evidence for such diversion of funds.

Another potential surprise is connected with the fate of the Mir space station. Fortified with spare parts ferried up on NASA shuttles, the Mir has flown on recently with less visible troubles than last year. But since the Russians can only build about five or six Soyuz and Progress vehicles, the kind which support Mir and which will support the ISS, any continuation of Mir beyond next year threatens to divert irreplaceable resources from ISS. So under intense NASA pressure, the Russians agreed to de-orbit the Mir in June 1999.

But many Russian space officials objected to this capitulation to NASA interests and advocated keeping Mir open for at least two years morewhich would require numerous additional Soyuz and Progress support flights. In recent weeks, these wishes have been transformed into active negotiations with Western financiers to prolong Mir's lifetime. Yuri Maslyukov, Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister and a protÈgÈ of the new prime minister Gennadiy Primakov, has reportedly led this effort, with support from space-hopping Kremlin aide Yuriy Baturin and from Energia Corporation officials such as V. Nikitskiy and Valeriy Ryumin (NASA generously gave Ryumin a courtesy Mir visit flight on a shuttle last Junehe came back determined to repudiate Russian promises about terminating Mir). Further, some recent repair work on Mir doesn't seem to make much sense except as preparation for extending its lifetime beyond the promised termination date.

Now, here's the rub. The latest ISS manifest released last week by NASA shows nine Soyuz and Progress flights by Russia in the year 2000 (plus a tenth Soyuz launch of a modified Progress carrying an ISS module), all to ISS. So if there is ANY extension of Mir's lifetime to 2000 and beyond, the new NASA plans must go the way of all previous plans, onto the scrap heap.

Let's step further back and view the big picture. It's clear that every promise made for the value of the Russian partnership when NASA sold the idea to the White House back in 1993 has collapsed. The idea that it would be quicker and cheaper was incredible to experts even in 1993, to everyone, that is, but NASA experts.

Meanwhile, NASA continues to use creative bookkeeping to conceal the billions of dollars of extra costs associated with the Russian partnership. One such cost is what I call the "Russian Access Tax" that the US will have to pay on EVERY shuttle launch to carry cargo to an orbit northerly enough for the Russians to reacha loss of a large fraction of the shuttle's cargo carrying capacity. Now, it's true NASA has enhanced this capacity to make up for these losses, but those same improvements could also be applied to more convenient orbits as well. In practical terms, this means that four shuttle flights are required to carry the same cargo to the "Russian orbit" that three flights could carry to a more efficient orbit. Over the life of the ISS, with more than a hundred shuttle flights expected, about a quarter of themten billion dollars worth or moreare required merely to allow the Russians to be partners.

Also, the idea that pouring money into the Russian space industry could prevent 'missile mischief' with rogue states has turned out to be another illusion. Hundreds of thousands of rocket engineers in Russia have been laid off over the past decade (particularly from military missile plants) and there never were more than a few hundred free-lance employment opportunities overseas anyway. The abundance of available Russian rocket experts for hire abroad is shown by the relatively low price they can demandaccording to Russian journalist Evgeniya Albats, about $200 cash per month. And that doesn't even count full-scale contracts with Russian space corporations.

And how about all of the wonderfully valuable "Russian space experience" that we hear lip service to? NASA has shown instead that it has to learn things again on its own, such as on Shuttle-Mir, which caught NASA by surprise time and time again. And in the end, we must ask, if Russia's experience with space stations was so valuable to NASA, why is NASA again in such a space station mess?

What is to be done now? I suggest that instead of clinging reflexively to remnants of a strategy which is growing more and more threatened at many points, we concentrate on the important goal of getting a fully outfitted US Lab module operational as soon as possible. Past plans and past expenditures are, in the phrase used by pilots, "runway behind us". We have to get from where we are NOW to where we want to be.

Meanwhile, putting the FGB and US Node into orbit now, before a serious reevaluation of the program can be carried out, is an attempt to hold the entire US manned space program hostage to a failed strategy. The "rush" is on to prevent deliberative investigation of the changed circumstances vis-a-vis Russia.

There are symbolic, stylistic, and substantive steps that can be taken.

Symbolically, if the Russians are selling us all their research time for the next few years, and it's US money which is keeping the entire project on track, the station crew commanders for this phase should all be Americans. For flight two and four, cosmonauts had been designated to be in command. Under the changed circumstances, that decision should be changed.

In terms of style, NASA has proven itself incapable of learning from anyone else's experience with dealing with Russian partners, and even has great difficulty getting its own internal experience to the people who need it. This is a problem with leadership. If there are people at NASA with an unbroken track record of being wrong about Russian developments, the obvious fix is to replace them.

In terms of substance, the mindless momentum toward an FGB/Node launch based on the same illusory hopes for future Russian support, hopes that have been dashed year after year after year, should be reconsidered, if not by NASA than by those who can influence NASA. There should be an immediate independent assessment of the actual cost of delaying the FGB/Node launch by up to six months.

Experience should have taught us that before committing hardware to space flight a very hostile place full of unpleasant surpriseswe should minimize surprises back on Earth. At the very least, the Service Module and OTHER downstream Russian support hardware must be certified "on track" by some independent evaluation, and the threat of Mir-related diversions must be ended, most reliably by the termination of that program. Such steps could take several months. Until such steps are taken, I consider it foolhardy to deliberately enhance programmatic riskand our vulnerability to future blackmailby launching the first elements.

At the same time, a credible, independent assessment must finally be made of the "no-Russian" option. We've heard the official claims that it would cost billions more, but those claims are from people who are overlooking billions and billions of dollars of operational expenses which are required forand only forkeeping the Russians aboard. These same experts have consistently misjudged schedule and cost and quality benefits attributed to Russian participation, and it seems to me they deserve no further credibility from the public and from Congress.

Until we take such reality-based steps, I am concerned that NASA's long record of being repeatedly caught by surprise by new Russian problems will continue unbroken into the next century, at immense cost to the American space program and to the hopes of all of us who wish it to succeed.

Thank you for this opportunity to present these ideas.

Public Policy News Brief

by Russ Filler and Wayne Rast

October 16^th: House Science Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) announced plans for the kickoff of the Science Policy Study, a year-long effort commissioned by the Chairman and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to address the long-range issues of national science policy. The Study will be headed by Committee Vice Chairman Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (R-MI). Members of the public will be invited to submit letters and papers to the Science Policy Study for consideration. Also on the future Study agenda are field briefings and hearings which will be held in the Spring of next year. A final report to Congress is expected at the end of next year.

On October 5^th, The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1702, The Commercial Space Act of 1998. The bill streamlines regulations and provides policy to promote a stable business environment for the commercial space industry. The bill takes steps to support the continued growth of the U.S. commercial space industry by:

· requiring an independent market study of, and a NASA report on, progress in commercialization of the International Space Station;

· authorizing the Department of Transportation to license the reentry of space transportation vehicles; making permanent a launch voucher demonstration program so that scientists can buy their own launch services, instead of being told when and how their experiments can fly into space; encouraging the President to ensure that the U.S. Global Positioning System becomes the world standard so that foreign systems will not interfere with the GPS satellite signals;

· encouraging NASA to buy commercial data for both space science and earth science researchers;

· directing NASA to manage its Commercial Space Centers out of NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C.;

· including two provisions which clarify the regulation of U.S. commercial remote sensing companies; requiring the Federal Government to purchase space transportation services instead of building and operating its own vehicles;

· requiring NASA to plan for the potential privatization of the Space Shuttle;

· allowing the use of excess ICBMs as low-cost space transportation vehicles;

· and, requiring that the Department of Defense study our national launch demand and infrastructure capability through the year 2007.

H.R. 1702 was introduced by Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. and originally approved by the House in November of 1997. The Senate endorsed an amended version in July, 1998. H. Res. 572 was approved by a voice vote in the House October 5. The resolution called for the approval of H.R. 1702, the Commercial Space Act, and minor Senate amendments to the bill. On Thursday. October 8, the Senate approved the legislation on unanimous consent, leaving only the President's signature standing between it and enactment. President Clinton is expected to sign the legislation.

NOTE: AIAA encouraged passage of this legislation during Congressional Visits Day this last March.

On October 14, Science Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) introduced H.R. 4820, Save the International Space Station Act of 1998 which limits money to Russia and removes them from the critical path

The specific provisions of H.R. 4820 include:

• Prohibiting additional payments to the Russian Space Agency to meet its existing obligations unless Congress concurs that additional payments serve the taxpayers' interests;
• Requiring the Administration to develop a contingency plan and report that plan to Congress for removing each element of the Russian contribution from the critical path for assembling the International Space Station;
• Imposing a $21.9 billion total cost cap on the program;
• Creating cross-waiver authority under which NASA will negotiate agreements with other Station partners to reduce our liability to one another in the event of problems with the Space Station;
• Requiring a report on the costs and benefits of each Station-related agreement entered into by the U.S. and a foreign entity;
• Requiring a report on agreements which transfer to a foreign entity the development and manufacture of Station hardware baselined to be provided by the U.S.;
• Prohibiting NASA from entering into a contract with a foreign government which grants that government the right to recover profit if the contract is terminated.

SUMMARY: (REVISED AS OF 07/30/98 - Passed Senate, amended)

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Title I: Promotion of Commercial Space Opportunities

Title II: Remote Sensing

Title III: Federal Acquisition of Space Transportation Services

Commercial Space Act of 1997 - Title I: Promotion of Commercial Space Opportunities - Requires the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to report to the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate:

(1) a specified study that identifies and examines the opportunities for commercial providers to play a role in International Space Station activities, including operation, use, servicing, and augmentation; and

(2) an independently-conducted market study that examines and evaluates potential industry interest in providing commercial goods and services for the operation, servicing, and augmentation of the International Space Station, and in the commercial use of the International Space Station (including updates to the cost savings and revenue estimates made in the preceding study, based on the external market assessment). Requires the Administrator to report to the Congress, no later than the submission of the President's annual budget request for FY 2000, on the number of proposals (whether solicited or not) NASA received during 1998 regarding commercial operation, servicing, utilization, or augmentation of the International Space Station, and specifying how many agreements NASA has entered into in response to these proposals. States that each of the studies and reports required shall include consideration of the potential role of State governments as brokers in promoting commercial participation in the International Space Station program.(Sec. 102) Amends Federal law to include reentry vehicles and reentry operations within the scope of commercial space launch activities. Revises provisions which consider a launch not to be an export to consider payloads launched pursuant to foreign trade zone procedures as provided for under the Foreign Trade Zones Act as exports with regard to customs entry. Mandates an annual report.

Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Transportation for the activities of the Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation for FY 1998 through 2000.

(Sec. 103) Encourages the President to promote U.S. Global Positioning System standards.

(Sec. 104) Directs NASA to purchase, to the maximum extent possible, space science data from a commercial provider.

(Sec. 105) Provides for the administration of the Commercial Space Center program in a coordinated manner from NASA headquarters.

Title II: Remote Sensing - Makes amendments to the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 with respect to the commercialization of land remote sensing space systems. Revises licensing requirements to require licensees to:

(1) make available to the government of any country (including the United States) certain data collected by the system in a timely manner subject to U.S. national security and foreign policy interests; and

(2) notify the Secretary of Commerce of any significant or substantial agreement. Modifies license application and issuance requirements to allow U.S. Government agencies to enter into agreements for utilization of a private land remote sensing space system if such remote sensing space system will be licensed by the Secretary of Commerce before commencing its commercial operation. Prohibits duplication of U.S. commercial space science data collection or distribution activities by the Federal Government unless such activities would result in significant cost savings to the Federal Government, or are necessary for reasons of national security or international obligations or policies. Repeals the technology demonstration program.

(Sec. 202) Directs the Administrator to acquire space-based and airborne Earth remote sensing data, services, distribution, and applications provided by a commercial provider for purposes of meeting Government goals for Mission to Planet Earth, and to satisfy the scientific requirements of NASA and of other Federal agencies and scientific researchers. Requires this section to be carried out as part of the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at the Stennis Space Center.

Title III: Federal Acquisition of Space Transportation Services - Requires the Federal Government to procure space transportation services from U.S. commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities, subject to exception, including if, on a case-by-case basis, the use of such services is inconsistent with foreign policy purposes.

(Sec. 303) Makes conforming amendments to the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990. Maintains the prohibition for the launching of commercial payloads as primary payloads on the space shuttle.

(Sec. 304) Provides for a study and report on space shuttle privatization.

(Sec. 305) Prohibits the Federal Government from:

(1) converting certain excess intercontinental ballistic missiles to a space transportation vehicle configuration or otherwise using such missiles to place a payload in space; or

(2) transferring ownership of such missiles to another person, except as provided in this Act. Authorizes such conversions if the agency seeking to use the missile certifies to specified congressional committees that the use of the missile: (1) would result in Government cost savings compared to the cost of acquiring space transportation services from commercial providers; (2) meets all agency mission requirements; (3) is consistent with U.S. international obligations; and (4) is approved by the Secretary of Defense.

(Sec. 306) Requires the Secretary of Defense to report to specified congressional committees on the total potential national mission model (a model to assess the total potential space missions to be conducted by the United States during a specified time period that includes all U.S. launches), with information on resources necessary to carry out the model, including: (1) Defense Department launch property and services; and (2) the ability to support commercial launch-on-demand on short notification at national launch sites or test ranges. Directs the Secretary to update the report every five years and, based on such reports, to identify: (1) opportunities for investment by non-Federal entities to assist the Federal Government in providing launch capabilities for the U.S. commercial space industry; (2) one or more methods by which the control of the Department's launch property and launch services may be transferred to one or more Federal agencies, States, or private sector entities if sufficient resources to carry out the model are unavailable; and (3) the technical, structural, and legal impediments associated with making U.S. national ranges viable and competitive.

Houston Section Holds Retreat

Wayne Rast, Mike Lisano, Steve King, Karen Loftin, Bill Best, Dr. George Nield, and Scott Schoenherr listen to the morning topics at the Houston Section's Leadership Retreat.

The Houston Section held a Leadership and Planning Retreat, Saturday, August 15, 1998 at Holiday Inn - NASA. Approximately 95% of the 30-member Executive Council attended the one day event. Patterned after the Regional Leadership Conference, the purpose of the retreat was to provide an opportunity for the section leadership to learn more about AIAA, develop leadership skills, and support planning the activities and events for the coming year. The retreat addressed the responsibilities of each position, developed and establish goals and objectives, helped develop milestones for key events, and certainly helped to develop our teamwork. The event included a talk on how to run an effective section by past chairman Norm Chaffee, a talk by AIAA Vice President of Public Policy Joe Mayer, and dinner talk on future NASA projects by Dr. Wendell Mendell (NASA/member of the AIAA National Space Systems Technical Committee).

Past Chairman Norm Chaffee addresses the Leadership and Planning Retreat luncheon on how to run an effective section.

Treasurer Dave Parrish discusses the Section's financial goals and objectives.

Dr. Wendell Mendell (NASA/member of the AIAA National Space Systems Technical Committee) provided the dinner talk on future NASA projects.

USA's Howard DeCastro Speaks at October Dinner Meeting

- by Bill Best, Publications Chair

The United Space Alliance (USA) helped underwrite the October dinner meeting for the Houston section and provided a speaker, Mr. Howard DeCastro, program manager for the Shuttle Flight Operations Contract (SFOC). USA is a joint venture between Boeing (was Rockwell) and Lockheed Martin and is the prime contractor (from some 40 earlier contracts) for supporting shuttle operations for NASA. This is a continuing process and from a $1.2 billion operation (phase 1) today should grow into a $2.4 billion contract representing some 80% of all of the shuttle work (phase 2). Phase 3 will occur when shuttle operations are completely privatized and commercialized so that NASA can back completely away from day-to-day shuttle operations.

USA has today about 9500 employees, with 5000 located at KSC. With a few exceptions, like 10 at MSFC, the remainder are here at JSC. Of the $1.2 billion about one half goes to almost 10,000 vendors, suppliers and sub-contractors. USA is now in the third year of the contract and has demonstrated the ability to launch on time and to fly the shuttle safely. The ability to launch on time has enabled the Mir launches, which have a launch window of about 8 minutes, to occur at the optimum time in the window, thereby maximizing fuel efficiency.

The people responsible for this operation are keeping the four aspects of the SFOC contract in mind; fly safely, which is #1 today and will continue to be the first and foremost objective; second, meet the manifest; and then, improve the supportability of the program, i.e., make the shuttle more robust, increase safety margins, etc., and, finally, improve operations as we go and thereby reduce costs with the emphasis on improving the system.

USA underran the SFOC contract by $56M the first year, $62M the second and should show over a $90M underrun this year with an estimate of $480M saved over the six year contract. It should be noted the contract when written anticipated some $400M of saving because of the consolidation. So the taxpayers should save a total of over $880M because of the SFOC contract.

A chart showing the next year's launches looked rather sparse. STS-95, the Curt Brown flight is first, a 29 October launch. STS-88, the first US launch to support space station, should occur in early December. This date is dependent on the Russian launch of the FGB or functional block (a 20 ton element) in November. NASA would like two weeks to perform some tests on the orbiting FGB, but can live with a one week test period. The next flight will be the deployment of the x-ray telescope. Payload problems have slipped the mission several times, but if the payload arrives at KSC in December, STS-93 should fly in March.

The following flight, scheduled for May, is a backup flight for space station servicing and reboost and will occur if STS-88 flies. The rest of the manifest is in flux since much of the launch activity is slated for support of the assembly of the International Space Station (ISS). The assembly process depends on the launch in July of the Russian propulsion and service module. Once that occurs, the US pieces of the ISS will be ready and will launch on time to continue the space station assembly. The launches will not be easy as the 8 minute launch windows must be met and there will be a continuing series of launches (32) over the next few years. There will be only a few shuttle flights for other purposes.

USA certainly does not want the completion of the ISS to also mark the end of the Shuttle program. Ten years from now USA would like the shuttle to still be the vehicle of choice for human space flight. That is, unless the next generation of vehicle, which has the capability to support human space flight, is operational. If this is not the case, what should USA do in a strategic sense? The answer is to keep putting money into the system, keep upgrading the shuttle and keep making improvements. This has already occurred in the program as Curt Brown's shuttle vehicle, Discovery, STS-95, is nothing like John Young's shuttle, Columbia, used for STS-1. The vehicle is 17,000 pounds lighter, the computers are different, the avionics have changed, the SRBs have been improved, and the engines are better. More changes are on the way, glass cockpits and GPS are two. USA has reinvested some $86M into the operation, such as new computers, better processes at KSC and new hardware for the shuttle.

USA believes that the shuttle is capable of flying until 2020 and maybe beyond. If another vehicle comes along that can do a better job than the shuttle, USA will step aside and allow progress to continue.. Mr. DeCastro closed by reminding the audience that there are only 20,000 people in the world involved today in human space flight. We should be immensely proud of the jobs we are doing and be proud to tell other people what we do.

Educator Night Open House at Space Center Houston

by Bill Hartwell, Education Committee Chair

Space Center Houston hosted its annual Educator Night Open House on September 17, 1998. This year set a new record for the number of teachers attending. Over 550 teachers from 31 different school districts, private schools, home schools, and colleges came to see what Space Center Houston has to offer educators. The yearly event is purposely scheduled at the beginning of the school year so everyone can see what Space Center Houston has available for the coming year for teachers and their students. The overall goal of the event is to show teachers how they can "Use Space to Teach."

The AIAA Houston Section had a display table at Space Center Houston's Educator Night Open House. Flyers describing the AIAA Educator Associate Program were distributed to the teachers, and they were told about the following benefits of the Educator Associate membership:

1) Free membership. There is no cost for educators to become an AIAA Educator Associate Member.

2) Educator Associates receive the AIAA Houston Section monthly newsletter, Horizons, and are invited to attend all of our local section activities. 3) Educator Associates have ready access to the many knowledgeable and enthusiastic engineers and scientists who are AIAA members. AIAA can provide speakers for classroom visits, science fair advisors, mentors, and career counselors.

4) Each Educator Associate is eligible to receive a grant of up to $200 for classroom educational materials.

The AIAA Houston Section is expecting a sharp increase in the number of Educator Associate members over the next few months.

AIAA National Headquarters has recently printed some new brochures that describe the program and its benefits. If you would like a brochure or an Educator Associate membership application, please contact one of the following people: Bill Hartwell - Councilor (281) 244-8665; Joy Conrad - Pre-College Outreach (281) 480-4101.

AIAA Student Branch Is Taking Shape at the

University of Houston

On August 26, 1998, an AIAA student membership drive was held at University of Houston to initiate an AIAA Student Branch. The effort is being lead by University of Houston student Albert Meza. He has met with AIAA Houston Section officers to better understand AIAA and he borrowed our section banner display for exhibit at the membership drive. University of Houston students have already started attending our monthly dinner programs. On October 8, Houston Section Councilor Bill Hartwell spoke to a student meeting at the University of Houston to explain professional societies like AIAA, the value of a student membership in AIAA, and activities of an AIAA student branch. The Houston Section bought 2 tickets for Space Center Houston and 2 tickets for the local airshow "Wings over Houston." These tickets were used as a raffle fund-raiser for the students generating over $200. The Section also provided pizza for the event.

The Houston Section offers our support and best wishes in their efforts. Good Luck. We hope to see you at the Student Paper Conference!

Secretary Alex Nunez and Vice-Chair Brady lanclos sign up an interested student at the August University of Houston AIAA Student Branch membership drive.

Courses in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

MECE 6347/02796 Low Speed Aerodynamics Dr. Charles Dalton

4:00 - 7:00 PM Thursday

MECE 7397/10890 Mod. Flight Control Syst. Dsg. Dr. Karolos Grigoriadis

4:00 - 7:00 PM Tuesday

(Rooms to be assigned)

ECE 6373/02237 Advanced Computer Architecture Dr. Pauline Markenscoff

11:30 - 1:00 Tuesday/Thursday

ECE 7370/02244 Parallel Computer Architecture Dr. Martin Herbordt

12:00 - 1:30 PM Monday/Wednesday

INDE 6335/11502 Engineering Administration Dr. Christopher Chung

5:30 - 7:30 PM Tuesday/Thursday

INDE 6337/11494 Human Factors System Design Dr. Lawrence Schulze

4:00 - 5:30 PM Tuesday/Thursday

(Room assignments to be posted in Room 146 in Building 45 at NASA/JSC)

Prospective students must submit the following to the department of their intended major by the deadline: graduate application and fee, official transcripts for each institution attended, official test scores, and letters of reference. Applicants should contact the department of their interest.

NOTE: A $50 per semester off-campus fee applies to these courses. This one-time-per-semester fee is charged for enrollment in one or more off-campus/or instructional televsion courses and supports the costs associated with offering these courses.

Call Cullen College of Engineering at (713) 743-4200 for admission and registration information.