Skip to main content

Full text of "NASA Audio Highlight Reels, Soundbites and Launch Sounds"

See other formats


STS-U WESTAR SATELLITE BRIEFING 12/20/83 PAGE 1 



Okay, Good morning and welcome to our second in a 
series of background briefings for Flight 41-B. This is on the 
WESTAR Satellite to be deployed on this flight.' And we have with 
us for the briefing to my immediate right. Warren Bechtel , Vice 
President for Corporate Communcation with the Western Union 
Corporation and to his right Bill Ziegler, Executive Consultant 
for Satellite Communications both with Western Union Corporation, 
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. We will have our presentation 
from Mr. Ziegler, and we'll go ahead and go through that. 

ZIEGLER If I may have the first slide please. And the 

second slide please. Western Union it headquartered at Upper 
Saddle River, New Jersey. And we are in the communications 
business. May I have the third slide please* We own operate and 
maintain satellites, earth stations, microwave, cables, switches, 
flberoptlcs, local radio, and all for the purpose of providing 
communications of a variety of types to government, business and 
the public. May I have the next slide please. To start, we were 
the first, Western Union was the first to provide a domestic 
commun 1 ca t ion satellite system for the nation. This activity was 
started with the launch of WESTAR 1 on April 13, 1974. This is 
an Illustration of WESTAR 1, and WESTAR 2 and 3 look the same. 
And this was soon followed by launch of WESTAR 2 in October of 
'74, and WESTAR 3 in August of 1979. The next slide please. All 
of these were launched on NASA's workhorse the Delta, matter of 
fact, WESTAR 1 went on the first Dalta 2914. The next slide 
please. WESTAR 4 and 5 are about twice the size of WESTAR 1, 2, 
and 3 and have a little more than twice the capacity. WESTAR 4 
and 5 were laucned in February and June, 1982. WESTAR 6, next 
slide please, WESTAR 6 will join th? WESTAR fleet, at the end of 
next month, and at that time we will have five satellites in 
Orbit again. With the launch of WESTAR 5 we had, will have the 
first to have operate 5 satellites in Orbit, but since that time 
we have retired WESTAR 1, and with the WESTAR 6 launch on STS-41- 
B, we will again have 5 satellites in Orbit. WESTAR 1 was 
originally designed for seven years of life, and we retired it 
nine years after it was launched. We expect to retire WESTAR 2 
at the end of 1984. Next slide please. WESTAR $ is going to be 
launched on the shuttle, and the next slide. Next slide 
please. An artist illustration of the WESTAR 6 with it's 
coverage of the United States including Hawaii, Alaska, and the 
Virgin Islands. And the next slide please. We own and operate 
seven major air stations and a number of minor ones and this is a 
photograph of our control center antennas at Glennwood, New 
Jersey, which is manned around the clock. To monitor not only 
the health and welfare of all of our satellites, but they also 
monitor the signals that go over it, May I have the next slide 
please. This Is an internal view of that control center where 
the spacecraft actually commanded and we collect the telemetry to 
measure there health and keep track of what is going on, Next 
slide please. We also have a network management center, in our 
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey headquarters building that 



monitors health of our communications network. They detect 
faults, dispatch maintenance personnel, anywhere in the 
country, Next slide please. They also is another view of the 
same center, they also monitor what sections are over loaded, 
what sections need attention. Next slide please. Services over 
the satellite are quite a wide variety ranging from voice to 
video, v;e even have low speed data like Telex and TWX, and do 
include some teleconferencing. The next several slides, the next 
slide please, illustrates some of the applications. Many 
publications transmit there contents of there magazines, 
newspapers, to printing plants throughout the country. This one 
illustrates the wallstreet journal as it was at one time. It's 
now, has all of 1 t 1 s transmissions over a single satellite but 
the content of the newspaper goes to, all of these printing 
plants so that they can keep, make local distribution quite 
rapidly. Next slide please. This is an illustration to show 
Western Unions approach to low-cost long di stance c a 1 1 i ng , it's 
called metrophone. Next slide please. This is the logo's of 
some of our video customers. People that distribute television 
programs. Next slide please. One of our television .operating 
centers that we have, I'm not sure how many, but a few dozen 
around the country, and most of the major cities, and the next 
slide please. And samples of the teleconferencing service that 
we offer. Next slide please. Now beyond WESTAR 6 we plan to not 
only expand the C-Band system, all of the WESTAR so far are in C- 
Band, but we will be adding K-Band satellites. And we've 
recently filed with the commission, Federal Communications 
Commission applications to expand and maintain our C-Band system 
and add a KU-Band system with enough satellites to carry us out 
beyond the year 2000. And may I have the first viewgraph 
please. I'll have more on WESTAR 6 for the viewgraphs. The next 
viewgraph please. This is the history of the WESTAR satellites 
with their launch dates and expected life times. You will recall 
that WESTAR 1, 2, and 3 were 12 transponder satellites relatively 
small, and with WESTARs 4 and 5 we went to 24 transponder 
satellites to somewhat higher power. And WESTAR 6 and 7 will 
also be 24 transponder satellites, but with a few added features 
in each. one. And I'll get a little more into that. The next 
viewgraph please. Not as conception which you've seen before, 
the next viewgraph. WESTAR 6 is HS376, does reuse the frequency 
band and has receivers, we need two of them and we have four 
onboard and they can be switched in any configuration. This is 
the first time that we've had redundant TWTAs, redundant power 
amplifiers for the transponders, so we have 30 TWTAs onboard to 
provide 24 transponders as service and we can switch the men in 
groups of, we have one spare for each group of 4 transponders. 
These transponders are 8.2 watts, WESTARs 4 and 5 are about 7 1/2 
watts and WESTARs 1, 2, and 3, were about 6 watts each. We've 
added Stepatenuators 1n WESTAR 6 in order to provide some 
flexibility to adjust the gain of the transponder. And this is 
helpful in the event there is degradation of the TWTA or perhaps 
more important to lower the gain in the case, in the event that 
we experienced Interference from other sources. We have improved 
input filters and over WESTARs 4 and 5 and we've, it also helps 



on the interference considerations and the performance and we've 
provided Hawaii coverage on all 24 transponders, where as WESTARs 
4 and 5 only had it on 12 of the 24 transponders. Just to show 
you that WESTAR 6 is not just an artist conception, this is a 
picture, actual photograph of WESTAR 6 in the Hughes factory just 
getting ready for i t 1 s thermal vacuum test. At this point and 
time WESTAR 6 is at the Cape, it has been mated to the PAM upper 
stage and as of yesterday was delivered to the vertical processor 
facility and stacked in the vertical stack just above the PALAPA 
spacecraft which arrived a couple of weeks ago, The next payload 
to go in will be the German SPAS and others after this. They 
were ready for launch at the end of January. Perhaps the most 
unusual thing about this WESTAR 6 program was the fact that 
Western Union had originally planned to launch it on Ariane. And 
when it became apparent that we were going to have the 
significant delay by staying with Ariane, we did approach NASA 
and our two favorite subcontractors, McDonald Douglas for the 
PAM, and Hughes for the spacecraft and said "See if you can't get 
us an earlier launch," and low and behold they did, and in a very 
short timeframe. Due to their extraordinary efforts we were able 
to get a launch on the shuttle with a lead time of a mere 10 
months. That's alot of compression of normal scheduling for 
NASA. McDonald Douglas also came up with the PAH in record time, 
and Hughes modified the spacecraft to meet the shuttle 
compatibility requirements in what I think is record time also. 
And that concludes what I have to say, 

Okay I think we will go ahead and take questions 
hers and, Jules, wait here for the mike here. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC News) - Sir, how much total cost does Western 
Union figure each launch costs it? Including the satellite, the 
PAM, and NASA launching charges? 

ZIEGLER Well lets see, I don't have the exact figures here, 

but I can sort of scope it. The satellite itsell, the 4, 5, and 
6 class 'cost us about 30 million dollars by the time we've uped 
the launch, and then Hughes earns incentives depending on the 
satellites performance over it's life time, which amounts to 
about another 5 million. The PAM upper stage runs 6 to 8 
million, the, well NASA's prices are pretty well on the public 
record to around 10 million currently after September, '85, they 
go up significantly. 

BERGMAN No they weren't on public record, as a matter of 

fact. 

ZIEGLER Well ,, 

BERMAN Not for COMSAT launches, not as far as I know 

Steve. 

I think those figures are always available, if you 
ask for them, We have given them out to 



BERGMAN 
record • 



Okay, the difference here is how we define public 



ZIE6LER Right, then we have other services that we have to 

provide, launch services and getting it on to station and so 
forth. 



ZIEGLER 

BERGMAN 

ZIEGLER 
million, 

BERGMAN 



Insurance is one. 

And insurance is a significant it em. 

So what's the total rough figure. 

Well let's see, I guess that adds up to 60, 70, 

It's in the 60, 70 million dollar range. 
On shuttle, and how much would it be on a 



nonreusable spacecraft. 

ZIEGLER Well the Delta price is significantly higher than 

the shuttle RAM. Currently, I understand it's around 30 million, 
is that, and the Ariane is more than the shuttle, RAM by about 5 
o r 6 m 1 1 1 1 o n . 

BERGMAN Okay, sacond question, how long before each WESTAR 

breaks even and then makes money for Western Union? 



ZIEGLER 

BERGMAN 
not . 

ZIEGLER 
questi o.i . 



ZIEGLER 



( 1 aughs) 

Well it have to go the full ten years. Obviously 

I don't think so. I don't know the answer to that 

Well I might throw some light on it - - 
Oo you 



Wei 1 I don't think we have to do that. The early 
WESTARs, WESTARs 1 and 2 launched back in 1974, lost money for a 
considerable period of time and maybe for their, for over their 
whole life. Depending how you allegate the cost. They were not 
fully loaded, it took a while for the market to develop over that 
time, but starting with WESTAR 3, in 1979 and then 4 and 5 in 
'82, our satellites went up pretty much spoken for, in terms of 
there capacity. And on that basis, your making money at about 
the mid-point on the life of the satellite. 



BERGMAN 



Okay, so after 5 years 



Rough! y 



BERGMAN --Your in the black. 

Un huh. 

BERGMAN And a final technical question, or a semi -techni cal 

question, why does, why they call transponders rather than 
channel s? 

ZIEGLER Well they actually transpond the frequency and they 

are sometimes called the channels, but the uplink frequency 1s in 
the 6 gigahertz band, and in the satellite- we amplify that signal 
and transpond it down to a lower frequency in the 4 gigahertz 
band to retransmit it down to the ground. That's why the name 
transponder . 

BERGMAN Okay you define tranponder differently then we 

pilot types do then. 

ZIEGLER I see. (laugh) Well even the transponders on 

airplanes do change the frequency. No? No? 

BERGMAN It is replied to radar interrogation. 

Okay, Howard Benedict. 

HOWARD BENEDICT - (AP) - Is, are WESTAR 6 compacity fully signed 
down and for and who are your major customers. 

It is not fully signed on for at this point, 
although, we don't have a specific breakdown to give you but 
between lease transponders on full periods leases for television 
broadcasting and cable and, not necessarily cable, but TV 
broadcasting and the sale of transponders which is something we 
have been doing, starting back with WESTAR 4, and our use of the 
capaclty'for our own internal, the transmission system that Bill 
depicted on a slide over here combining the satellite and the 
microwave over whlcr we provide our telex services and private 
wire services and that sort of thing. It will be, we believe 
fully spoken for, fully utilized by the time 1t becomes 
operational which is about 2 months after it's launched 

ZIEGLER About 30 days after 

30, sorry 30 days after launch. 

ZIEGLER Yes, that's sort of monitor the usage of those 

transponders in, trying to keep our marketing, people from over 
selling 1f you will, and it Is, there are still some capacity but 
not very much. 

8ENEDICT What customers have you got? 



ZIE6LER Well which ones might, they might be a shift in 

customers as between satellites. 1 mean we have what alocations 
--wo have sold satellites to Dow Jones and City Corp., several of 
the 

Those are on 

Those are on, I'm not suggesting those are going to 
be shipped, but if your question is what sort of customers do we 
have for satellite communications, those are examples of people 
who bought transponders and all of the major television networks, 
I believe use our satellites occasionally, on a occasional use 
basis* Not part of there permanent facility, but when they need 
extra transmission time. Certainly we do a lot of data 
transmission, a lot of, some private line voice transmission, and 
switch voice with our metrophone service, PBS is a big user, 
Public Broadcast Service of our satellites as is in PR. 

1 IEGLER We are transferring traffic from WESTAR 2, which is 

airing it's end of it useful life, which is 5 transponders worth 
of message traffic and that has hundreds of customers of 
relatively low band with - - usage, we are also transferring 
from WESTAR 3, the bulk of our what we call single channel per 
carrier services* So that we can relocate WESTAR 3 and sell some 
additional transponders of WESTAR 3 to American Satellite 
Company. Argo is one lease customer for WESTAR 6, and there are 
a few others, HTN and Robert Wald will have capacity on WESTAR 
6. By the link, I think-- 

8y the 1 ink-- 

ZIEGLER Will own the transponder ourselves-- 

Two transponders, vital link commune a t \ on s - - 

Okay , ta ke Doug Miller? 

DOUG MILLER WESTAR 6 originally planned for launch on Ariane in 
12 of '83, this month in other words. When was the decision made 
to go with the Shuttle instead of Ariane? 

ZIEGLER The decision process took from Fall of '82, I'm not 

sure of the exact date, but it was shortly after there, L5 
failure, I believe. Until June of '83, when we actually 
terminated that contract. 

MILLER So it was June of '83 when the decision was, 

whenever NASA was notified 

ZIEGLER Well we terminated Ariane In June of '83, but we 

did turn on the commit to NASA and McDonald Douglas and Hughes 
earl ier than that . 



There was a period of time during which we had 



contractual arrangements with both Artane and NASA to proceed and 
they both knew that, and we of cnrse said "We'll decide on one 
or the other, and we did so in June." 

MILLER Is this part of the reason perhaps that NASA sort 

of got on the stick and did so much fast work for you guys, what 
do you think? 

I'm sure it had an effect. They wanted us back. 

Okay, why don't we take questions now from the 
other Centers, go now to NASA Headquarters. You may be able to 
hear better by the earphones. 

NASA HOQTRS This is NASA Headquarters, we do have a question 
from Teresa Foley, of Aerospace Daily. 

TERESA FOLEY Can you tell me if you got * better insurance deal 
on the shuttle then you would have on Ariane, and If you could I 
would like to know the rates in terms of percent. 

ZIEGLER Yes we did get a better deal, because of launching 

on the shuttle then on Ariane. And I don't have the exact 
figures but it was in the order of 10 percent for an Ariane 
launch and in the orde>" of 5 to 6 percent for the shuttle 
launch. Did I answer your question? 

NASA HDQTRS. Yes you did. This is Harry Rosenthal Associated 
Press, with all these switchings back and forth between WESTARs, 
I sort of got lost, can you quantify what is the net gain in the 
number of transponders that you would get out of the new 
satellites. Is it, do you get half again of what you had before- 



ZIEGLER WESTARs 1, 2, and 3 each had 12 transponders. 

WESTARs 4, 5, and 6 each have 24 transponders. So that is an 
increase of 2 to 1 in capacity just on the face of that. In 
addition the power available out of each transponder has been 
growing from WESTARs 1, 2, and 3 from WESTARs 1, 2, and 3 being 
nominally 5 watts. We actually got 6 watts out of those, and 4 
and 5 are about 7 1/2 watts each and WESTAR 6 will be about 8.2 
watts. So we get a little more capacity because of the high 
power . 

FOLEY Teresa Foley with Aerospace Daily again, can you 

tell me when you broke the Ariane contract, were you, did you 
have to pay a financial penalty for that, or did you lose any 
money by breaking the contract? 

ZIEGLER There were two questions there. Yes, there was a 

penalty in accordance with the terms of the contract. However 
the net effect of the switch because of the lower price for the 
shuttle and the lower Insurance cost came out about a wash. 



FOLEY Okay, also whether you realize it or not your 

company and the other two U.S. companies that broke on the Ariane 
caused quite a stir for NASA marketing official here in 
Washington and probably at the Centers as well and I was 
wondering now that they have kind of changed and stepped up there 
marketing efforts would you consider booking on Ariane again and 
under what circumstances would you do that. 

BELCHER Ah, I suspect it would be, there's a potential of 

competition that Ariane brings to the launch business and I don't 
think we would throw 1t out, but of course we would have 
confidence in primarily the schedule performance. We have 
reasonable confidence that they will fix the problems in the same 
way every way that NASA has fixed it's problems in the past. 
However, we haven't seen the demonstration of Ariane's ability to 
fix problems in a rapid manner. 

ZIEGLER To reinforce what Bill has said I think it's 

incumbent on us to examine all the options at the time we have to 
make the decision as we did back in '81 when we originally 
decided on Ariane and did again in '82 and '83 in the light of 
change circumstances, but certainly we would be remiss not to do 
that, so we couldn't rule anything out. 

FOLEY And my final question, pertains to the mission in 

general. After they deploy your satellite, NASA's 1s going to be 
taking some steps to demonstrate there capability in the future 
to repair satellites and retrieve satellites and I realize that 
they are not going to be able to get to your stationary 
satellites till probably later in the century, since you are 
planning ahead with your satellites system, up to the year 2000, 
are you considering designing any repa i rabi 1 1 ty or refurbishment 
features into your future generation satellites? 

ZIEGLER That certainly will be a consideration in future 

satellites, that has not really been taken in consideration in 
the design of WESTAR 6 or 7 . 

NASA HDQTRS. Okay thank you, there are no futher questions from 
NASA Headquarters. 

Okay, we have no other questions at the other 
Centers, well come back for any follow ups here in Houston in the 
back , back there. 

RICHARD REGISTER: (Spaceworld) I have three questions. First of 
all there are some slight differences between PALAPA and WESTAR 
even though they are the same type of satellite. I wonder what 
the reasons for those differences are? 

ZIEGLER You would have to be specific on what the 

di f f erences are to — 



RICHARDS Okay there's a difference — 



ZIEGLER 
is, but 

RICHARDS 

ZIEGLER 
know. 



--then I can tell you what, why WESTAR is the way it 



Okay 



-But I can't tell you ahy PALAPA, because I don't 



RICHARDS Okay, there's a slight difference between the 

wattage provide by the solar cells, slight difference in size, 5 
slight weight difference, and 2 year difference in life time of 
the sa tel 1 i tes , 

ZIEGLER We've specified what is best for us. 

RICHARDS Uh huh. 



And 
8ut 



ZIEGLER 
can deliver 

PALAPA people have specified 
really don't know the answer 



what of course we have confidence 



why it's 



dl f f erent 
what is 
to that 



from 
best 



PALAPA, I 
for them, 



that Hughes 
m sure that 
and so I 



RICHARDS Alright, I'll go to my next question then. There's 

been some comment that Geo stationary orbit is going to be 
getting very crowded within the next 10 to 15 years. Do you have 
any plans to remove your old satellites from orbit, or are they 
going to continue to fly around up there? 



ZIEGLER 
from orbit, 
higher orbi t 



WESTAR 1 which 
We used the last 



we retired last April , was removed 
bit of fuel in it to put it into a 



Known as the eternal orbit. 



ZIEGLER It's drifting westward at about 1 revolution around 

the earth about every two years, I think. So it's in 1 little 
higher orbit, maybe 100 or 200 miles above the synchronous 
orbit. And we would intend to do that with any other satellite 
that we re ti re a 1 so . 



RICHARDS I see, okay, my last question is why 

there one single overriding factor that led you to 
as your launch vehicle in the first place? 



did you , was 
choose Ariane 



ZIEGLER Well at the time that we faced that decision, which 

was in 1981, the shuttle was just barely getting off the ground 
and I think it was relative confidenc of, there was a new 
expendable vehicle available at modest price and the new shuttle 
at a modest price and at that time we felt the expendable vehicle 
was, we had a little more confidence in it. Events proved we 
were wrong in that decision. 



RICHARDS I see. 



Well there were basically three alternatives 
available back in '81 when that decision was made. The 
traditional Delta launch, Ariane and the shuttle. Ariane clearly 
had a significant cost advantage over the traditional Delta 
launch and was very attractive on that basis. The shuttle, the 
problem with the shuttle at that time as far as our planners was 
concerned was the uncertainty of the program. Back at that time 
we couldn't have a lot of confidence on a projected date* 
Fortunately, the shuttle and the succeeding year and a half, the 
program got very healthy. So it was, the deidsion was as 
compared with the one a matter of cost, and as compared with the 
other matter of planning certainty, 

RICHARDS OKay, thank you. 

Okay, Jul es Bergman . 

8ERMAN Following up on that question, if you gentlemen 

were making that relative decision now, with a healthy shuttle 
versus a healthy Ariane let us say, for the sake of argument. 
Which would you decide? 

ZIEGLER You mean for - - 

BERGMAN Which launch vehicle would you accept? 

ZIEGLER Well let's, I guess the only way I can answer that 

is we do have reservation in our paying for a shuttle launch for 
WESTAR 7. We made that decision a few months ago, 

BERGMAN So what you are saying is you have more faith in 

the shuttle than Ariane. At this point, 

ZIEGLER Wait, I can't rule out that the prices are - - 

If faith is not the only factor. I think, as 

matter of fact we didn't want to the suggest that any real great 

lack of faith was a factor. But the timing was a big factor in 
our going from Ariane to NASA. 

BERGMAN Whral was? 

ZIEGLER Timing. The, we were looking in spring of '83, the 

Ariane launch which had been scheduled for December of '83, and 
we had officially been told, been slipped to April of '83 or 
March of '83 and subsequently as somewhat beyond that, that was 
out there and we were able to get a shuttle launch in January, 
late January of '83, so getting up three or four months ahead of 
time, with the possibility that the Ariane might slip even 
further, was a very important factor to us at that time. 



BERGMAN 



B^ing there first, you mean? 



Z I E G L E R Getting, yeah getting into service and starting to 

get revenue from our satellite. 

It's more getting a revenue flow started* Because, 

you know, the satellites if I'm late, as a program manager, if 

I'm late with a getting a major investment like this into revenue 
produc i ng servi c e . 

BERGMAN And finally — 

It could mean anywhere from 1 to 5 million a month, 

you know, 

BERGMAN 1 to 5 million a month? 

Yeah, depending on the particular circumstances of 

the — - 

8ERGMAN Total revenue flow to you? 

That's right. That's a rule of thumb that you know 

BERGMAN And a final technical question. The Hughes release 

on WESTAR 6 says it carries 24 transponders plus 6 spare 
transponders. Do you, how do you turn the spare transponders on, 
from the ground? Automatically or what? 

By command yes. 
BERGMAN By command. 

8y command from the ground. 
BERGMAN Okay. 

Okay, we'll take two final questions then we'll 
conclude, Howard Benedict. Then we'll take Louie Alexander, then 
we ' 1 1 wrap up . 

BENEDICT Getting back to the insurance question, you said 

that the, you paid 10 percent for Ariane launch and 5 to 6 
percent for space shuttle launch. What does that 10 percent of? 

I believe we've insured WESTAR 4, 5, and 6 for some 
amount close to 100 million dollars. 

BENEDICT 4, 5, and 6, the three of them - - 

Each of them, no, no, each individually. 

BENEDICT And what does that cost you to insure them for that 

price for a 10 year period. 

That 1s what is percentage figure. 



5 or 10 percent of that? 

BENEDICT Oh I see, fine, thank you. 

Okay, Louie Alexander. 

ALEXANDER When you were designing this latest WESTAR 4, NASA 

was already notifying people that they would have the compacity 
to repair them, and presumably all you had to do was put some 
handles on it. I know that's over simplifying it, but the 
question is why didn't you? 

Well lets see, one, I wasn't aware of that, I 
wasn't notified that NASA was planning to be able to repair 
satellites in geosynchronous orbit. Maybe in low altitude orbit, 
but, not, I was aware, but geosynchronous orbit, that's now going 
from 160 miles up to 22,000 miles, and that's a big step. 

Okay, we'll wrap up here, I wanted to let you know 
that, I'm sorry go ahead. 

Excuse me, there was a question that was asked in 
the earlier session about the weight. And I can answer that if 
anybody is interested. WESTAR 6 after it separated from the PAM , 
up before the altitude kick modifier weighs approximately 2,450 
lbs, including 327 lbs of hydrazine. As it's deployed from the 
shuttle with the PAM, the weight is 7,297 lbs, and with the 
cradle, the part that's returned to earth in the shuttle and i t ' «: 
equipment, the weight is 9,721 lbs. 

Okay, I understand the press kits for the WESTAR 
satellite have arrived and are available out in the newsroom. 
We'll conclude this briefing and we'll pick up in just a few 
minutes with a review of the PALAPA satellite back in the same 
room here, in just as soon as we can get reset up here. 



END OF TAPE 



<>lt.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OfFICE: 1964—769 013/4588 



STS-11 MUU BHI EFING 



P42j 12/20/83 PAGE 1 



PAO Our next briefing is on the manned maneuvering unit 

and our speaker is Charles "E" for "Ed" Whit sett Jr. who is 
subsystem manager for the Mannned Maneuvering Unit and also 
deputy chief of the Crew Equipment Branch in the Crew Systems 
Division. Ed will describe the hardware and how the vehicle is 
designed to work. He *ill leave details of the mission to Terry 
Neal who will follow him with an EVA timeline and with that why 
we ' 1 1 - go ahead Ed . 

WHITShTT Okay. Thank you Dave. As probably most of you 

know the MVIU is a miniature spacecraft. It's a small self 
contained backpack that allows the astronaut to fly around 
outside the vehicle. In the first slide I have here illustrates 
that capability. This is the logo we put together for the MMU 
and it shows it as a backpack type of device that is flown with 
the hands. Can we have the next slide please? When you send a 
crewman out EVA you got some work for him to do and when you put 
the \t\IU on him we Hkc to call him and EVA serviceman then. So 
you basically got your EVA suit with the suit though with the 
capability for carrying some tooJs to do some work on TV camera 
and some lights. The MMU is your capability to get around, it's 
your transportation aid. So that what we like to call a complete 
EVA workman, EVA serviceman. Next slide please. This shows just 
a little bit more detail of how the unit goes together. In the 
center view here you have the basic extravehicular mobility unit 
the suit system. And inmost EVA's for shuttle, the suit will be 
the EMU will be the basic technique. We just go out in the bay 
and use handholds and foot restraints and do your job but they'll 
be some EVA's when the crewman will need to go beyond the range 
of the cargo bay. And that's what the MVIU is for. It allows you 
to get out beyond the confines of the bay and do work away from 
the Orbiter some distance. It's a modular backpack type as you 
can see on the left hand side. It's a self-contained propulsion 
system and when you want to use it it's readily attached to the 
crewman's backpack, the PLSS (portable life system) as it's 
called and that gives them the propulsive capability through 
these ' thrusters to fly around outside EVA. Next slide please. 
Before I go into a lot of detail on this shuttle manned 
maneuvering unit though, I'd like to give you a little bit of 
history of wha 4 we did on Skylab and show you a film clip of some 
results that we've had on previous systems. During the Skylab 
mission, we flew the MVIU, or an experimental version of the P.R1U 
during the second and third missions. Total we've got 5 
different astronauts to fly the Skylab MVIU during that mission 
and accumulated about 14 hours of flying time. I've got a film 
clip here which I would like to roll at this point in time and 
I'll show you some video that was taken during the Skylab mission 
that will point out some of the characteristics and capabilities 
that we solved during the Skylab missions. Can we have that tape 
please. The Skylab M\1U is an experimental unit. It was not 
designed for use outside the cabin and for that reason did not 
have the reliability and the thermal protection and things of 



that nature that the Shuttle AMU now has to have. In this first 
scene, you sec Al Bean flying the MMU. This is a very typical 
velocity. The Skyiab workshop as you may recall, is like 22 feet 
in diameter so he could zigzag back and forth across the orbiter, 
the orbital workshop, and do quite a bit of maneuvering. In fact 
we arranged the zigzag trajectory that traveled about 75 feet 
within the confines of the Skyiab. It required them to do a lot 
of maneuvers, changing attitudes, change speeds, change 
directions, so wo got a pretty good evaluation of the flying 
capability of the unit. We* re even able to fly some of the 
maneuvers with the astronauts suited. In t h i s par t i cu 1 ar scene I 
believe it's Al Bean again. He's flying a curved path which is a 
very challenging job which incidently happens to be very close to 
what we 1 re going to do in this mission. But he's flying a curved 
path about the inside of the wall lockers a distance of about 3 
or 4 inches away from the wall. This is from another scene that 
is shot below but you can get some ideas how close he's flying to 
the wall t?ut with complete control, We never had any problem 
bumping into the Skyiab workshop. He's just as able to fly this 
thing as you're able walking around in this room. Another 
maneuver we did during the mission was to have him transport a 
small axis part of the firemans fold as they call it, but he was 
able to fly up to the top of the workshop, station to keep 
himself where he wanted to reach out and attach this member 
through a pit pin arrangmont and again it demonstrated the 
capability of precision capability that the crewman hfld to fly 
with the MVIU. He's got into position and he backs off. In this 
case we put a little white object in the middle of the screen 
into a spin. Al Bean is flying the unit. He's going to ljne 
himself up with the unit with that object spinning and match spin 
rate as you can see he's put himself into a roll. This was taken 
with a sequence camera so it's kind of jerky but he was able to 
match spin rates with his 40 pound object, reach out and grab a 
hold of it, in this case he just stuck it between his legs and 
flew it back across the other side of the workshop. This scene 
was taken from the second Skyiab mission, It shows some results 
of the plume impingement fr<?m the RCS jets. In this case the 
contnand module. These are about 100 pound jets. As you can sec 
there impinging rKther severally on the thermal protection shield 
that was on the Skyiab unit. Fortunately, it didn't cause any 
damage but it does show you that in a vacuum you do have some 
thruster plume impingement problems. Okay, could we hold the 
tape right now please? Okay, could we go back to the slides 
now? Now with that little bit of a history of what happened in 
Skyiab and some idea of the precision maneuvering capabilities, 
the maneuvering unit does provide for the astronaut. I'll get 
back into the descr ipt i on of the hardware that we have for the 
Shuttle manned maneuvering unit. And the viewgraph here shows 
where it's located in the cargo bay. That's the forward part of 
the bay very close to the hatch which is right in this area from 
the cabin. On the 11 and 13 missions we're carrying two MVIU's. 
One on the port side, one on the starboard side just opposite. 
This just gives a view of what it looks like when it's in a 
stowed configuration. Next slide please. So yoy can imagine the 



view on the left is what it looks like when the crewman comes out 

f^s^uJjgp^sTg^oll^a^Koft^U? VS8CPaM?sWfhiR c Ri«g gB?e 

to climb into the foot restraints and that holds him in position 

to do some work on the M4U and that is he has to deploy the arms 

and get it ready to fly. In this particular view he is also 

shown recharging it. It can be recharged onorbit and that's 

what's going on there. Our next view please. After he's gotten 

ready to fly then he turns around and backs into it and slips the 

backpack of the PLSS into the open cavity of the MVIU and it's a 

sort of a feel your way in type of approach. It's not an 

automatic system, the crewman just sort of shifts his shoulders 

back and forth and pushes back with these knobs on the handholds 

right here and latches the PLSS into the MMU and he's ready to 

fly. There are some levers on the support station in this area 

right here that he retracts and the MVIU is ready to fly then. 

Next one. Let me hit some overall characteristics and then I'll 

move down to the mockup and show you some details of the unit 

there. As we talked about it a little earlier, it is a modular 

device to be used in the cargo bay are donned and doffed and 

stowed in the cargo bay. It's designed to operate in the near 

vicinity of the orbiter and by that we mean something like a 

hundred meters. We think about 100 meters the crewmans got good 

visibility, you can see where he is you can detect his range and 

range rate and they'll be no problem whatsoever from a flying 

standpoint. Beyond that you get out at a thousand feet or 2000, 

feet it's gets a little more tricky flying by the seat of your 

pants which is basically what the MllU system is. The M\UJ has no 

telemetry. It does have the B1U for voice comra back to the 

SSk^SE ^,LVRU r ?6^ a ft{|A U is. designed to be. donned and serviced by 
one man during the EVA but in mo§t cases will always a two man * 

EVA. And it will support a six-hour, a nominal six-hour EVA. In 

terms of it's characteristics itself it can translate and 

rotate. It has. a capability of what we call 66 feet per second 

delta v, that is if you used all the propellant at one continuous 

time you can get up to a velocity of 66 feet per second. 

However, in the nominal mode you only fly about 1 or 2 feet per 

second and that amount of propellant would last you 2 hours of 

so. It does use nitrogen as a propellant which is very safe, 

it's very simple noncontami na t i ng , it's very good for this 

Shuttle use and since the Shuttle carries nitrogen for the cabin 

atmosphere is available onboard and you can recharge the !\MJ from 

the Shuttle's nitrogen system. It is designed in what we call a 

fault tolerant system. That is most every system in batteries, 

thrustcrs and so forth operate in a parallel mode, that is, both 

systems are online at all times and if you had a problem with 

thruster stuck or battery went dead you can switch over to the 

other system and continue to fly the unit and get back to the 

Orbiter. If you had a problem beyond that, a second problem 

after that, there is a capability the Orbiter would maneuver over 

and pick up the crewman with the MVIU. It can be moved through 

the hatches if that were need be. The support station you saw in 

some of the earlier viewgraphs holds it for launch. The basic 

weight of the MMU backpack itself is about 340 pounds and the 



support station itself is about 245 pounds. Can we have the next 
one? I'm going to move down here in a moment and we'll work with 
the mockup a little bit and show you some of the details. As you 
can see in the viewgraph the basic position as the crewman in 
this area, the first thing you have to do of course is deploy th$ 
arms and this is done to move them out into a position like so. 
Then after the crewmans got everything set up he turns around and 
backs into it and then he's able to raise the arms up into the 
work position. Once in that position the arm's adjust for the 
length for different size crewman, can accommodate the small 
fifty percent female up to nineyfive percent male in terms of 
size. The backpack PLSS has a slot in the back of it which when 
it backs in these latches grabs and holds the PLSS in position 
and so that's what holds the crewman in the MMU for flying. Npw 
we do have a lap belt which provides a backup capability and 
hooks on to the front of the suit like this so he does have that 
to hold him. Anyway the basic system is flown very much like 
this. Your left hand is used for translating, your right hand is 
used for rotation. It does have an automatic attitude hold 
feature which can be enabled by a button on top of the hand 
controller. That is when the crewman pushes this button down it 
holds his attitude in incrtial reference. One of the real 
advantages of that is if you were carrying some cargo with the 
MWU and this cargo caused the center of gravity to be shifted off 
since the thrusters weren't lined up and when you translated the 
MMU wanted to pitch or roll or have some problem like this. The 
gyros would modulate the jets so that you could translate 
straight ahead. This is also very important when you're flying 
out from 2 or 3 hundred feet away from the Oibiter because then 
you know that yon got inertial reference to work with. System 
has a number of switches on it to power it up and to control the 
different modes of operation. When he's flyin<; ho only has two 
displays if you will. One pair on each side, on the left side up 
in this area right here there are pressure gauges. They aro very 
small but they read out the pressure thats in each tank in pounds 
per square inch. The way the MMU is set when I talked a little 
while 'ago about the fault tolerance capability, it's really two 
systems in one. It's two sets of tanks, two sets of batteries, 
there's a total of 24 jets, 12 on each side so it's a systems A 
and system li , kind of like dual brakes in your car. If you 
noticed there's 4 jets on each side where these dark hose are 
painted where the jets are located so that when you translate 
you're firing 4 jets. Now if you had some problem and had to 
shutdown onehalf the system, system A for example, then 2 jets 
would ba operating and the other two jets would be shutdown. So 
it has complete control capability even if you lost one of 
jets. Down below the pressure gauge is another indicator and 
what this is is a little light an LED indicator, and when the 
jets are firing, when there's an electrical signal sent to the 
jets, then these lights come on, so of course, in the vacuum of 
space the crewman will not be able to hear the thrusters firing 
so if he wants to check the system out and see if it's working 
properly he can look over at these lights and see whats going 
on. When he's completed the mission and wants to get out, get 



VSS&n t^ib 0 ^ 00 ^*!? flC st th i utf . he want s L to do,is A retract the arms, 

job you wouldn't want these arms in your way so you can fold them 

tee^s^laB^S^ -wfffgR you 

can see retracts the PLSS latch, which allows the crewman to come 
out* As you will see there's a latch on each side, either one of 
the latches will let him out, so it can provide some liability or 
fault tolerance in that respect. I'll turn it around a little 
tit, talk about some of the details on the side. In this area 
right here is a recharge connector so that when your back in the 
support station, you can recharge from the orbiter nitrogen 
system. There is a couple of valves up in this area that the 
crewman can reach while he is flying or in the bay, this allows 
him to interconnect the two tanks. Normally the two systems are 
always isolated but if you had a battery problem on one side and 
you wanted to use all the tank, all the gas in your tank, you can 
interconnect the tanks with those two valves in this area. The 
unit has two batteries, which are located in this area of course, 
you can't change them out while he is flying around, he's got to 
come back into the cabin, to get to the batteries, but they arc 
accessible and can be removed and replaced fairly easily, EVA , 
There's some circuit breakers down in this area, which he must 
set to get the thing configured to fly. And, yes the batteries 
arc rechargable, but not in IVfUU, they have to be taken back in 
the cabin for recharge. As you can see its basically a aluminum 
structure. Weighs 340 lbs as I said, with a little more detail 
in the back. The backs ide is domi nated of course by the tanks , 
two large tanks in this area right here. There is a thermal 
coating in the back here that helps control the temperature while 
it's out EVA. There are some lights located, one at the top, one 
at the two bottom sides which are, which we call locator 
lights. They flash sort of like the lights on an aircraft so 
that the crew back in the cabin can see where the crev/man is with 
the MMU on. There is an umbilical that goes to the spacecraft 
down in this area, so that electrical power is supp 1 i ed from the 
orbiter to run the heaters, to keep the P.tVlU warm if you arc in a 
cold environment, so the crewman has to disconnect the umbilical, 
and then transfer to interna 1 power , and he 's ready to go fly. 
I'll leave these arms in the operate position and then go back 
into the other part of the briefing. Can we have the next slide 
please. This shows the crewmans suited, in this case as Bruce 
McCandless doing one of his training runs, in the support station 
with 1\MU own ready to cast off and fly. Went slide please. This 
one doesn't show up very well, but this is what the unit looks 
1 ike wi th the covers removed, as you can sec vhe large tanks in 
this area, these are 3,000 lbs per sq. inch nitrogen tanks. 
Right in t he center is the main electronics box that control 
electronics box as we call it. That's where the gyros are, all 
the thrusters select logic power conditioning and things of that 
nature. Next one. I want to talk just a few minutes now about 
the status of the hardware. I've given you some sort of a 
overview of what it looks like, and how it operates. We've built 



three units under this program which incident iy was built by 
Martin Marietta in Denver, Colorado. The first unit we call the 
qua-test unit. It was used for ground test, certification to 
meet all the environments, vibrations, temperature, things of 
this nature. We have completed all tests on the unit now and 
were going to bring it down to Houston during the mission to keep 
it on standby for support during the mission. For the long term 
we plan to use it to look at design improvements over the next 
few years. We have two flight units, cell number 2, and cell 
number 3, both of these units are now installed in OV99. There 
completed installation, we've done all the tests, after it was 
installed and everything checked out fine- We have one more test 
to to and that's the load of batteries, and that will be done on 
at the pad errly part of January. We have all the training 
hardware on hand, and I'll show you some of that in just a few 
moments, see all the ground support equipment, we're set up and 
ready to fly. This is a picture taken in a neutral buoyancy 
trainer here in Houston. Again 1 believe that's Bruce McCandless 
going through his doning and doffing operations. You can see the 
MVIU mounted in the support station, again li i s feet held in the 
foot restaint down here, Next one. Now he's turned around and 
backed himself in the MUU, latched the r.flIU to the s latched the 
PLSS to the MUU and he has his hands on the levers, getting ready 
to release himself from the FSF. And now he's ready to go fly 
away. In the neutral buoyancy tank you can't fly of course, 
underwater,, all you ^an do is doning and doffing sequences and go 
through the operation of getting out )f the airlock area over to 
the MMU and so forth. To do flying operations, go ahead, we use 
the simulator, that we rent from Martin Marietta in Denver. This 
doesn't give you a very good view of it, except that you can tell 
that it's a full scale simulator. Some of you can may have been 
to Denver, and seen the simulator in operation, but in essence 
it's a moving base carriage. You can see this large tower over 
in this area. And in this case here's a suited crewman going 

liMMBs"!* Kt'Mgf-opBMg'jSaPli&f fft8 d m^? 1 ! te&! l Hi has 

electrical signals are then transmitted, are sent to a computer 
which goes through all the auto mechanics that generate the 
motion. Arid then the motor drive him physically around in the 
room, as though he were in space. One of the things we learned 
from the Skylab mission, was that this simulator docs represent 
very closely the flying characteristics of an MUU. JUght after 
the first flight, in Skylub, Al Hean , radioed back that said 
"Tell those people in Denver, this thing flies just like the 
simulator." As you can sec he stands in the gymbol ring, which 
allows him to turn left and right, there's an axes right here, 
that allows him to pitch forward and back and another axes here 
that allows him to roll* This gymbol itself is mounted on this 
tower, which allows you to got vertical motion, the tower is 
mounted on l trailer that you can't sec here, that allows it to 
go left and right and the trailer goes up and down the room to 
give you complete 6 degree f r ecdom mo t i on . So the simulator 
within the limitations of the room that your in, can physically 
move you around. We do have a full scale mock up of the solar* 



max satellite, in this case, which we were able to use for crew 
training for that mission. Could we have the rest of the video 
tape first, before we go to the next slide please. Would you go 
ahead and roll the other part of the video tape, and while, here 
we go, okay, and here is a picture of the Denver simulator. You 
can see the crewmen from some distance back, attached to the 

iyftSAmMrflWYae &R d tA8 M&t?"!^ § a ^rUF u WgiBn? and 
these are some of the early experiments that we did to see if it 
is feasible to fly up to and match rates with the spinning solar 
max satellite. Just to above the erewmans head you can see a 
solar panel, slowing rotating by, the solar max is only spinning 
about 1 degree per second, so it's not real fast rate. In this 
case you can see the crewman is just about up to the point of 
docking to a trunion pin that pertrudes to the side of the solar 
max. And that grapple fixture on the front of the MV1U is what 
allows it to attach to the solar max satellite. This is another 
view from up above, as you can see it is a very easy task to 
do. It does require a good deal of handcont rol 1 er , coordination, 
but we haven 't had any problems at all with any of the crew, they 
were readily able to do this task without any specific 
training. And most of there training has been related to the 
actual time line of the mission. It doesn't look like it here, 
but since the camera is tracking, both of those things are moving 
at 1 foot per second, 1 degree per second laterally. And that's 
very easy task to do. Okay, we can cut the video now, let's go 
back to the slides. I mentioned earlier to you the hardware has 
been installed at the Cape. This just shows the view of the 
flight support station being lowered into the cargo bay of the 
challenger vehicle down at the Cape right now. It mounts on, 
this one mounts on the port side, on some bolt holes, as located 
in this area right here. Now if the background on the hardware 
and the status of it, let's talk a little bit about the mission 
in terms of the test objectives that we had. Terry Neal is going 
to go through the time line with you in just a few moments, but 
from the hardware standpoint we have some test objectives that we 
want to meet as part of this first mission cn STS-U. The first 
part of these objectives has to do with a activity in the bay. 
That is before he starts flying, the doning and doffing, the 
reach, the visibility, we want to verify that all of those tilings 
are satisfactory in terms of the !VMU design. Of course, just the 
fact that we are flying, we're going through the launch 
env i ronment , the thermal vacuum envi ronment of course, is a 
f ur t her ver i f i cat i on that t he hardware is des igned , and is go i ng 
to work properly. Having completed the doning and doffing, the 
doning activity and the checkout activity, then the crewmen 
begins a series of manucvers, first to check out the hardware, 
the MMU and make sure it's operating properly. And then go 
through a series of manuevers that get more and more complicated 
as it goes. Starting off with small translations, then using the 
trunion pin attachment device which is required for the solar max 
mission, and he's going to fly around during the night part of 
the mission and doing a series of engineering evaluations. These 
are related to looking at how the control system responds, what 



kind of thrust level we get out of the unit, basically how the 

hardware performs itself. So the objective has to do with not 

only with showing but the astronaut can do flying the MMU but 

also how the hardwares performing a? well. And then one of the 

big parts of the test of course, will be to fly the MMU away from 

the shuttle, ranges similar to what we will see in the solar max 

mission, which is about 300 feet. And when you consider this 

will be done without tethers, it will be rather interesting thing 

to take place. This is an overlay wo put together a while back, 

but I suspect we'll see a picture much like this in about 

weeks. Next. This shows, an artist view of what the !Vf\lU will 

look like when we're do the solar max repair mission, which is 

planned for STS-13. Here's what we call the trunion pin 

attachment device and here's a trunion pin that pertrudes, it's a 

ground handling pin that's already on the solar max satellite 

that he's going to dock to. Next one. Once the MMU is docked, 

then the MVIU thrustcrs are used to stop the rotation of the solar 

max satellite. So it only takes a few seconds of thrust and 

we're able to stabilize the solar max satellite, and hold it for 

the shuttle to fly in and pick it up. And this is a mock up of 

one of the earlier versions of a trunion pin attachment device. 

Hefore I give up the rostrum here, let me speak Just a moment 

about some of the future possibilities and I'll go through this 

very quickly, Dave, and then we'll get ready for questions and 

answers. Yqu might ask what MVIU's going to be used for after 13, 

there's a lot of possibilities things, such as transferring 

cargo. May we have the next one please. We're going to go 

through these pretty quickly. Once he gets there, he can fold 

the arms down like I illustrated for you a little earlier, and do 

some work at a work site. Next, This shows a picture of a 

Sl§lft 1 T l 99 rt D£^^ 1 ^Q8« a ii r ?}(;l ro !P 9 l2 n £ duration exposure facility. 
MgniTTcance here is this is a contamination sensitive satellite, 

and the idea is you don't want the shuttle to get in to close, so 

you park the shuttle out 300 or 400 feet away and use the MMU, 

since it has nitrogen or inert gas as a propellant, allows you to 

fly over and work on satellites that are contamination 

sensitive. Next. A little farther down the stream we get into 

the earlier building large antennas and structures and space and 

MViy will have a lot of applications and go ahead, in that 

regime. Like carrying large beams, now you may (think that looks 

kind of silly, guys flying around with a beam like that, but for 

space structure, a beam of that, 100 feet long probably only 

weighs about 50 lbs. So the MVIU is a very feasible way to 

manipulate large beams like that. It will also be struc ural 

cables that will be used to tie these beams together and an MMU 

will be an ideal way to manuever in and out the intricate 

structure and do those kind of tasks. Once it is assemblied 

there's going to be alignment jobs, and your crewman will be able 

About the only thing you haven't touched on Ed is 
the cost per unit. We did have a few questions about that. 



WIIITTSET Okay, as I said earlier the contract is with Martin 

Marietta in Denver. The development cost of the MMU is about 45 
million dollars. The unit cost, that is to by another unit right 
now, would be about 10 million dollars a piece, 

PAO Okay, we'll start with questions and answers here 

at JSC and then go on to headquarters and Kennedy Space Centers, 
and Marshall if such exist. Please identify yourself before you 
speak , Car los? 

CARLOS BYERS - (Houston Chronicle) - Ed would you tell us a 
little bit more about this trunion pin and what Bruce is goinf* to 
do after he hooks onto it, as I understand it he's has some, 
that 1 s just the initial connect i on , and then he bol ts on some * 
something, grapple fixture for example, would you go through that 
for us please. 

WIIITTSET Well we will simulate much of the solar max 

mission, during 1J using a trunion pin attachment device, and we 
will have some trunion pins on the SPAS satellite as well as the 
box it's stowed on. I believe Terry's going to get into some 
more detail on how the trunion pin is used, in terms of the crew 
procedures. Would it be okay to wait and let him cover that? 
Okay. 

SYLVAN RODRIQUEZ ( KTRK ) - How many units arc going to be flying 
on this next mission? How many as i ronau ts wi 1 1 be trained to use 
them on this next mission? And what is the range, how far away, 
can an astronaut, safely travel from the spacecraft? 

W1IITSETT Okay, we're carrying two M\IU's on 11, there both 

installed now. The plan is to fly both of them, although rot 
simultaneous. During the first EVA they'll fly the MMU, probably 
on the port side. Both Bruce McCandless and Bob Stewart have 
been trained to fly the MMU and both of them will fly the PF.U on 
STS-11. The range as I said is about 300 feet. That's not'a 
magic number, your not going to fall out of orbit if you go 
beyond that, but we know it, about 300 feet the crowman has good 
visual cues, in terms of his range and range rate and that's a 
very safe distance to fly. So normally we will try to stay 
within 100 yards, 100 meters of the orbiter. 

DOUG MILLER (KTRJI Radio) - On this particular flight, will they 
be using any sort of umbilical cord? 

WHITSETT No they will not. There was some plans for using 

it for checkout, but a tether is can be a kind of a nuisance. 
Can get tangled, and you can get some angular momemtum problems, 
so what we've done is develop a technique that the crew, B'uce 
and Bob, can check out the MMU before they actually release 
themselves from the flight suoport station, and they can 
determine then, that it's operating properly, and they will fly 
off from there. 



During the EVA's will one of the crewmembers go out 
op will both of them go out, and only one use the MMU? 

WHITS ETT No, both crewman will be EVA . That's standard 

practice, within NASA to have two crewman, to have a buddy 
system. And Terry will go through a timeline that shows that 
actually both crewman will be going to doing activities during 
EVA even though only one will be flying the M\1U. 

Okay, How can you, when your talking about sending 
someone out without an umbilical cord, it conjures up these 
visions of someone flying off and never being recovored again. 
How can you access this, the dangers of this and there's bound to 
bo dangers right? 

WHITS ETT Well perhaps I should have given you a little more 

feel for the _!\MU. It really, it has a lot of reliability, and 
tests behind it in terms of the history of the hardware. It 
really only has a very small thrust. The thrustcrs are 1.7 lbs 
each, so the acceleration is like 100th of a g. It's hardly 
perceptible that the astronaut can feel it, so during crew 
training, we've been through a lot of simulations of failures, 
thrusters stuck on, things of this nature and found that the they 
can, the crew can respond in 1 to 2 seconds, and shut down any 
kind of system that they have. So you can't get into a whole lot 
of trouble. The other s igni f i cant th i ng is the fact that the 
shuttle is rnanueverab le itself. It can fly over and pick up the 
crewman so, if he had, the worst case, twr- failures occur in a 
row, the best, the worst that could happe. , is he is sort of 
drifting slowly, and the shuttle goes over and picks him up. And 
we've, Bruce for example, I know has done some simulations in the 
orbiter, simulator, where he actually flies over and could scoop 
up a crewman in the payload bay, at least get to orbiter, close 
enough to he can reach out and grab a handhold. Or the second 
crewman could grab. 

Oh, I see, so you wouldn't get, you could actually 
get physical^ close enough to reach out and grap a hand 

WHITS ETT Yes, definitely, no question about the orbiter has 

that capability. It's kind of like you know what scopa diving 
did to underwater activity. You know the mobility that you have 
without a tether and things of this nature, just out weigh the 
risk that's associated with and not being firmly attached to the 
shuttle. 



And how similar is this unit to the one that was 
used on Gemi ni missions? 

TOSPPJet to tfil'ltl^onaS^^lWfiUS? ^"'H&e^VfS* 
of characteristics that arc different, for example, that unit 
only had 12 thrusters, it also was a very hot vehicle, as you 
would speak. Had a lot of response, probably difficult to fly 



In terms of a means of propelling yourself around from A to Z and 

3??fe?e,Ue« l TO{ f ^tn^e^nS'unyf^aaTo^afer^tnrggUr^ 1 
And so you had to develop some rather unique techniques, if you 
wanted to move laterally, that turned out to be a severe handicap 
for that unit. So from a flying standpoint it was fairly 
similar. And it's a backpack that uses hand controllers to 
manucver . 

Okay, 

SHERRY ARMET - (MIC) - Ed, how long do you estimate it will take 
each of the crewman to get hooked up to the MMU? 

WHITS GTT Oh, I believe that's in the neighborhood of 15, 20 

minutes. Does that sound about right, Terry? It's relatively 
fairly quickly, but we do want him to look the unit over, and 
look for damage or anything that's kind of unusual, so to spend a 
little bit of time, But if your really concentrating, and that's 
all you wanted to do was jump into in a hurry, you could- get into 
it in 5 minutes or less, no question. 

PAO Jules Bergman. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC News) - Ed, a worst possible cases hypothesis, 
or scenario if you will, 66 feet per second delta V. How far 
away from the shuttle could that get to them at max? And the 
unlikeliness instance of a dual failure by both units, while both 
EVA crewmembers are outside, what would you do? 

WHITSETT Well let me take the last one first, we do not plan 

to fly both of them at one time. There will only be one M\!U 
flying around. Both crewman will be EVA, but they will not be on 
MVIU's. So we only have one \!\1U freeflying, at a time. Now if 
you.did have a problem, or you did get a large velocity 66 feet 
per second, that could give you some problem. You'd have to talk 
to some of the orbiter mechanics, people to tell you how far 
you'd get away, it depends on which direction you went. But 
you've got to recognize to get up to 66 feet per second, it would 
take about 3 minutes of continuous thrusting, and surely the 
crewman can think of something to do to solve that problem in 3 
minutes. He isn't just going to sit there, and just barrel away. 

BERGMAN I wonder about that, as a pilot myself. Though 

both I\I\IU aren't used at the same time, would you use the second 
one if the first had an uncxp la i ncd f a i 1 ure ? 

WHITSETT That's a possibility. You could rescue one crewman 

with the second l\f\iu, the prime mode however right now would be to 
use the Orbiter, to pick up. 

BERGMAN I didn't ask you if it was a possibility I asked, 

what is the mission rule on that? 



him Tlie miss * on rulc would be to use the orbiter to 



BERGMAN Let's say the orbiter had a problem and couldn't be 

used, then what, do we have a guy marooned in space? 



WHITSETT 



You could still use the second MVflJ. 



B£JtC?4AN 

had happened 

WHITSETT 



Even though 
to the first 

Well - 



we didn't 
one? 



understand the failure that 



BERGMAN 



I 'm 



in the beginning, 
scenar io . 



not trying to give you 
I 'm t ry i ng to pose t he 



a hard t ime , as I said 
worst possible case of 



WHITSETT If you put enough failures together, you could 

obviously get into a situation where your going to drift away 
from shuttle* Again you've got to realize each MMU has 
completely redundant systems, you would have to have some kind of 
failure, a dual failure to get significant translation. Again, 
the way the jets are located on the ^IVIU, they are on corners. 
The most likely failure you might have would be a jet struck on 
for example. So you've got only 1 of the 4 jets turning on, 
which is one 25th of a g, I'm sorry, 1/4 of the normal 
acceleration, you would get a rotation out of that rather than a 
translation, so if you had a stuck on jet, if he did nothing, he 
wou Id start spinning, rather than t rans la t i ng . So you ' d , it 
would be kind of hard to get that scenario together, 

BERGMAN So, you regard this as safe? 

WHITSETT Definitely. 

BERGMAN And your for not using a fine tether to begin with? 

WHITSETT Right. I think as I said earlier, that the time 

involved in deploying and managing a tether is not warranted from 
a mission standpoint. 



PAO 
t hen 



go 



Okay, Okay, 
to headquar tors . 



we'll go for two more questions, and 



HOWARD BENEDICT - 
tether bus i ness , 
they are IMJ's or 



Okay, I've got a couple of questions. On the 
Will they come out on tether initially when 
will they have tethers on them at that time. 



WHITSETT No, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. The ground 

rule, is always to be tethered. Until you get into the MVIU and 
then the *MJ provides your mobility, so the procedure will be to 
don the MviU, hook it up, hook the life belts up, and be 
completely attached to the VIVTU before you disconnect the safety 
tether* 



BEiN EDICT - And the second man will always be tet tiered. 
WHITSETT Definitely. 

BENEDICT - Okay, and th.on try to get an idea of speed, how 
long will it take to move say 300 feet? Say over to a solar max 

satellite, or are they just at normal speed? 

WHITS ETT Well right now we're looking at velocities of about 

2 feet per second. Say 1 1/2, say even 3 feet per second, ii's 
only 100 seconds, 300 seconds, so your talking just 2 or 3 
minutes. 

BENEDICT - Okay, will both McCandless and Stewart fly the M\IU 

out of the cargo bay? 

WHITS £Tr Yes , 

BENEDICT - They both will 



WHITS ETT 
manuevers . 



They will go through a very similar set of 



BENEDICT - Okay, will McCandless be on the first RVA and 
Stewart on the second EVA is that right? 

WHITSETT McCandless will fly first, then Stewart will fly 

second during the first EVA, And the second EVA, they will, 
Bruce will fly again. Terry will go through that, it's in there- 
Okay, they both will fly both EVAs , 

BENEDICT ~ And the other question, I missed your answer to the 
question on the maximum distance you can go out awav from the 
shutt le wi th this? 

WHITSETT Well the plan is we would want to stay within 300 

feet of shuttle. 

BENEDICT - What could they go to? 

WHITSETT Well, if you look at the orbiter mechanics, you can 

drift away and be half an orbit away, in the worst case. It's 
the question, it takes a lot of time for that to happen of 
course. 

p AO Okay, Howard. That was Howard Benedict of AP with 

no other question. We'll take one more. Carlos. 

CARLOS BYERS - Try to think of, I've lost track of my question. 
When they go out, is, well I'm sorry, let me start over after 
we've done some other things. 



PAO 



Okay, we can go on to headquarters now please. 



Ques t i ons ? 



CRAIG (X>VAULT (Aviation Week) - Ed, this is Craig Covault, at 
Aviation Week* When Stewart and MeCandless do the long 
translations out to 150 feet then 300 feet, are they going to 
turn there backs on the orbiter and fly out that distance, or 
will they hrt backing out, so they can always face the orbiter on 
t he way ou t ? 

WM ITS EXT I think the plan right now Craig, is to start the 

translation away from the orbiter, then yaw around 180 degrees so 
that they are coasting backwards if you will, away from the 
orbiter, &nd they can see the orbiter during the transfer. Of 
course, during solar max, they will be looking at the 
satellite. But during 11, normally they will keep the shuttle in 
sight. 

PAO Okay. 

COVAULT Okay, and again on the long translation on the way 

out, will Vance Brand be keeping the orbiter rendezvous radar on 
them and providing them voice cues on there velocity and distance 
by the radar? 

WMITSETT I know he will be keeping his eyes on th^m, let me 

check with Terry, 

PAO I think Terry Neal will be handling the EVA 

timeline and will probably answer that as we go along further. 
Anything else Craig? 

COVAULT. A couple more things here, Ed, you know when your 

in the MVTU, and seeing the flashing lights up on the side, it's 
very hard especially if with, your in a helmet. We're you able 
to get on the little fiber optic extensions that come out in 
front .of the helmet, so that they can see those thrusters firing 
cues right in front of there eye. 

WHITS EXT Yes, we did, Craig, in fact, we have those over 

hero, we can't show them to you, but it's a flexible fiber optic 
cable that plugs into the area where the thruster cue light is on 
the M\TU and it comes around the crewmans side, kind of like a 
Mickey Mouse antenna, such that the end of the fiber optic cable 
is pointing toward your eyes. And with that you will be able to 
see the thruster cue lights come on without turning your head, 
which is a normal mode. So those are planned for STS-11, we've 
finished those units and they will be carried in the cabin and 
transferred out when Bruce and Bob go out EVA. 

TERESA FOLEY ~ (Aerospace Daily) - I may have missed this if 
you've gone over it already, do you have a cost estimate on how 
much each p.MJ costs NASA? 

WHITSETT Yes, we estimate about 10 million dollars a piece. 



SUE BUTLER (Time and Space World) - I don't quite understand on 
this mission, each astronaut will go EVA, once without, with this 
MUU one and once with out it. But on this solar max rescue, will 
each of them wear an !\1\IU to go out? 

WHITSETT The plan for STS-13 - 

BUTLER - and bring it in or is one going to be in the 

MV'IU, they are literally hang onto his coattails? 

WHITSETT The plan for STS-13, is that we will carry both 

MVTUs onboard the orbiter, however , we only plan to use one .for 
the mission. One is a backup. So we only need one MMU to do the 
solar max retrieval activity. And as Jules mentioned earlier, we 
really don't want to get to MYIUs out free flying at the same 
time. 

HARRY ROSENFELD ( The Associate Press) - Would you go into a 
little more detail about the locator lights please. Are these 
white strobes as on airplanes? And two, how does the astronaut 
know that he is 300 or 250 or 500 feet away from the spacecraft? 

WHITSETT The lights that are on the MMU are really flashing 

lights, they're i ncondesenate lights, there not strobes. They 
have a visibility of about 1 mile, they flash for about 1/2 
second every 2 seconds, and it's much like a flashing light on an 
aircraft. They are a white light, they are not colored however, 
so that you can tell which end is up. Basically the crew will be 
trained during the simulations to recognize there range from the 
size of the shuttle from different prospectives. Bruce and Bob 
on the STS-11 are going to be carrying a small what we call a 
ranging device, it's a piece of metal rod, thats probably about 
18 inches long, and has some notches in it. And by holding this 
up and looking at the size of the shuttle, payload bay, with 
respect to how big it appears against the notches on this ranging 
device, he will be able to tell his range. But, there quite 
accurate in terms of less than 300 feet, what the range is just 
visually, and through training, and of course, we will have data 
from the orbiter, on what the range is as well. 

ROSENFELD Again, with another question, please. In plain 

English, do they fly, over the shuttle, under the shuttle, around 
it, forward, how do you discribe it? 

WHITSETT Well with the MMU you can fly any position around 

the shuttle that you like. For the mission however, the general 
plan will be to stay over the shuttle if you will. That is, 
you'll want the crew in the cabin to be able to look out the 
windows overhead, or the second EVA crewman, whose in the bay, to 
be able to see the crewman with the MMU at all times. So your 
really talking about flying in the area above the cargo bay, in 
that sort of hemisphere if you will. 



PA0 Horry, I think Terrv 

one on the EVA timeline. 



Neal, is going to handle that 



AUSTIN (garble) - (Independent Network News) - When you *o to <*ct 
the satellite what kind of light tools, do the astronauts have°to 
look at the satellite to do repair or to latch up to 



it? 



WHITSETT 
AUSTIN 

astronauts to 
on to on tins 



I'm sorry I missed part of that question 



What kind of 1 ight wi 1 1 be 
look at the satel 1 i te that 
solar max? 



ava i lable for the 
they are trying to 



latch 



is concorned it's primary job is to fly over the solar 



max 



WIIITSETT What kind of lights? What we plan to do, the 

transfer manuever when you are in daylight* Now the crewmen does 
have two small lights on the helmet, EVA work 1 i gh t s , which will 
£J™ c - somc vis,b *lity in shadow for example. And as far as the 

and stop it's spin and hold it so 
it, then the scenario is that the 
solar max satellite back into the 
arc actually doing the work on it 

that things of that nature, you will have the cargo bay lights, 
as well as most of the mission when you will be in davli&ht 
anyway. J & 



that the shuttle can retrieve 
manipulator will bring the 
bay, and at that time when you 
changing out the modules and 



As far as this new 
revolutionary step is that? How 
av iat ion? 



step goes 
important 



for the MiTU, how 
is it in space 



WHITStflT Well I guess I personally think it's quite a step 

forward. It gives a capability to go beyond the shuttle, to <r e t 

r° nS ?£ 1° wh0 !l e y . 0U can wopk on lar & e structures, nearby 
satellites that you don't want to bring the shuttle in real close 
to. it s sort of like another dimension. Obviously, putting a 
person in to space, gives us capability to see and manipulate and 
work things in space, there M\1U in the orbiter for example or the 



cargo bay with an EVA . And the MVIU 
just beyond that to anything beyond 
a lot more versat i 1 i ty . 



just extends that dimens ion 
the cargo bay which gives you 



And finally, how long before their used routinelv 
by each astronauts, the MMU? 



WHITSETT 



a routine 



How long wi 1 1 be used? 



No, my 
i ns trument 



question is 
used by all 



how long is it before 
the astronauts? 



i t becomes 



WHITSETT 
really an 



Well the HMJ is 
orbiter accessory, 
missions tha; are coming up, 
assembly of large structures, 
see a lot of MVIU flights. If 



more of a payload tool, it's not 
So it depends on the kinds of 
If there is repair work to be done, 
things of this nature, then you'll 
there not those kinds of missions, 



if your just carrying n cargo up and dumping it overboard, then 

VRV J,y* £iL n 9t see th §t many of 1YWU uses. We think that after this 
thing has flown, and people get a Tittle better idea of what !<inc1 

of capability, and extension that the MMU provides that other 

missions will be coming along. But it is a service tool, a 

satellite servicing capability for payloads primarily. 

UOSENFELD Thinking about your answer that the man wearing the 

MMU is always in sight of the astronauts, inside the cabin, 

brings up the question, who corrmun i cates with them. Do the 

people in the ship, communicate, is it from the ground, both? 

WHITSETT Most of the communca t i on is back and forth between 

the EVA crewman and the crewman, well two EVA crewman can 
communicate directly, and the crew in the cabin can hear that. 
There's not a direct communication with the ground ordinarily. 

FOLEY Beyond STS-13 or solar max, do vou know of any 

other mission the MMU will be used on? 

V/HITSETT Well I know a lot that it could be used on. Right 

now there's not a firm mission beyond that. There's some talk of 
landsat repair, things of that nature. But there is not now a 
scheduled mission after 13. 

BUTLER One small clarification again, this is Sue 

Butler. Did you say that the MMU will support 6 hours of EVA 
because later you mentioned that depending on the delta V might 
be 2 hours. Could you clarify how long a guy can stay out with 
the MVIU, and do useful work? 

WHITSETT Olcay, I understand that is kind of a contradictory 

statement. The suit capability is 6 hours, so your going to have 
to come back in the cabin after G hours anyway. From a power, 
electrical power standpoint the MMU has enough battery power to 
operate continuously for 6 hours. Flow much, how long you can fly 
on one tank of gas though depends on how vigorously you're 
manucvering. If your just coasting and just puttering around the 
bay so to speak, then one charge of gas may last you three or 
four hours. If you're vigorously flying around the whole orbitcr 
exterior, and flying relatively fast, you may use that gas in 
about an hour. So what you would have to do is recharge the tank 
from the orbiter during that period. So your upper limit is 6 
hours, you may have to charge your tank 2 or 3 times during that 
6 hour period if your going to fly continuously. 

PA0 We're ready now to come back to Houston, there are 

no questions at Kennedy Space Center, or Marshall I understand. 
Car los . Car los Byars . 

BYARS Get back to the question I got scrambled a while 

ago Ed. If you have a situation where a man in the MMU has a 
problem and you want to go get him, and you of course, have his 
buddy is out in the payload bay, would that person, that 



astronaut then go back into the cabin or at least into the 
airlock, before you start doing the shuttle manuever to go get 
the person that is adrift? 

WIUTSETT I think the plan would be to station the second 

crewman like in the flight support station, someplace where he 
was in foot restraints and let him aid in the recovery. That is 

^of a Sr S lfi2 d a^ e S8d a B^lJ e fiffi BWkBTato^lie 0 ^ C £o w P a a<>n- Y t H'fi i nk 
there's any concern about manuevering with the crewman as in the 
bay as long as he's tethered and holding on to something. 

BYARS And to follow up with that, are you, does the 

description that you just gave is a bit of various of what we 
have, the impression we have been given earlier. Which was the 
shuttlq would might move over close to the individual and the 
problem in the M?1U and the arm would be manuevered out and let 
the man grasp the arm, hand over hand, down the arm into the 
bay. Would it, I'm sure you would use what ever happens to work 
best, but is there a first and second choice sort of thing here, 
or what has, what have you really got planned? 

WHITSETT Well I think you probably talking to some RMS 

people, That certainly a possible technique, if you don't have 
an RMS on board, then obviously you can't do that. I don't know, 
Terry might be able to address that in terms of some of the other 
thinking, I do know that a lot of the planning has been done 
independent of the R?.IS . For example the RMS may be stowed, and 
ypu don't want to spend time it takes to deploy the arm, when you 
can manuever the orbiter in close enough. But it's true, the arm 
could be used to aid in that if that was desirable. 

PAO Roy. 

ROY HEAL (NBC News) - Ed, what's the utility of the helmet TV, . 
how will it be used? Black and white, what? 

WM1TSETT The current TV is block and white, I know there was 

some plans to have a color TV for 11, I don't know, the plan is 
they will have the color TV on 11, the primary advantage of that 
is that will be broadcast back to the cabin and recorded and in 
some cases downlinked, so that you will be able to see what the 
crewman is seeing, while he is doing his activity. So you will 
be able to see the view of the orbiter, if he is looking at the 
orbiter, or the spas satellite, whatever he is looking at you 
will be able to see. The primary purpose of it was to aid in 
getting an idea of what the crewman was doing in terms of work 
activity at a work site, or something of this nauture. 

NEAL Who controls the downlink? 

WIUTSETT You mean 



NFAL 



In other words, who controls the output of that 



camera so that we can discuss somewhat know ] edgeab 1 y who the hcek 
is looking at wh a t w i t h i t ? 



WI UTS ETT I can't answer that question, maybe some one else 

qan. 

NEAL The crew does? 

WHITS ETT The crew. 

Nlv\L Onboard? Okay, in this case who would be 

controlling on board? 

PAO Wa 1 1 - 

WALT PER EK - Roy, get part of my question, the other was how docs 
the astronaut check his consumables, his fuel, his nitrogen, how 
does he know how much he's used, how much he has left? 

WHITS ETT Okay, perhaps you can get a close of up of that 

gauge on the side of the MVtU. It's not a real large guage but 
there is a pressure gauge that reads out from 0 to 4000 lbs per 
square inch. And he can tell by that guage, in relative terms 
how much propellant he has left. Ordinarily we'll plan to come 
back to the cabin when that guage got down to between 1000 and 
600 , say 600 l ( bs per square inch. And so thats his primary 
source of knowing his gas level is, 

WALT Second question, will there be a TV camera on the 

end of the arm, the RMS, so that we can--? 

WHITS ETT Yes, there will be quite a selection of TV on board 

so I guess the crew will have to — 

WALT - Will be using all these positions, TV positions 

to watch the M»IU? 

WHITS ETT Right, and in fact, in some cases for the 

engineering evaluations, we will be using certain TV's to got 
data in terms of velocity and angular rate and tilings of that 
nature. 

PAO Question over there. 

WENDY BELLS BERG (ABC News) - Did I understand you correctly when 
you said during the course of each EVA, both McCandless and 
Stewart would have an opportunity to fly the MMUs or was that on 
the two separate EVAs . 

WHITSETT Well there are two EVAs planned for 11, both of 

them will fly the MVIU, at least one MVTU both during both EVAs. 

BELL SB ERG During both, okay is there a design, is there a set 
task for what each will do? 



WHITSETT 



Yes . 



BELLSBERG And are they separate, are they going to split the 
t I me in ho 1 f • 

WHITSETT No, no, no, they overlap, we want both of them to 

<lo certain manucvers, and we also want certain manuevers flown 
with bo tti MUUs so, Terry will go into how that matrix is put 
together, in a little more detail in a few minutes. 

PAO John Petty. 

JOHN PETTY (Houston Post) - How long does it take to recharge the 
device with the propellant, is that a pretty quick procedure. 

WHITSEIT It only takes about 2 mintues for the tanks to 

fill, it will take a few moments, probably 10 minutes in order to 
get the !\t!U back into the support station, you have to take it 
off and turn it around and face it to recharge it, so it's 
probably 15, 20 minutes total, by the time you take it off and 
put it back on. But the actual time it takes t lie nitrogen to 
fill up the tanks is less than, something in the neighborhood of 
2 mi nu tes . 

PAO In the back over there. Gentlemen with the 

glasses, with, in the gray suit. Any other questions? 

DOUG MILLER (KTRH) - Are you folks designing any sort of new 
accessories at this point, you've already got the equipment ready 
for the solar max mission, but arc you looking ahead and figuring 
what sort of accessory you might use on future missions? 

WHITSETT Oh, not specifically, in terms of things like the 

trunion pin attachment device, that provides some utility* There 
is a, I think, for a long term in need for some other way to 
attach the JVWU, to a more general purpose technique. But I guess 
as we found out during solar max, at least in the near term, a 
lot of those things are going to be unique to each satellite. 
And most of them are fairly not to complicated design, maybe like 
a set of vice grips, or something, that you clamp on the thing, 
so we have not, we do not have any specific activity for anything 
like that going on right now. We are looking at some 
improvements for the IttVIU over the long term, such as putting in a 
caution warning capability. But thats more MWU related and not 
accessory related. 

PAO One qupstion over there, right in the front of you. 

LINDA OOEFER (National Space Institue) - Are any female 
astronauts training on this, and is it just a unisex model, like 
it doesn't have to have any adjustments for size or anything? 



WHITSETT 



Well, the MMU is adjustable size wise, the arms 



quite a bit of training, in the mutual buoyancy tank and the 
simulator in Denver. So she's had quite a bit of experience with 
the unit, I think Kathy Sullivan, has done some lift test, and 
some simulator work, and maybe a couple other on the simulator in 
Denver. So we don't see any problems size wise, or capability, 
or any th i like that. 

PAO We can take about 2 more questions, and then we'll 

resume. 



BERGMAN £d to head off any sexism here, sexist questions, 

is it not official that on what was 17, and is now 41, god knows 
what ever, Kathy Sullivan will do an CVA? Will be one of the 
crowmembers doing an EVA? 

WHITSETT Jules, Anna is hardware, and not mission, so why 

don't we save that for a later question. 

WHITSETT Terry is coming up shortly, 1 do not know the crew 

on 17 



BERGMAN 1 thought so. 

WHITSETT Okay. 

PA0 One other question, and then we can, wc understand 

the next session will start at 2:15 instead. Anyone? We'll turn 
it over now to Terry Neal. I think we start it at 2:15 Terry. 

END OF TAPE 



,-U S GOVERNMENT PRIMING OFflCC 1»«~769 0I3/4S89 



FLIGHT 41-8 PREMI SSI ON CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



12/21/83 



PAO Hi, good morning, welcome back to the briefing with 

the crew for 41-B. Let me introduce my friends up here from your 
left to right, are Bruce McCandless, Ron McNair, Bob Stewart, 
Hoot Gibson, and Commander Vance Brand and Vance will begin with 
some remarks and then we'll invite your questions, 

8RAND Well good morning, real pleasure to see you, we'd 

like to explain whatever we can about our mission coming up late 
in January, We think it's a very exciting mission. I feel I 
have an outstanding crew. We're working hard right now, I think 
we're about 99 percent trained. But the last month is going to 
be very intensive. We hope to really peak up on training on this 
last month and hopefully reach the peak one day before lift 
off. We have among the exciting things that are happening, cf 
course, I think you've been briefed on most of this, but we have 
first and foremost, the two deployments. The Westar and the 
Palapa. We have a lot of other things going on, a large part of 
the mission is devoted to getting ready for the mission that will 
follow ours. We will be testing out equipment and procedures for 
the repair mission, which follows our flight. Now the testing 
and all will include flying the backpack, the MMU, EVA, 
rendezvous, a large number of things. We think that filling out 
this we have a large number of experiments that will keep us 
busy, too. So I know you want to ask your questions, so let's 
just go right into them. 

PAO Okay. Standby here, let me get a microphone to 

you, and please identify yourself and your affiliation. I heard 
a voice but I didn't see where it came from. Okay, Bob Nicholas, 
Channel 2, George, Way back there please. 

NICHOLAS (Channel 2, Houston) - We've had a lot of missions like 
this. What's the most important element of this particular one? 

BRAND It's, I think you have to clearly say that the most 

important element is the objective of deploying the satellites. 
That's not to say that that's the, what would be the riskiest 
element, or the element that would cause us to be the most 
watchful. I think the element that really we are paying a lot of 
attention to is the EVA, because it will have these firsts, 
untethered flight and that sort of thing. 

PAO John Getter. 

GETTER (Channel 11, Houston) The other day, John Young said he 
hopes to stick around at least long enough to see the shuttle go 
fully operational, something we thought had happened on your last 
flight, Vance. But I'm wondering if the test that you'll do on 
this flight, primarily MMU, and on the next flight with 13, are 
the last real developmental tests for the shuttle. Once this is 



FLIGHT 4 1 - B PREMISS I ON CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 2 



done assuming all goes well and Is proven, will there be anything 
else to prove, or will you be fully in business? 

3RAND We'll we like to think of development cutting off, 

operational flying beginning. I think we are largely operational 
but in fact there's a blending out cf the development. Like on 
this flight the MMU work, the rendezvous is development. On 
later flights, we'll have other development things, but we are 
blending it out slowly. 

PAO Jules Bergman, 

BERGMAN (ABC News) - Vance you said the depl oyment of the 
satellites is the most important part of the mission. Clearly in 
a commercial sense, proving NASA's viability, that is so. But 
that seems to downplay the proving out or testing of the 
backpack. Do you and Bruce want to talk about that a little bit? 

MCCANDLESS Is that what you were doing? 

BRAND I don't thing that I was trying to downplay that at 

all. The deployments pay our way up and back. Maybe not 
completely, but that's our reason for the mission, and everything 
else that's on the mission even though much of it is extremely 
important is along with the deployments. Now, I think I ought to 
turn over the rest of this question over to Bruce though, because 
as one of the EVA crewman, why, he's looking at the EVA's with a 
very close eye. 

MCCANDLESS Well, Vance, I couldn't agree with you more. The 
situation that we are in, of course, is that we have taken the 
subsequent mission, STS-13 or 4 1 - C as the Solar Maximum repair 
mission. And the assignment of the EVA or spacewalk test 
objectives to this particular flight was the coincidence of it 
being the one that was scheduled to precede 13, by a reasonable 
amount of time to allow us to make any engineering changes that 
might be indicated by a flight test of the MMU on'this flight. 
So that the flight was in existence for the purpose of deploying 
the Palapa and Westar satellites before the MMU EVA test 
objectives came along and were assigned to it. So we certainly 
think that the spacewalk and the manuevering unit test objectives 
are important, but they came along after the PAM deployments 
caused the flight to come into existence, and caused it to remain 
in existence. 

PAO Teresa let's let Jules follow that up, please. 

BERGMAN Bruce, you've been working with the backpack or the 

MMU, a long time, Can you give us some Idea of what your 
personal excitement when you go off untethered like Buck Rogers? 

MCCANDLESS Well, I'm personally very gratified to have been 
able to follow the manuevering unit efforts from it's inception 
to fruition. In most situations in Industry and government these 



FLIGHT 41 - B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 3 



days people tend to be associated with a project for* 2 or 3 years 
at a time and then to cycle on to something else. And I'm 
pleased to have the satisfaction of being there from the 
beginning to the end, in fact, that things have worked out so 
that Bob and myself, are the first people that will actually be 
flying the manuevering unit in space. 

PAO Roy Neal , NBC . 

NEAL (NBC) Alright this is for Bruce, and Bob and for Ron 
too. I would like to discuss, have you discuss for us the 
interplay between the mission specialists during the EVA's, 
because perish the thought that you'd deploy those satellites and 
then not do the EVA's. So if you will, we woulJ like to get some 
kind of idea of how the three of you will be working. You, of 
course, Bruce, and Bob outside and Ron inside, how will you work 
together in space to make those EVA's perform? 

MCCANDLESS We'll let me lead off on that, Roy. As you 
observed, Bob and I will be outside, actually performing the 
EVA's. Ron will be operating the TV system and the remote 
manipulator arm. And Vance will be, what we call IV1, where the 
inter-vehicular or i ns i de - the-or bi ter crewman who is coordinating 
and directing everything, ;.id Hoot will be flying the orbiter and 
taking care of any problems that may come up during the EVA, with 
respect to Orbiter systems, configurations and this sort. So 
really it's a five man team effort, and during the second EVA, 
when the SPAS is hoisted aloft on the RMS, Hoot will be operating 
the SPAS systems and experiments while Ron is operating the 
manipulator, and Vance is in overall command of the vehicle and 
what's going on during the EVA. 

PAO We'll take another question here, and then we'll go 

to the other centers and come, (garble) oh, okay. Alright. Bob. 

STEWART I guess the interaction between Bruce and myself 

outside is kind of sketchy. We sort of pass each other enroute 
to doing something else. For instance when we go outside on the 
first EVA, I'll prepare the TPAD, help Bruce to get into it, then 
while he's docking with the TPAD, the Trunion Pin Attachment 
Device. I'm off doing something else, and usually interacting 
with Ron at that time, because the manipulator foot restraint 
will be on the end of the RMS and Ron and I will be in direct 
communications all the time and manueverlng this manipulator foot 
restraint. The same holds true for the second day EVA when the 
SPAS is up and rotating, we'll be talking with Ron quite 
extensively during that time period. 

NCNAIR As Bob has mentioned, the large part of the 

manipulator foot restraint activity is communication with myself 
and the guys who are on the end of the arm. We've rehearsed this 
quite a bit and we're operating throughout the payload bay very 
close to the vehicle, so it is very crucial that we know, the 
communci a tion 1s very clear and concise. During the EVA, 



FLIGHT 41-B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 4 



particular the second EVA, I will be primarily involved with 
media trensmission. Keeping track of these guys as they are fly 
around the vehicle. And that's, can be sort of tricky at times, 
however, Bruce will have TV on his space helmet, and we'll try to 
make sure he keeps it pointed so everyone can see what he is up 
to. So the interaction is communication to a very large extent. 

NEAL Will you be switching the video, will you be 

switching the video during those EVA's, Ron, or will that be done 
on the ground, or by Bruce, or ... 

MCN A I R It will be done primarily by myself, Hoot and 

Vance, and some will be done by the ground, but for the most part 
we'll be controlling that, 

PAO Okay, I'll take another question here in Houston. 

And then we 1 11 go to the other centers and then back here 
again. Carlos Byars ^rom the Chronicle, please. 

CARLOS BYARS - (CHRONICLE) - The other experiments that you have 
on board including the SPAS and the rat cages and what have you, 
are those going to take, do they require very much crew 
i nvol vement at all? 

BRAND Let me start out on that, yes they do. A lot of crew 

involvement. Fortunately, we have an 8-day mission. We have 5 
crewman, so we're well personed or well manned to do this. I 
think though I should let Ron comment on some of the details of 
that, cause Ron is following that most closely. 

MCNAIR We have a number of experiments ranging over quite 

a few disciplines. The involvement in some is more extensive than 
others. Primarily, we are monitoring the health of the systems, 
that things are going well, taking in some case video, monitoring 
the state, the health of the system. But the, there are as you 
have stated, a number of these pathfinding experiments, for the 
most part I would say 80 percent of what we are carrying is 
first-time feasibility engineering evaluations of experiments to 
come later. 

PAO Now to NASA Headquarters in Washington. 

NASA HDQTRS Here with questions. 

CRAIG COVAULT - (Aviation Week) - And I've got questions for both 
Ron and Bruce. Ron when ynu're running the RMS with Bruce and 
Bob on the end of it, will all of that activity be with you 
running the arm in the manual augmented mode or will you trust 
any of that activity at all to auto sequences? 

MCNAIR All of that activity will be In manual augmented 

mode. If we lose our manual augmented capability, then we will 
end that phase of the mission, the name of the MFR activity, 
however the EVA will continue which also involves MMU activity, 



6 >**»'*S10H C, EU 



FLIGHT 41 

" ' "Mission 

PRE *S COHFERENCE 

P ar t Of tk 



which f s . . p AGE 5 

,s a major 



FLIGHT 41-B ^REMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 6 



COVAULT And for 8ruce» earlier we were discussing what you 

were calling an Orbiter fly-around, always staying above the 
plane of the wings. Has that fallen out entirely or are you going 
to have the flexibility to, you or Bob, really, to have the 
flexibility to go out and perhaps fly back around the engine 
bells and up around the nose? 

MCCANDLESS Craig we don't see a requirement to get into the 
lower areas of the Orbiter. Me are still planning to stay 
generally above the plane of the wings in the vicinity of the 
payload bay back to the vertical stabilizer and then, of course, 
flying around the SPAS when it's held up on the end of the Remote 
Manipulator System. Basically, we are going to stay in view of 
the cabin windows at all times, if that answers your question. 

COVAULT Well, generally it does, but a little more 

specifically, Bruce, will you be going down more or less level 
with the plane of the engine bells so to speak, and actually 
coming around in front of the nose? Getting in those areas? 

MECANDLESS Right now we have no requirements to do so. We 
don 1 1 plan to . 

TERESA FOLEY - (Aerospace Daily) - The last three shuttle flights 
have had a lot of experimentation, dealing with space adaptation 
syndrome. I was wondering if you're going to continue by doing 
any experiments on this flight, and whether anything that's been 
learned over the past six months or so in the shuttle, the past 
shuttle flights, will be put into effect for this flight as a 
preventive measure for space sickness for your crew? 

BRAND Let me hit that one. During the flight we have no 

experiments devoted to that. To space adaptation syndrome. We 
do have quite a bit of testing going on before the flight and 
after the flight. I believe some missions, this is emphasized 
more than others. On our mission, it's felt that we are pretty 
much loaded up with a lot of work, mainly involving the 
preparations for the following mission which is to repair the SSM 
satellite and the deployments, so that's probably why were not 
emphasizing medical experimentation o*> our flight. 

AL SALSTEAD (Baltimore Sun) - Could Mr. McCandless or someone 
else explain in a little detail how long you will be in this 
untethered mode? Precisely what you will be doing while you are 
untethered? 

MCCANDLESS Okay, I would be happy too. As you may be aware, 
we have two EVA's or spacewalks planned fcr the mission. Each 
one of these is approximately 4 1/2 hours in duration. During 
the two EVAs we plan five separate sorties or flights with the 
MMU . Two on the first spacewal k and three on the second. On the 
first EVA, the sorties will be about an hour and a quarter or an 
hour and a half in duration. On the second EVA, they'll be 



FLIGHT 41-8 PREHISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 7 



running a little less than an hour for the first two and about an 
hour for the last one. On the first spacewalk or EVA the primary 
objective is basic flight test of the MMUs and their handling 
characteristics. I'll be flying the first sortie and Bob the 
second one, the protocol is approximately the same on each of 
these. We will check out the MMU, we will fly some fairly 
conservative manuevers in the Immediate vicinity of the payload 
bay and we will then move out to approximately 50 yards, return 
to the orbiter, go out about to 100 yards, return to the 
orbiter. We will also be flying in close proximity to the 
payload bay during periods of darkness, using the payload bay 
lighting and various combinations of the helmet lights in 
evaluating their efficacy for manuevering with respect to the 
orbiter. We will pick up a device whose acronym is TPAD, It 
stands for Trunion Pin Attachment Device. Basically, this is a 
mechanism that will allow the crew on STS-13 to attach themselves 
to the solar maximum spacecraft as it is rotatinp and then use 
the MMU to stabilize it for pickup by the Remote Mani pul a tor 
System on the STS-13 mission. We have two dummy trunion pins on 
11. One of them is located on the top of the stowage locker, 
called the SESA or special equipment stowing assembly. The other 
is attached to the back side of the German shuttle pallet 
spacecraft or SPAS. I will be docking to the one on top of the 
SESA, on the first EVA, Bob will be using the one on the back of 
the SPAS on the first EVA, On the second EVA we plan to hoist 
the SPAS out of the payload bay on top of the RMS and cause it to 
rotate at approximately the same speed es the Solar Maximum 
Spacecraft, one degree per second, and we will both be making 
evaluation runs of the TPAD, or Trunion Pin Attachment Device 
docking against the SPAS while it's rotating. The final sortie, 
which is near the end of the second EVA will be a period of about 
an hour of engineering evaluations with the MMU. These are 
generally not very dynamic-type activities wherein we try to 
verify the performance of the control system with respect to the 
center of mass, verify that the sublimator exhaust from the 
cooling system on the life support system is not giving us 
torques on the MMU and things of that sort. Does that answer 
your question? 

FOLEY For Vance Brand or Hoot Gibson. Could you tell us 

a little about landing? Will you be using the auto land system 
at all during that and what kinds of weather conditions will be 
the baseline to land at the Cape? 

GIBSON Vance, that sounds like you. We're looking forward 

to landing at the Cape very much. And we're hoping the weather 
is going to cooperate with us. The weather requirements probably 
are going to be the overriding factor in whether we get back to 
the Cape or not. We are not planning to use autoland. We are 
going to have the vehicle drive Itself down until we get 
approximately subsonic, at which point our commander 1s going to 
take it over, and Vance will actually do the landing. Both Bob 
and I will be assisting with him, looking over his shoulder and 
helping call out some of the key events as we approach landing, 



FLIGHT 41-8 PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 8 



we hope at the Cape* But the autoland test Is scheduled for 
another couple missions down the road, so this will be another 
pure manual landing for Vance, 

FOLEY Can you land with any clouds at all, or storms in 

the area around the Cape? What are the requirements as far as 
having clear skies there? 

GIBSON I think it reads something like, correct me if I'm 

wrong, Vance, I think 1t reads something like a 10, 000- foot 
overcast, is the kind of weather minimums that we need. We don't 
want to fly Ihrough rain at all, and so we will avoid 
thunderstorms very actively* We'll avoid thunderstorms very 
actively. We will avoid all kinds of rain and so we have some 
kind of stringent requirements on it. The visibility down low is 
going to have to be pretty good. So any kind of ground fog is 
going to knock us out of there and that's, of course, what 
happened on flight number 7. It was the low ground fog that 
knocked them out. So we have relatively high standards, I guess, 
but we're hoping that the weather in Florida at that time of year 
is going to cooperate with us. 

COVAULT For I guess both Bruce and Bob, briefly how many 

hours will you have logged in the simulator at Denver by the time 
you fly? Bruce, of course, has many more than Bob, 

MCCANDLESS Bob? 

STEWART Well, Craig, that's an embarassing question because 

I can't really give you a number. I would put that number 
somewhere around 30 hours, but that is strictly a guess on my 
part. 

MCCANDLESS I have to--- 

COVAULT Well, a follow on for Bruce there, as Jules said, 

you've got about 15 years on the development and probably several 
hundred hours by now in the simulator at Denver. Quickly, can you 
cite a couple of things you're really especially interested in 
seeing how the manuevering unit handles from a flying standpoint 
other than just normal OPS, are there a couple of things that 
your really curious, how will turn out? 

MCCANDLESS Yes, Craig, as a matter of fact, there is. One of 
the things we have been unable to simulate totally is the 
performance of the flight control system in the presence of 
crewman body motions. That is we have designed the flight 
control system with a filter In 1t, a limb motion filter. And we 
have picked the logic so as to minimize the thruster firings that 
you get when the crewman makes a conservative body motion by 
starting his arm moving and then stopping 1t, a normal standard 
flight control system would fire a thruster when you started your 
arm moving, and another when you stopped it, but we have tried to 
filter this out and with the testing that we've done on air 



FLIGHT 41-B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 9 



bearings at the Martin Company and by analysis we believe that 
we've gotten the control system to the point where we're not 
going to be wasting any gas with this sort of movement. But the 
human body is basically a non-rigid structure and the pressure 
suit provides a certain constraint to that, so I'll be interested 
in specifically seeing how that works out. Other than that, we 
anticipate seeing a performance that is very, very close to what 
we've gotten on the simulator in Denver, We had the crews from 
the Skylab mission come back immediately after their flight, go 
back to that simulator which was configured for the experiment 
that was flown on the Skylab and they reported a very high degree 
of correl at ion . 

SUE BUTLER (Time and Space World) - This is I guess for Bruce and 
for Bob. You mentioned you are going to fly in close proximity 
untethered. Yesterday we were told you could fly up to 300 feet, 
even 1,000 depending on the fuel consumption of the MMU. Exactly 
how far do you oxpect to get out, how do you define close 
proximi ty ? 

MCCANDLESS I guess since I used the word close proximity, 

I'll take a crack at it. The manuevers will start out in close 
proximity to the orbiter by which we mean basically within about 
50 feet in, or 50 to 55 feet, that's the distance that the SPAS 
will be lifted up by the RMS on the second EVA, we'll be flying 
to. The hundred yards or the 300 feet number comes from the fact 
that's about the distance that the Orbiter will be standing off 
from the Solar Maximum spacecraft, that is 200 to 300 feet, on 
STS-13, so as to minimize the effect of the RCS plume empingments 
on Solar Max, As a consequence, we will be going out to that 
distance and then back on STS-11 to verify the procedures aid the 
techniques for doing that. We do not intend to go beyond 331 
feet to the best of our ability to measure 300 feet. But it 
might turn out to be 250 feet or conceivably 340, 350 feet. 'We 
certainly aren't planning on g ing out to anything like 1,000 
feet. The propellant on the MMU is used to start and stop 
motions so that theoretically there is no limit to the distance 
that you could manuever. From a practical and operational 
standpoint, we'll be staying within a hundred yards. Bob, did 
you want to comment on that? 

STEWART I think that sums it up, Bruce, 

TOM O'TOOLE - (Washington Post) - For Vance Brand, could you tell 
us 1f anything you've been told, briefed on, the problems of the 
GPC's and APU's of the last, that John Young's crew had, and what 
possible impact it may have on the time of, date of launch? 

BRAND Frankly, I'm a lot like the rest of you. I'm 

standing by to find out what comes out of the evaluation and the 
analysis of the computers and the APU's, the power units. Matter 
of fact, we are very interested, we hope there will be no impact 
as far as launch date Is concerned. We hope that when they 
understand what happens, that any fix to this will be any easy 



FLIGHT 41-B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 10 



fix, will not require a long time. We, I think, in short, we're 
waiting for the people to analyze, to do it, and to get there act 
together because they don't want to tell us what the story is 
until they've had a chance to look at it completely. 

JIM SLADE (Mutual Broadcasting) - For Bruce McCandless. A data 
point, Bruce, can you give us some idea of what usage of gas is 
anticipated in stabilizing Solar Max on the MMU? 

MCCANDLESS Actually, the stabilization task is fairly straight 
forward with respect to propellant usage. I can't give you a 
number right off the top of my head, but about a year ago we made 
a back of the envelope calculation that said that with one half 
of the propellant on the MMU you could handle approximately 20 
degrees per second In each of the three axes of Solar Max, And 
is currently rotating at one degree per second about 1 axis. So 
that the actually amount of propellant used to stabilize it will 
be very, very small indeed. 

COVAULT Again, one for Bruce. Correction, one for Vance 

and then one for Bob Stewart. Quickly Vance, if the balloon 
fails to inflate, would you still have a viable rendezvous 
target? And then for Bob Stewart, although your on loan there to 
NASA, you are I believe going to be the first Army Officer ever 
to fly in space. And in that regard are you trying to take an 
active interest to maintain good manned flight feedback into the 
Army to see if the Army would be interested in expanding it's 
options to take advantage of manned space flight? 

BRAND Okay, my part of the question, if the balloon fails 

to inflate* we feel that we would have a viable target to, out to 
a few miles, that we probably would think twice before backing 
off 150 miles and then coming back to rendezvous because with our 
radar we probably couldn't see it well enough. So we have back 
up plans in case the thing does not fill up completely with 
nitrogen. The balloon is about 2 yards in diameter. It's a 
fairly large target * when it does inflate we 11. Our backup plans 
would be basically to do our first day rendezvous activities 
which keep us within about 8 miles of it. And then tack on 
perhaps at the end of that an extra revolution of rendezvous 
activities, 90 minutes, which would include the last part of the 
standard rendezvous from what is called the TI manuever, on in to 
becoming in close proximity to the target. I think the problem 
is to know whether the balloon has deflated or not. That will be 
the interesting thing to find out if we have any problem with it, 
because you know it could partially deflate, and be a radar 
target, but not 100 percent good radar target. 

STEWART As for my part of that question, Craig, I'm 

extremely thrilled to be the first Army participant in the Space 
program. I'm looked as a return of the Army of to the Space 
program, rather than initialization because the Army Ballistic 
Missile Agency lies at the very foundation of rocketry and 
spaceflight in this country. As far as liaison with the Army at 



FLIGHT 41 - B PREMI SSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 11 



this time, I am not been actively liaison with the Army, however, 
I do follow the fact that the Army is going to participate with 
the Air Force in the joint Space Command that is being developed 
at this time. Any participation that I have with the Army would 
be as an advisor or in answering questions that they might have, 
rather than in active participation in such a program, 

PAO Before we go to Kennedy, I think we owe Craig an 

answer on a number of hours you've got on the MMU simulator, 
Bruce do you have a guess on that. 

MCCANDLESS 1 would have to say several hundred, 

PAO Did you want to add something on the RMS operation 

mode Vance, you started to say something that-- 

BRAND Well yes, I just wanted to point out earlier, that 

actually we have on the crew two specialist in the RMS area. We 
have Ron of course who will be waving Bob around at the end of 
remote manipulator. Hoot will be latching on to the German 
satellite pallet, the SPAS with the RMS, the Canadian arm, 
picking it out of the Payload Bay and spinning it so that Bob and 
Bruce can dock to it. So I just wanted to point out that we have 
quite a bit of cross training in the crew. In this particular 
case two guys will be trading off on the RMS work, 

PAO Now to Kennedy Space Center in Florida, 

FRANK YOSENDA - (Today in Cocoa) - First question is for Bruce, 
Have there been any significant changes or alterations to the MMU 
since the last time we spoke in July? 

MCCANDLESS No there really haven't been. We did discover one 
minor electrical problem during chamber testing this fall, which 
has resulted in a slight change in the way the power is 
distributed 1n the MMU, but that strictly has to do with getting 
power to the heaters in MMU and the flight support system as it's 
installed in the payload bay. It has no effect on the flying 
characteri sties of it. 

YOSENDA Okay, thank you. The second question is for the 

two pilots. How many passes will you have at KSC. Will you just 
have one chance to come in here, or will there be other chances 
during the final day of the flight? 

BRAND Well, we, our prime chance to land at KSC, would 

have us landing there after 128 revolutions, 12 minutes after 
sunrise, and if we had bad weather then we could wait one day, 
land there the next day, two minutes after sunrise. If we had 
bad weather another day, that would send us to Edwards, and we 
would make a night landing before sunrise at Edwards. So, and of 
course, overlaying all that, if anyone ever thought, say, on the 
first day, that the weather was so bad that it would never clear 



FLIGHT 41-8 PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 12 



up, we'll we could always go into Edwards anytime* the first* 
second or third day. 

YOSENDA Okay, thank you. From the (garble) previous 

flights in the research that has been going on into SAS, is there 
any new technique that might be applied on this flight to help 
counter any of those effects? 

GIBSON I guess we haven't heard e whole lot of feedback 

out of flight 9 yet, as to what, what they have uncovered on that 
one, but from a couple flights previous, or flight 8, one flight 
previous, some of the medications that I guess they have tried to 
combat with the symptoms once you've already encountered it, I 
guess particularly with restarting the gastro-i ntesti nal tract, 
if it should happen to shut down in flight, that certainly sounds 
interesting to us, it sounds like one very nice way to alleviate 
one of the more uncomfortable symptoms of space adaptation 
syndrome. So that shows a little bit of promise. I guess 
getting back to the ultimate solution, we really haven't heard a 
whole lot on how you shut the thing down all together. 

YOSENDA Okay, thank you. One last quick question. Who 

will be responsible for the PAM deploys and who's going to be 
tending the rats? 

BRAND We have a team of two performing the PAM deploys. 

Ron and Bob. RonZM . .VsKJ*-% Y h 3 K -.-,-Z 4 zY YS3K N-o.L @(?the 
Westar deploy. In that case, Bob will be assisting him 
throwing switches. For the PALAPA deploy it reverses. Bob will 
be in the front left set, directing the operation, and Ron will 
assist him. And in that c^se, of course, Hoot is manuevering the 
ship and taking care of any systems problems that come up. I 
guess Bruce and I get to watch and take it easy. 

GEORGE DILLER (WMFV - Orlando) - Can, for 8ruce McCandless, can 
we safely assume that most of the critical EVA operations are 
going to be done when you are within range of the Tracking and 
Data Relay Satellite? And also what other critical operations on 
the flight are going to be done where TDRS is of great 
s i gni f icance? 

MCCANDLESS Well, I'm not sure, what you mean by critical 

operations. If you mean operations that are of interest to 
television watchers, we have about 45 percent coverage of the 
TDRS. The first EVA will be 100 percent taped onboard un the 
VTR, and we will provide as much live video as we can. During 
the excursions, if I may call them that, out to 100 yards we will 
be using the KU-band radar, er, KU-band antenna in the radar mode 
to provide the orbiter with the ability to determine our range 
and range rate, so live TV through TDRS will not be available at 
that time. The balance of the first EVA, though, we do plan on 
having it available when the TDRS is in view, and we will be 
maintaining an attitude during the second EVA to optimize TDRS 
coverage as we 11. We Ml be recording the one- hour engineering 



FLIGHT 41-B PREMI SSI ON CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 13 



evaluation on tape and giving you the rest of the second EVA as 
much as we can* live by TORS, 

YOSENOA I just didn't get the answer on the rats. 

MCCANDLESS Ron is our primary responsible individual on 

the student experiment that involves the arthritic rats. I'm 
back i ng him up on tha t ♦ 

MCNAIR Okay, I'd like to do some comments on that 

student experiment. It turns out we've had quite a bit of fun 
talking about our rats, but it turns cut to be a very fascinating 
experiment with some very nice potential. This is a student 
experiment, conceived and thought of by a high school student, 
who is now a junior, Dan Weber, and I , at Cornell University, I 
believe it is. Anyway the idea is that the ground test has shown 
that if arthritic rats are off-loaded by suspending there bodies, 
this somehow suppresses the spread of arthritis from one limb to 
the other as is the case with animals which have not been 
suspended. It's shown that once these animals have been released 
from there suspension that the spread or the migration of this 
arthritis infectionn is still suppressed somehow. Which leaves 
one to believe that there is a gravity component in the 
pathogenesis of arthritis, and we seek to understand more about, 
how's it work, perhaps it can help us to understand the mechanism 
of arthritis, perhaps it can lead to some treatment, possibly a 
cure. This experiment is by non-means a scientifically 
conclusive experiment, in that we're only flying three healthy 
and three arthritic rats. They will be simply observed for their 
behavior, their activity, their grooming, their feeding, just the 
migration of this authritis. The, that when some post, inflight, 
video taping as well as some post-flight analysis where there x- 
rays will look at bone deterioration, etc. So, with only three 
samples this does not say anything about, anything conclusive, 
however, it does give us some idea about the feasibility, gives a 
lead to what future experiments can do, to determine, does, in 
fact, removing gravity from this arthritic evolution, have an 
effect? What is the that effect? How can we use it to do 
something useful? And that, of course, has, could be good news 
to the 15 million or so people suffering from arthritis in this 
country alone. Therefore, we're, we think we'll get some good 
results from this experiment and the follow on experiments will 
be quite significant and productive. 

PAO Now to Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, 

Alabama. 

DAVE COOLING ( Huntsville Times) - I've got one for Vance and 
then some for Bruce. First off, Vance, will you describe a 
little bit of what you and Hoot will be doing during the 
rondezvous operations with the balloon', and if you expect this to 
be any more difficult or easier then what Crlppen and his crew 
were doing with the prox ops on 7. 



FLIGHT 4 1 * B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 14 



BRAND Okay, well, to begin with, Bruce and I are trained 

on the rendezvous software. Bruce and I will be together working 
to make the computer bring about solutions to determine what 
burns will be and all to make us come upon the balloon. To 
approach 1t from distance. Hoot will be working with us in that, 
when we come upon an OMS burn, a big engine burn, he will be 
taking part in that. He'll be reading the check list and more or 
less double-checking everything we do, so that we'll have a 
reliable operation. We, we'll, I think the second part of that 
was how does it differ from what was done on the 7th mission. 
The 7th mission did what we called proximity operations. That 
means that they looked at coming up very close to another object, 
which in this case was the Germ an spacecraft deployed from their 
payload bay. And grabbing it with the RMS, the arm, moving 1n 
very close to it. And that sort of thing. What we will be 
doing, is taking care of the part of the approach that starts 
from way out. We hope to, for example, to separate from this 
target about 150 miles overnight. And then over a period of 
about 4 1/2 hours, approach up to within 200 feet of it. So we 
won't be doing anything within just a few feet of it. So, I 
beleive that was my part of the question. 

D00LING To follow up, Vance, what I was driving at was do 

you expect the rendezvous operations to be more difficult, or 
demanding in terms of crew capabilities, than what Crippen and 
the others were doing with the SPAS. 

BRAND No more difficult, just different. And probably 

about equal difficulty, but It's a little bit like comparing 
apples and oranges. They did something for the first time that 
involved a lot of crew coordination. And we'll be doing 
something different for the first time, Involving a lot of 
coordination. As you know this will be the first rendezvous 1n 
the Spaceshuttl e . The last rendezvous we had in the space 
program was back In the Apollo-Soyuz program. 

D00LING (Huntsville Times) - For Bruce, what kind of arguments 
did you have to present 1n fighting efforts by various NASA 
managers to have parts of the MMU operations on a tether and did 
your personal confidence in the system, was that a factor in 
getting the tether eliminated? 

MCCANDLESS Well let me back up, I haven't had to fight anybody 
with respect to tethers. We have evolved, as you may recall, the 
original plan was to have a 250 or 300-foot tether system in 
support of the MMU when it was conceived for possible tile 
Inspection repair. When we got our confidence in the tile system 
up to the point where it wasn't necessary to carry the MMU on the 
first flight, we went back and looked at things and realized that 
a long dangling thether was really more of a hindrance than it 
was a help. And it was going to get, or rather, a strong 
tendency to get tangled around your legs or other parts of the 
MMU or pieces of the orblter, and if you were to have the highly 
unlikely combination of two independent failures required you to 



FLIGHT 41-8 PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 15 



use the tether to get back, the laws of physics, specifically 
conservation of angular momentum, would tend to cause you to wrap 
around the orbiter as you pulled your way in or the very least, 
bang in to pieces of the orbiter. So it seemed to be 
operationally much more desirable to allow the situation to 
stabilize by not having this yo-yo effect and merely use the 
orbiter to come over with the payload bay which is 15 feet wide 
and 60 feet long, to scoop up the crewman and the MMU . From that 
standpoint we had proposed to have a very short tether, oh, 
approximately 10 feet long that would be used for initial 
checkout and then to go untethered. Later this summer, this 
fall, we looked at that again, with management and with our lead 
flight Director, John Cox, and realized that we could get 
everything we had planned to do on that short tether, by just 
coming out of the MMU support station, but remaining in the foot 
restraints and firing the thrusters to verify that they came on 
when we wanted them to, and that none of the thrusters were stuck 
on. So at that juncture we briefed management and we obtained 
there conci'rrence to delete the tether altogether. And that's 
where we are today. 

BRAND Can I add something to that? You know we have a 

lot of confidence in the MMU partly because an earlier version of 
it was flown in Skylab, inside the hulk of the Skylab. So we've 
had experience through the years, and it's been a gradual 
development to now what we think's a very reliable machine, 
although true, we'll be trying it out for the first time. As 
Bruce said, our ace in the hole is the fact that when they're out 
there 100 yards away, if they have any kind of a problem, Hoot 
and Til just go over and drive the ship up to them, and we'll 
just fly very slowly into them so that they are into the payload 
bay, and they can grab something, or their fellow crewman can 
grab them and they're back with us. But we'll be very watchful, 
we all consider this a very critical exercise, so believe me, 
they're not going to get out any further than 300 feet, and 
they're not going to get out of sight. 

(GARBLE - NEWS)- For Bruce or Bob. In the, when your getting the 
test with the SPAS on the arm and it's spinning are you going to 
try to stop down or stop the motion at all at that point, or just 
try to meet up with the SPAS? What are you going to do at that 
point? 

MCC ANDLESS Bob do you want it? 

STEWART At, with our docking at the SPAS, no we will not 

try to stop it because the arm is actually providing the driving 
force, to keep the SPAS rotating, to lessen the complexity of the 
operation we just intend to match rates with it, dock with the 
trunion pin and then come directly off again* Probably get 
several docking manuevers during one 800 degree rotation of the 
SPAS satellite. 



FLIGHT 41~B PKEMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 16 



JIM ADAMSON - Okay, one question for Bruce then. 8ruce, I know 
you've done some training in the neutral bouyancy simulator here 
at Marshall. Was there anything garnered from that experience? I 
know the MMU didn't respond, to as the underwater version, but 
was there anything you learned there as far as manuevering, and 
handling the equi pment in the docking that perhaps has been 
valuable in your experience up till now? 

MCCANDLESS Let me take that in a couple of stages Dave. The 
bulk of my work in the very fine neutral bouyancy facility there 
at Marshall, was in support of the Space telescope development 
and operations. The manuevering unit work underwater, generally 
has been restricted to donning, doffing, ingress, egrsss, and the 
tool operations on the MMU launch bolson and things of that 
sort. All of the really productive dynamic work has been done on 
the 6 degree of freedom simulator up at the Martin Company in 
Denver, Colorado. So I think that pretty well answers the split 
of the training activities. 

DAVE DOOLING - (Huntsville Times) - That was Jim Adamson with the 
last one. Final question for Bruce, I've asked you this one 
before, I wanted to go over again. Do you feel a little bit like 
taking the MMU out on it's first ride, you're getting the 
classical parachute riggers graduation test? 

MCCANDLESS No, no, I feel very gratified that I have the 
opportunity to be the first person to fly the MMU, but I would 
point out that I'm perhaps only the most visible person right 
now. Major Ed Whltsett, formerly of the Air Force, now in Crew 
Systems Division, has been working even longer than I have on 
manuevering units and there have been literally several thousand 
people over the years, both within NASA and within contractor 
organizations that have contributed heavily to the MMU as much as 
if not more than I have, but I am very pleased to be in the 
position of making the first flight of It. 

There are no more questions from Marshall. 

PAO Okay, back here in Houston, Bob Nicholas, did you 

still have a question? 

B08 NICHOLAS Yes, 

PAO Hang on Bob, wait for the mike, please and all 

that , thank you . 

BOB NICHOLAS For the benefit of the people who don't follow all 
the technical jargon Including myself, what makes this mission so 
important, that is to the aspect of the, why should the American 
people be that concerned about this particular mission, and is 
there anything about It that will leave a lasting impression? 

BRAND Sure, let's start on the first. It's going to be 

the first time we have crewman out untethered, as Bruce has 



FLIGHT 41-B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 17 



pointed out. It's going to be the first time we have a crewman 
being waved around on the Canadian arm so he can be positioned 
for work tasks, 

NICHOLAS What does that prove? 

BRAND An EVA crewman, it will be, well both crewman 

probably, Bruce and Bob Stewart both will be outside in the EVA. 

Vance - 

NICHOLAS What does that prove though? 

MCC ANDLESS ... the big thing on the MFR which is 

Manipulator Foot Restraint, it's alphabet soup, is it is sort of 
like the cherry picker that the utility crews use for working on 
power lines and things of that sort. Now, to date the only way 
that we have had to work on something EVA, is to provide a hand 
rail that goes from point A to whereever you want to go, and you 
go hand over hand, and then you have to install a foot restraint 
and tether yourself and carry your tools along, banging into 
things as you go and work. With the MMU we will have the 
capability of getting to virtually any location be it on the 
outside of the Orbiter or the outside of a space station without 
having to have handrails and setting up similar sort of work 
station or doing light repair tasks without a work station. 
Taking pictures, spray painting, adjusting things, deploying 
antennas and that sort of thing. With the MFR, the manipula or 
foot restraint, we have the capability within the reach of the 
RMS, of literally moving our work station with some tools and 
things of that sort, where we want to go, and then holding us in 
position without need to attach to the work site, be it a piece 
of the orbiter or more likely a piece of a satellite, such as a 
Solar Maximum satellite, or perhaps downstream, the Landsat 
satellites which we are considering refueling on orbit and 
redepl oyi ng . 

NICHOLAS One follow up question. Is there - 

MCCANDLESS Back to Vance. 

BRAND One thing that will be remembered for will be the 

first Cape landing, we hope. And it will be the mission that got 
us ready to go up and repair satellites and the third thing is it 
will be the mission that successfully deployed the sixth and 
seventh satellite, communication satellites in orbit. 



MCNAIR Can I follow up that also, Vance? One thing 

I would like to add to it, is this mission represents another big 
step in the evolution of our capability. For years, we claimed 
that we can go out and repair satellites, we can do all sorts of 
great things in space. Well, now we're about to go out and do 
it. And, before we actually do the repair and rendezvous, we 



FLIGHT 41 - B PREMI SSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 18 



would like to test our tools and techniques. We'll actually 
pre ye what we've been talking about for years on flight 13. We 
will test the techniques * •) we are the bridge between talking 
and doing. 

NICHOLAS And one follow up question. Is there a miliary 
application to those techniques? 

8RAND I would say there is. We don't envision it now, 

the applications we're envisioning are repairing the Solar Max 
mission satellite, which is a scientific satellite, and Landsat, 
which is a downstream application for refueling a satellite after 
it propellant is spent. Obviously, it's like anything else in 
aviation or space. You can turn that into a military application 
or you can have it as a civilian application. 

PAO Jules did you have another, Jules Bergman? 

JULES BERGMAN - Like to ask Hoot Gibson, what he as an ex-fighUr 
pilot finds challenging about this mission. 

MCCANOLESS I don't think Hoot considers himself an ex- 

fighter pilot. 

BERGMAN That's true. 

GIBSON I almost slipped right over that one. Jules, I 

would say, the answer is "all of it." Where shall I begin? 

BERMAN Could you take off the first, the way Vance just 

did, the first to your mind? 

GIBSON Well, I would have to say operating the vehicle, 

getting up, and getting back down from orbit, of course, 1s the 
most challenging part and I guess the most fascinating part to 
me, because it can involve piloting tasks and it does involve 
trajectory control and vehicle systems and all those sorts of 
things. I would find that to be perhaps the more fascinating 
part to me, although all of it is certainly interesting. I'm as 
caught up with the EVA and the flying the MMU, I think, as 
everyone else 1s, and a lot of the mission I'm involved in from 
watching the vehicle itself, watching the systems and kind of 
looking over everyone's shoulders during the PAM deploys and 
during the EVA's. So, I'm somewhat Involved 1n all of it, 
although not nearly to the level that for Instance that Bob and 
Bruce In the EVA . 

BERGMAN Do you wish you were outside, flying the backpack 

rather than being Vance's copilot? 

GIBSON Well, the answer to that would actually would be 

no, although I have asked Bob if he wanted to trade, and he said 
no. I think maybe when Bob was sitting In the suit, Inside the 
water tank, after 6 1/2 hours and complaining about how 



FLIGHT 41-B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 19 



uncomfortable that gets after a long time, I had asked him if he 
would like to trade right then, cause I thought maybe I had 
caught him in a weak moment, but the answer even then was still 
no . 

PAO John Getter. 

JOHN GETTER For Bob Stewart, If memory serves, you are not 
only the first Army Officer to go on a space flight, but you' re 
also the first non jet jockey to do a test flight on a new 
vehicle* I know you haven't flown it in space yet, but is the 
MMU as near as you can tell, more like flying a helicopter, like 
flying a jet, or like flying something that's not been flown 
before? 



STEWART Well, John, my assessment is it's completely 

different. (Garble) to flying a helicopter are really not 
comparable to the MMU, other than the fact that you have a 
complete 6 degrees of freedom in motion. And that you can back 
it up or fly it sideways. Control systems are completely 
different, the problems, and are completely different, I would 
say it is an unique machine all by itself. 

PAO Teresa over here. Your name and affiliation, 

please. 

PAT JONES (National Space Institute) - One follow up question on 
the landing. Maybe I got lost some where, but my recollection of 
the briefing yesterday was that if a landing at KSC didn't look 
possible because of the weather, at scheduled time, then you 
would go through some manuevers to get you In the right alignment 
to get you into Edwards at some relatively midpoint stage, ana my 
Impression was that a landing the subsequent day, 2 minutes after- 
sunrise wasn't being seriously considered. Can you clarify that 
position for me? And if you went for a landing the second day, 
that would be your last daylight possibility, right? And we're 
told your prepared for a night landing. Would you look forward to 
that? 

BRAND We're, let me start at the back and work forward. 

Well, we are completely trained, Hoot and I are equally trained, 
as a matter of fact, on night landings. We're doing a lot of that 
work, so I feel very comfortable about a night landing. And the 
concept was proven out in STS-8 that it works well. We, yes, 1f 
we could not make a daylight landing on the first planned landing 
day, or the next day, then from then on it would probably be a 
night landing at Edwards. No more daylight opportunities 
exist. I think 1f there Is a, getting to the first part of your 
question* If there 1s a bad weather situation, that where we go, 
whether it's to KSC on the day after planned landing day, or 
whether we go to Edwards will be decided at the time. I think we 
have rough guidelines that say it could be either one. I think a 
strong possibility would be KSC on the next day. 



FLIGHT 41-B PREMISSION CREW PRESS CONFERENCE 



PAGE 20 



PAO Okay, I have one last question next to you here. 

Your name and affiliation, 

LINDA COLFER (National Space Institute) - For Ron McNair, you 
told us that there was going to be video of the rats before taken 
and after. Is there going to be any video inflight of those rats? 

MCNAIR No, video is primarily for the investigators to in 

view, review the behavior of the rats post flight. So there will 
not be any being downlinked live. It's all going to be for post 
fl ight . 

PAO Well, we'll end with best holiday wishes to all of 

you and our friends at the other centers and we'll all look 
forward to getting together again for 418. 



I I § 



STS-418 PRESS CONFERENCE 
TRANSCRIPTS 
FEBRUARY 1894 



Public Information Office 
NASA Johnson Space Center 
Houston, Texas 77058 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING plj 2/3/84 11:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Okay, good morning and welcome to the first Change- 

of-Shift Press Conference for Flight 41-B, We have the off-going 
Ascent Flight Director Gary Coen with us. He will talk about 
what's happened during the ascent phase and I'll just go ahead 
and turn it over to you Gary, 

GARY COEN Okay, thank you, We started the countdown this 
morning on time. The count went very smoothly. The operations 
both at KSC and here at Johnson went really well. The count 
proceeded with no problems at all. We got down to the lift-off 
time and lifted off on time. We did have a few concerns about 
what the weather was going to do. It turned out that the weather 
cleared up fantastically for us so we had a beautiful day and a 
pretty launch. Trying to predict the weather at night time like 
that and trying to figure out when tha fog was going to clear and 
whether the fog was going to move into the immediate Cape area 
was a little bit of a challenge. It turned out that our worries 
mainly were all put to bed, of course, when we lifted off on 
time. And they were mainly just worries. We were just worrying 
the situation. It was a beautiful launch. The performance of 
the solid rockets and the main engines was just right. We lifted 
off within 38 milliseconds of the intended time. As you know, 
the main engines throttle back. The throttle back during launch 
was not quite as deep as we had predicted. We had predicted we 
were going to be back to, excuse me. It was a little deeper than 
we predicted. We figured it would be back to 75% throttle on the 
main engines and we went down to 73. That's because the solid 
rocket booster performance was a little bit hot early and it was 
cold late. There was a very slight performance penalty on the 
solids and you'll probably get better data later but our estimate 
was that the solids w<*re maybe 40 feet per second low in total 
performance. This resulted in, as far as the abort region times 
were concerned, resulted in them changing maybe a second or two 
on the way up. 3g throttle down occurred just when we predicted 
it would and main engine cutoff was just exactly when we 
predicted it would be, 8 minutes and 42 seconds into the 
mission. Velocity attained was, again, exactly what we predicted 
as near as we can tell. We will be getting more granulated data 
later and be able to tell you a little closer but we predicted 
25,670 feet per second. That*s what we got. OMS 1 went 
smoothly. Ended up with apogee and perigee of 165 by 50. OMS 2 
essentially the same story and we're in an orbit right now of 166 
by 165. We have some, a few minor problems that we 1 re working. 
There are none that we expect to be any impact to the conduct of 
today's activities or the remainder of the flight. We are 
working some instrumentation errors. We're working a problem 
with a water separator in the waste management system. We have 
some, have a heater problem in one of the APU systems. We have 
some limit switches that, one limit switch on a umbilical door 
that is indicating incorrectly. We intend to go back through our 
data and see if possibly that's even maybe a data problem. No 
problem with the door. Anyway, that's in work. So the launch 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT 8RIEFING plj 2/3/84 11:30 am PAGE 2 

just went great. We're all happy that we got it up there, we did 
things on time and that the performance was so good. I'd like to 
open it up for questions now. 

PAO Okay, we'll take questions here at JSC and then 

we'll go to the other Centers. Right back here on the aisle 
there. 

DAVID DICK (CBS NEWS) Has there been any development onboard 
which could conceivably affect the timing of the deployment this 
afternoon of the Westar Satellite? 

COEN David there hasn't. No, there's not been anything 

that would change our plans as to when we intend to deploy. 

DICK And what, if anything, was a problem with the 

camera? Was there a camera - - 

COEN Camera D, that's the right starboard camera. The 

crew reported to us a problem in both, in 2 axes. Just a minute 
and I'll tell you which is which. They reported it was slow to 
pan and that they couldn't get it to work in the tilt axis. 
That's the forward starboard camera. 

DICK So, so far there's nothing wrong with the Cinema 

360? 

COEN No, 

PAO Okay, and right here. I'm sorry. 

MIKE WILLIAMSON (KJOJ) Two questions concerning ascent. Did we 
here a call that the APUs were running a little hot this time and 
also, what about the cooldown? Did the APUs cool back down 
properly? 

COEN Vou may have heard after the APUs are shut down, 

there are some valves on or a valve module on the APU that has to 
be cooled by water. When we turned the first water controller 
on, the water controller apparently put too much water into one 
of the valve cooling systems and then quit working. And what you 
might have heard when we were discussing hot was that when it 
quit working then the valve got too hot. We brought on the 
secondary water system and cooled the valve back down. This 
water is used to cool those particular valves, that particular 
valve after the APUs are shut down. Has nothing to do, the water 
has nothing to do with the operation while you're turning the 
turbine. 

WILLIAMSON What about the SRBs? Have they been sighted and 
recovered? 



STS-41-3 CHANG J-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING plj 2/3/84 11; 30 am PAGE 3 



COEN 



I didn't get a report on the SRBs. I don't know, 
PAO Okay, Paul. 

PAUL 0n the waste management system, it sounded like one 

of the fans is cratered all together. Is that correct? 

co f N We don't think it's cratered all together, Paul. 

We re seeing stall currents in the telemetry. That's how we got 
onto the problem in the first place. We're seeing stall currents 
which indicate that either that the fan had stopped, it was 
running slow and taking too much current, or Derhaps since it's 
an AC motor that drives the fan we had a failure in one of the AC 
phases which would cause the currents in the other phases to go 
up. when we discussed it with Vance, we learned that his 
impression on the fan was that it didn't sound normal so that 
told us that is was turning but since his report was it was not 
normal it's probably turning at a slow speed. He went to the 
other fan, pronounced it normal, at least a normal sound, and of 
course the other fan was not showing any high currents. So, the 
fan is at least turning we believe. The separator is at least 
turning but it's indicating currents that are too high and it 
doesn't sound right. It's probably not turning fast enough. 

PAUL Okay, even though it's not turning fast enough was 

it performing its function? 

C0EN We don't know for sure. That'll be part of the 

work that we'll be doing today and tonight. 

?A0 . Okay, any other questions? understand that we have 
no questions from other Centers so we'll just call that and end 
to the briefing. Thank you. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 1 



PAO ...introduce the players on the podium here. To my 

immediate right, of course, is Harold Draughon lead flight 
director for 41-B and to the far right, Bill Ziegler, who is 
Mission Director for Western Union. Bill's presence may lead you 
to suspect a problem with the satellite and that Is, in fact, the 
case, as we shall describe to you now beginning with Harold's 
debriefing, 

DRAUGHON Okay, I'll just give you the those facts first 

dealing with the satellite deploy, with the Westar deployment 
this first shift, and after we've talked that particular subject 
through to whatever detail you folks you want to, then we'll go 
ahead and pick up the other items that are worthy of note, I 
think, and the activities for the day. The predepioyment 
activities relative to the deployment of the Westar were 
absolutely nominal. We deployed the satellite within less than a 
second from what would have been the absolutely most acurate time 
you could have done it, the attitude errors at the time of 
deployment were well within tenths of a degree. Because of the 
topic that's come up and potentially some problem with the 
vehicle, we've been going back in the last half an hour or so and 
just reverifying all of those numbers. That was done just before 
I left the Control Center. All of those things have been 
recomputed and, in fact, they were computed and verified by 
ourselves and the customer , predepioyment , so the thing was 
absolutely normal. The PAM checkout, the PAM performance 
predeploy wa3 nominal, really can't say anything detrimental 
about that* The attitudes were within tenths of degrees of what 
had been not only computed but of what had been predicted prior 
to launch. They were in the decimal places and every parameter 
from what we've been seeing in our simulations. After the 
deployment, a normal scenario would have you as most of you 
probably know, at, deployment plus 45 minutes there is the first 
stage burn that the PKM puts you in a total elliptical orbit. 
With the ground tracking stations that were available on this 
particular flight, there was no coverage at that time, the first 
station that would have seen it after that was at deployment plus 
an additional 15 minutes which would make it an hour later. The 
scenario as best as I understand it from the reports that I've 
heard were that initially they thought that they had a signal 
partial acquistion shortly after that time. The attitude that 
the vehicle was in at that particular point has the OMNI antenna 
radially outward from the Earth or from the trackinq station, so 
you're looking at the other e*d of the vehicle and wouldn' t 
expect a terribly strong signal. It turned out later on, some 
time later, that after they didn't get better acquisition, better 
signals, later on, they went back and questioned that first 
acquisition report and in fact the guys recanted on that and said 
that they weren't sure they had had a real acquisition then. So 
following that activity, the reports began to feed back into the 
Control Center here and since that time we've been mustering up 
support to try bring to bear all the facilities that the NASA has 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7:30pm PAGE 2 



tc offer as far as bringing tracking stations in the GSTDN in the 
deep space net up to try to acquire the vehicle and looking at 
the NORAD tracking stations also to try to acquire it. I think 
the, as best we know the situation right now, everything was 
absolutely normal up to deploy both on the spacecraft and on the 
PAM vehicle. The Orbiter systems all were nominal. Since then 
we have been unable to decisively acquire the vehicle. A couple 
of instances where some people thought they might have acquired 
it, nothing as far as a definitive acquisition. Now that we know 
there's a real question about whether or not the first stage burn 
occured or not, General Abrahamson has been in contact with the 
other agencies that have tracking facilities and we're bringinq 
all those facilities to bear as well as our own network and we're 
methodically going about trying to determine with some of those 
tracking sets looking at where that vehicle would be if the PKM 
burn did not occur and then at the same time having some others 
look at where it would be had the burn occured and just that some 
problems, perhaps with the radios or something of that nature, 
occurred. And I believe that's really the extent of what we know 
right now. 

PAO Mr. zigeier, is there anything you want to add to 

that? 

ZIEGLER No. Harold said almost everything that I was going 

to say, I do we do concur that the deployment from the 
Orbiter was nominal. It was very accurate both in attitudes and 
in the rates at time of deployment, and it was deployed about 
4:00 p.m. Eastern time with no observable anomalies of either the 
deployment itself or the spacecraft or the PAM. And although we 
did expect to begin tracking, controlling the spacecraft about an 
hour after deployment, we've been unable to establish radio 
contact with the spacecraft. And as Harold says, we have the 
full cooperation of NASA, INTELSAT, and NORAD attempting to 
locate and communicate with the spacecraft. 

PAO Anybody have any questions here in Houston? Craig 

Covault, Aviation week. 

CO VAULT Two questions, the first for Mr. Ziegler. Do you 

have any times coming up where you would anticipate some 
acquistion of the spacecraft through NORAD or other sensors that 
you'll be looking to here in the next few hours? 

ZIEGLER We'll be looking continuously for... 

DRAUGHON Yes, yes Craig* There are quite a — depends on, 

you know you got to look at both potential orbits that it might 
be in. We've already tried once with the Ascension tracking 
station and we're going to be trying with some others. They are 
laying out that plan right now. So they'll be allocating some to 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7 : 30 pm PAGE 3 



the parking orbit, if that's where it still is, and then if it 
did do the PKM burn, then, of course, it f s way up in altitude and 
there are lots of sets that can see it. And that strategy is 
being laid out right now, 

COVAULT Okay, second question, you've got a second PAM and 

41 second HS 376 in the bay, what about tomorrow morning? 

DRAUGHON That's not a resolved issue yet. The Hughes folks 

and the PALAPA customer have not come to grips with that yet. 
They're working on that problem now and, as you know, we have a 
— the nominal opportunity is tomorrow morning around 10:00 
o'clock for the PALAPA deploy. We have a backup, I believe it's 
rev 32 or 30, no it's 1 day later, about midday, a little later 
in the day on the same day that the rendevous starts, if the 
customer wants to exercise that option to do some more thorough 
checkout than is already available to him, then he'll certainly 
get that option to do that. 

PAO Justin Urvich, Justin Urviqh from Time. 

URVICH Mr, Ziegler, is the, is the satellite actually 

lost, or can you, do you know where it is, or you're just unable 
to establish radio contact? 

ZIGGLER No, we're since we're unable to establish radio 

contact with it, as yet, I would have to say, it's possibly 
lost. The other possiblity is that there's been a failure in the 
spacecraft of the telemetry transmitters so that the -~ but since 
we can't communicate with it, we don't know where it is. 



PAO Any other questions? 

ZIEGLER It may very well be in the nominal orbit that we 

had planned to put it in. 

PAO Craig Covault, once again, 

COVAULT If it is in a nominal orbit and you had a nominal 



PAM firing and you're unable to communicate through your normal 
means you would be communicating now, can you and have you , 
thought of going through with commanding some deployments that 
would bring up the big antenna, then you could pick up a little 
data down the track. Explain the timing on.,. 

ZIEGLER Yes, we have already sent commands, for example, to 

turn on the telemetry transmitters, to go to the high gain 
setting to deploy the OMNI, in the event that didn't deploy, and 
to do all of that over a search pattern and we're getting that 
computerized so that we can repeatly do that in a rapid manner. 



TS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 4 



COUVALT And which station ace you using to send those 

commands? 

ZIGGLER We're using the best station of, at different 

times, but Filmore, the Hughes station at Filmore, California, 
and several of the INTELSAT stations, Halimalu, Yamagooche, and 
Arvan, which is the current — all of those have visibility to 
where the satellite should be at this point in time. 

COUVALT And those commands ace going almost continuously? 

ZIEGLER Yes, we're. . . 

COUVALT To try and get something out of the burn. 

ZIEGLfcR Yes, we initially starting doing it manually on a 

repetitive basis and are getting it computerized so that it will 
be automatic. 

COUVAULT Okay, and one last question and then I'll get off 

the mike. Your normal AOS would have been through what station, 
Harold, or Mr. ziegler. 

DRAUGHON What was... 

COUVAULT Your normal AOS, if you would have picked it uo 

when you wanted to. 



ZIEGLER 

COUVAULT 

ZIGGLER 

COUVALUT 

PAO 



Yamagooche, 
Yamagooche. 
Right, Japan. 
Japan, right, 

Yes, sir. Your name and affilation, please. 



Jim Barlow with the Houston Chronicle. You're 
supposed to send the same type bird up in the shuttle in January 
of next, . . . 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-3 CHA'NGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGS1 



ZIEGLER November of next year. 

J. BARLOW Is it November? 

ZIEGLER November of 85, yeah. It's too early to have 

second thoughts. 

PAO Any other questions here in Houston? Craig 

Covault, again. 

COVAULT Yeah, I'm afraid it's a Pearl Harbor question, but 

if you've lost the bird, discuss the insurance, the potential 
insurance ramifications of it. You are insured on the 
spacecraft? 

ZIEGLER Yes. 
COVAULT For about how much? 

ZIEGLER I don't know the exact number, but it's in 

the order of a hundred million dollars. 

COVAULT And you paid about how much for your launch this 

time? 

ZIEGLER For the launch, or the premium for the 

insurance? 

COVAULT For the launch. If you're insured for about one 

hundred million, and then you paid NASA about how much to launch 
the bird today? 

ZIEGLER Well, NASA's fee is about ten million dollars. 

PAO There are no questions at Kennedy, I 

understand. Does anybody have anything else here at Houston 
before we adjourn? Mr, Barlow, from the Chronicle. 

BARLOW The insurance that you had, is that also sort of a 

business interruption insurance as well as the value of the bird 
itself, and of the launch fee? 

ZIEGLER The bird, and the launch, and the PAM, and 

then it's insured for replacement value, if you will, and you may 
say that includes some provision for business interruption. 

PAO Okay, Craig Covault, again. 



COVAULT Well, digging further back into history, and I 

don't recall, have you ever lost a westar off of a delta? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 2 



ZIEGLER No. 

COVAULT This would be your first loss, if it's lost. 

ZIEGLER if, in fact, It's lost. Yes. 

PAQ Yes sir, you're name and affiliation, 

A. MARSH (Aviation Week) Was there anything different about the 
transmitter, or transmitters rather, or power supply on this one 
as opposed to 5 or 4? 

ZIEGLER No, Well, there must be some detailed 

product improvements since time has elapsed. There's nothing 
fundamentally different. 

PAO Jeff Orvich again. 

ORVICH Yes, you said that the fee for the ride is ten 

million. Would you go over the cost of the satellite and the PAM, 
please? 

ZIEGLER Yes. The satellite costs in the order of 30 

million plus another 5 million that Hughes would earn as 
incentives over the life of the spacecraft for a continuing 
timeframe. The PAM is about seven million dollars. We have 
other costs in providing launch services and getting the thing 
into orbit, an insurance premium of roughly 6 percent of the face 
value of the insurance policy, and we do have costs In getting 
our some additional ground station equipment, control station 
equipment, in order to control the additional satellite. I don't 
have the details on that. 

PAO Mr, Barlow from the Chronicle, 

BARLOW Are you satisfied that NASA did all it should have 

done? 

ZIEGLER Well, to the best of our knowledge right now, 

yes, NASA gave us what we required through deployment, and 
they've cooperated significantly above and beyond the call of 
duty, I might say, in assisting in this search. 

PAO Okay, Craig, 

COVAULT I believe the ANIK bird on the STS-5 had a problem 

where its transmitter was misconf igured. Have you already 
reviewed that, the history of that to a great extent and - - 



ZIEGLER 



Absolutely. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 3 

COVAULT Have you no* rulers that out absolutely? 

ZIEGLER No, We haven't ruled anything out 

absolutely because until we can get in contact with that 
satellite and find out what its state of health is, and what 
orbit it's in, we won't be able to rule out anything. 

COVAULT Have you been in contact with TEL5SAT Canada, just 

to trade the technical information on their problem on their 
deployment? 

ZIEGLER Well, we have the same spacecraft 

manufacturer that TELESAT had and they're fully aware of that 
detail, 

PAO Al Marsh, again, please, 

MARSH How long before, if this satellite is lost, you 

could build another one and launch it? 

ZIEGLER We have Westar 7 under construction and it's 

scheduled to be launched in November * 8 5 • How much we could 
accelerate that, I couldn't possibly say at this point in time, 

PAO Mr, Barlow from the Chronicle, 

BARLOW Did you pretty well have all your transponders sold 

or leased on 6? 

ZIEGLER I don't have the details on that, I know 

there was - - is some uncommitted capacity on Westar 6, but how 
much I don 1 t know. 

PAO Okay, you appear to be satiated with that issue, 

I'll let Harold continue \?lth the remainder of the debriefing of 
his shift. Harold. 

ORAUGHON Okay, most of those things are, perhaps, going to 

seem a little mundane. The Camera D, I didn't get to hear Gary's 
debriefing, or shift handover this morning, so I don't know if he 
talked to you any about Camera Delta or not, but anyway, the 
starboard camera on the forward bulkhead of the Orbiter has a 
problem in that we don't have any tilt control of it. The pan 
capability of the camera, or the ability to slew in the yaw axis 
works in a reduced sense. It'll go for a while, but then it 
hangs up, but the pan doesn't work at all. We've gone through a 
fairly extensive checkout of that camera since that problem was 
noticed early this morning and it doesn't look like it's going to 
come back. There is some chance that the guys can take a closer 
look at it when they 1 re EVA and we'll have them do that. We 
don't hold a lot of hope for any good results out of that. 



STS-41-B CHANGS-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 4 



though. The crew has reported and put on the TV, the Cinema 360 
has a - - there's a thermal shroud that goes around the GAS can 
that the Cinema 360 is encased within. That particular thermal 
shroud is closed on the forward inboard side by some patches of 
velcro. Those velcro patches came loose, probably during 
ascent and they are partially opened by just a few degrees. 
Again, we 1 11 ask the crew during the first EVA to just remate 
that velcro and close chat thing back up. We've gone some 
through some analysis of what the thermal environment is out 
there, and the amount that that shroud is opened, and it is not 
judged to be a problem. We're not modifying the attitudes that 
we're flying during the night or for tomorrow prior to the EVA's 
to compensate for that. The fan sep in the waste control -system 
has failed. It shows stalled currents. I do know that Gary 
briefed you on that one. We have not troubleshot that any 
further. We have a redundant fan separator and that unit is 
online and is working perfectly. We are looking at some details 
having to do with how to dump the water that's in the EMU units 
that are used in the EVA. We need to dump that water out and put 
fresh water in prior to the EVA's. We were going to dump it in a 
fashion that would carry it through this fan separator. We may 
use an alternate procedure now that would bypass that and dump it 
directly out an overboard vent. The relative merits of going to 
a different procedure are being evaluated by the guys in the 
control center now. The crew has, on two occasions, mentioned a 
problem with their onboard intercom. This has just been in the 
last, maybe the last half of my shift, and originally, they 
weren't- - we have no manifestation of this noise on the voice 
loops on the ground. It f s only evident onboard. Originally, 
they weren't sure whether it was on air/ground and the ICOM or 
the intercom system, or just intercom. Since then, we've talked 
to them a little more thoroughly, and they have done some 
troubleshooting. The problem is isolated to the onboard, both 
ICOM systems A and B. It is there pretty much all the time, and 
varies in intensity. They have gone through different changes of 
batteries in their headsets, in the wireless headsets, and 
they We even gone as far, Vance went and tried one of the old 
fashioned plug-in type headsets, and it's there even then. We 
don't know the source of that, or what kind of troubleshooting 
will be involved with that tomorrow. That's pretty much all that 
went on. The ship is behaving, as far as the Orbiter is 
concerned, the ship is behaving in a very fine fashion. It's 
doing all the things that it's supposed to do and doing them very 
well. We've not had a lot to contend with as far as abnormal 
management or any kind of problems to deal with. That's all I 
have. I'll take any questions. 

PAO ICOM, we understand, is the intercom system. 

DRAUGHON Intercom system. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIt? BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/34 7:30 pm PAGE 5 



PAO The crewmembers use it to communicate among 

themselves. Any other questions? And I guess nothing still from 
Kennedy? Is that right? Okay, The meeting's adjourned. Thank 
you for your time and attention. Good night. 



END OF TAPE 



3TS-41-B CHANGS~OF~SH I FT BRIKFING p3ja 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE I 

PAO Okay. Good morning and welcome to our delayed but 

otherwise still in tact Change-of-Shi f t Press Conference with 
of fgoing Flight Director Randy Stone. Randy's been here over in 
the Mission Control Room since about 1 this morning and he can 
tell you what's been going on and also to his right Mr. Ull 
3iegler with the Westar Mission Director will talk to you a bit 
about their situation and we. 1 11 go ahead and turn it over to 
Randy now. 

RANDY STONE Good morning. I'm sorry to keep you waiting this 
morning but due to the circumstances of the deployment yesterday, 
we have been working 3ome alternate plans that required the lead 
Flight Director, who is ny change— of-shift partner , to be working 
offline to work some ongoing plans to accommodate a PALAPA 
deployment tomorrow and build into our flight plan the option for 
PALAPA to deploy on Monday and that decision will be based on 
engineering evaluation of the Westar PAM situation that I'm sure 
you all are very interested in me talking about. I think 
probably the appropriate thing to do this morning rather than go 
down through all of the things that the crew has accomplished on 
this shift is to bring you up to date on what we do know and what 
we do not know about the WESTAR. Through the night, on my shift, 
we have brought our tracking network to bear to try to locate the 
WESTAR satellite. What I can tell you, and truthfully it is all 
that we know at this time, is that we are tracking some multiple 
objects in an orbit that is very similar to the Oribter's. We're 
tracking one fairly sizeable object that is big enough for us to 
track with multiple radars that we have been able to build a 
vector on and we understand, at least have a cursory 
understanding of its ornt. It's in an orbit of about 150 
nautical miles by 265 nautical miles. The correlation of that 
object to the WESTAR situation is unknown at this time but it is 
the only confirmed vector that we have on an object in an orbit 
that is similar to the Oribter. Through the night we have gone 
back and confirmed through all of our playback capabilities in 
the Control Center that the Orbiter yesterday during deployment 
was operating absolutely nominally. It was in the right 
attitude. It had very, very small rate errors at the moment of 
deployment and we are convinced, at least from the data that we 
have looked at, that the crew did an outstanding job of their 
mission on the ^redeployment phase of the satellite. I would 
like to tell you again that any conjecture that we can make about 
the objects that we're seeing on radar at this time is purely 
subjective until we can get more information and have it analyzed 
by our sources. I think it would be appropriate at this time to 
let Bill talk to you a little bit about the efforts they've been 
in through the night. 

BILL ZIEGLER Okay, what Randy says we generally confirm that 
there does appear to be at least 1 large object, perhaps 2, in an 
orbit approximating that of the Challenger or somewhat behind it 
and there are a number of other smaller objects that have been 



STS-41-3 CHANGS-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3ja 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 

reported. We have attempted to communicate with those objects 
without any success today, But this is a pretty difficult task 
considering the fact that these objects are moving past ground 
stations at a fairly high rate and most of our antennas that we 
can bring to bear have fairly narrow beams and many of them have 
limited slowing rates so that. But, however, we are getting 
computer programs established for this orbit and for our various 
tracking stations in order to be able to send commands to these 
objects and hopefully receive signals from them. Or at least one 
of them. We also have no way to be at all certain that these 
objects are WESTAR 6 or its PAM and we are also searching the 
orbit that it was intended to put WESTAR 6 in and other orbits in 
oetween. We, of course, have speculation on failure modes and 
they're so numerous and so detailed and so flimsy at this point 
in time that I really can't go into them. We'll continue to 
bring all the resources that we have and our subcontractors have 
and NASA's kindly offered their assistance with all the resources 
that they have and we think there are some others that we don't 
even know about that are assisting us to help to solve this 
problem. 

STONE Steve, I think it'd probably be good to open it up 

to questions. I have a lot of other things I could tell you but 
I know you want to get to the important stuff, 

PAO Okay. We'll take questions here in Houston 

first. Yes, right back here with CBS. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANG3-0F-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jb 2/4/84 11:00 an PAGE 1 



CBS There have been several different figures mentioned 

as to the total investment that Western Union has in the 
satellite, a hundred million is one. Would you break it down and 
tell us what the investment is and the cost, and the cost of the 
launch, insurance, all of that? 

ZIEGLER Since I was in this room last night, I was also 

here a couple of weeks ago, I was asked that question. I think I 
have given you some slightly incorrect information. The 
spacecraft is fully insured at a number near 100 million dollars, 
and when I say near that, I think it's between 90 and 110. I 
haven't been able to confirm what the exact number is, I'm 
sorry. I did though get some more information on the cost, but I 
don't have a break down for it. The total cost for this launch 
is very close the 75 million dollars. And I had previously given 
you 60 to 70 million dollars, so I was in error on that, I 
apologize Cor that. And I don't have a break down for the 75 
million, 

PAO Roy Meal. Microphone over here. 

ROY MEAL Randy, you've already qualified that any conjecture 

at this time is purely subjective, but if yot*re talking objects 
that are esentially in the same orbit as the Space Shuttle, as 
being possible objects that could be the Westar, that means it 
could be that we had something, obviously the PAM didn't take 
off. You didn't go to higher orbit. Can we successfully surmise 
this? Can we successfully operate on that as at least a major 
premise at this writing? I mean is certainly makes a lot of 
sense, and I'm asking for your help to help us to get the story 
out straight. 

STONE Do you want to answer that, or do you want me to? 

ZIEGLER No, I'll give it a crack, and if you, please jump 

in. If those objects are the PAM and Westar, several possible 
failure modes are possible. Either the spacecraft could have 
failed or the PAM or possibly both. One thought, and it's just a 
thought that's being investigated, is that this assembly went 
into a flat spin prior the PAM firing. And if it did so, it 
could have been for different causes. One could be a spacecraft 
fault, another could be a PAM fault. But if it did go into a 
flat spin, there would be very little energy of that PAM that is 
used to give us the impulse in the direction that we wanted it. 
We are persuing, you know, the investigation along those lines, 
all the possibilities that we can think of, for such causes and 
many others, by the way. 

MEAL A follow through, if I may. You are not seeing 

anything, radar or other tracking, at higher altitudes. 



ZIEGLER We haven 1 t found any. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-QF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jb 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 

NEAL You haven't found any at higher altitude but you 

have found objects at the lower altitudes? 

STONE That's correct. I'd like to comment on that, 

through the night we have been switching radars off of the 
Shuttle tracking network and looking at the higher orbits, at 
whare you would expect to find the spacecraft if it were truly 
outbound, and I don't have the number of times, the number of 
station that has done that, but the NASA radars have not seen 
anything outbound. 



NEAL Looks pretty bleak then, doesn't it? 

STONE It could be more positive. 

NEAL Thanks. 

PAO Craig Covault, right here in front. 



CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) Randy, speak a little more 
specif icaly to Palapa for tomorrow. Are you right now on a 
course to launch tomorrow, or are you seriously considering 
waiting until Monday? 

STONE When I left the Control Center, 20 minutes ago, my 

Flight Activities Officer was working towards a deploy tomorrow 
in the nominal backup, the backup slot, we understand that, 
while in fact NASA management has asked Palapa for a decision on 
whether or not we should continue towards deployment tomorrow by 
2 o'clock this afternoon, I believe, Craig. And at that time 
it'll be easier for us to make plans for the next day. I can 
tell you though that if we do choose to go one day later, the 
Orbiter does have sufficient consumables, both cryogenic and 
propulsive, that we could stay an extra day and complete the full 
objectives of this flight. So we have looked at it in that 
light, and we're prepared to make the step into delaying it an 
additional day. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGB-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING ?3jc 2/4/84 11; 00 am PAGE 1 

COVAULT Okay* A quick follow, The U.S. does have pretty 

good ground camera capability to photograph objects in low 
orbit. Have you made the request to bring Air Force cameras to 
bear to try and character ize that debris visually* 

STONE Craig, I can't comment on that* All the resources 

that I have available to me have been brought to bear and I'm 
sure General Abrahamson, if he has other resources is bringing 
them to bear. 

PAO Jules 3ergman, next row back there. 

BERGMAN This is for Randy or Bill Ziegler* I have two 

questions. One, is it possible that rather than going into a 
flat spin, the first stage motor exploded bringing about the 17 
pieces that Norad is reporting, allegedly* Two, if that were the 
case, or if the flat spin was the case, what is the possibility 
that Palapa won' t be launched at all but will be brought back to 
Earth? 

ZIEGLER Possibility of an explosion is one of the 

possibilities that is being looked at and considered and ~ but we 
have no confirming evidence to say that it was or was not. 

BERGMAN Before you - let me add to that, Bill* Is there 

any telemetry onboard that would tell you anything about flat 
spin or explosion or anything like that? 

♦ . 

ZIEGLER Yes* If we could talk to it. 

BERGMAN in other words, it is completely dead. 

ZIEGLER So far we have not been able to raise a peep out of 

it. 

BERGMAN Randy? 

ZIEGLER We are continuing to try. 

STONE Oh, I have to answer the second one. Rats. I 

thought you had forgotten, Jules. 

BERGMAN No I never forget. 

STONE Having not talked to the Palapa people yet, they 

have a lot of decisions that they have to make and I don't know 
that decision process they ate going through. However, it comes 
to mind from an operation sense that NASA needs to be prepared to 
bring, Palapa home should they choose that course of action. And 
we have started just a cusory look at our landing weights and 
what that means to us on landing site selection, runway 
selection, etc. We are prepared to do that and as far as an 



3TS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jc 2/4/84 lis 00 am PAGE 2 



Orbiter weight situation it is not a problem. I can't tell you at 
this time whether or not we would still commit to !<SC with the 
additional weight of Palapa onboard. The preliminary data that I 
saw before I left the control center was positive that we have 
the margins to go into KSC if we chose to. 

BERG MAM Let me follow that up, Randy, very briefly. In the 

evant /ou Jon't know and ground cameras can't establish the 
dabris as Craig suggested, in the event you can't find out what 
happened, would not NASA then recommend to the Indonesian 
Government as the launcher for them, that we should not take a 
chance? 

STONE I don't believe that's NASA's call, Jule3. I think 

that belongs in the customer camp and I'm sure they will ask our 
advice but from an operation standpoint as far as the Orbiter and 
what we know about the deploy operations, I wouldn't think that 
we would take that stand, But it is the customer's choice, not 
ours. 

BERGMAN You can't tell me that somebody in NASA doesn' t 

recommend something to the Indonesian Government. 

STONE What I can tell you is, I am not doing that and I 

don't know of the management chain that's going on that would do 
that. I know the customers are meeting today and working that 
with their contractors and I would have to let them comment on 
that, Jules. I just don't have an answer for you. 

PAO John Noble Wilford right here in the front and 

then we'll go over there, 

JOHN NOBLE WILFORD (NEW YORK TIMES) The $75 million, what does 
that include and the difference between 75 million and the 
insured value of 100 million, Does that represent lost revenues? 

ZIEGLER The 75 million cost, no, is our out of pocket cost 

to get this thing operating in orbit. 

WILFORD In other words that includes the satellite, the 

PAM, the fee to NASA, and what else? 

ZIEGLER Our engineering costs, insurance premiums, I think 

that's the essence of it, our own engineering cost and operations 
cost and ground equipment cost because we're controlling a new 
satellite. But I don't have a break down of that. 

WILFORD But the difference between 75 and 100, that 

represents what? Your lost revenues? Y 

^0 



STS-41-8 CHANGE~0?~SHIF7 3RIEFIHG p3jc 2/4/84 11: 00 am PAGE 3 

2I3GLER When wo insure, we want to attempt to insure it 

for the replacement valuo, to recover the replacement cost. And 
there ia some loss of business, and I don't have a breakdown of 
that, 

** * 



STS-41-3 CHANGS-OF-SHIPT BRIEFING p3jd 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE I 



WILFORD When would you be able to put up a replacement? 

2IEGLER Well we have Westar 7 under contract with Hughes, 

and we have a launch reservation at NASA, and we have a PAM under 
contract. It's currently planned Cor a launch in November 
1985, I'm sura all of those entities will bend every effort to 
help accelerate that. But I don't know the answer to how soon we 
can get it cone. 

WILFORD And to Mr. Stone, what is it you are doing to 

investigate the status of the Palaoa and the PAM associated with 
that? Do you have, are you in communication with that satellite 
in some way? 

ST 0"E we have the normal checkout capability with Palapa 

and we have turned it on twice today, there's one other turn on 
scheduled late this evening, before the crew goes to sleep. But 
primarily that is just checking its thermal condition to make 
sure that all of our predictions on the thermal enviornment are 
going right. There are no extensive checkouts going on there. 
And you wouldn't expect to see any problem. 

WILFORD Is that because it's not possible to do an 

extensive checkout? 

STONE There is, it's possible to do more of extensive 

checkout than what we are doing with these simplified thermal 
checks that we are doing today, and we've told Palapa that we 
would be willing to do whatever checkout that they saw necessary 
and they are still going through an evaluation to see if they 
want to do anything other than the normal deploy sequence. 
3ecause the normal deploy sequence starts early and gives vou all 
the data you're going to get, to make a decision on it. 

WILFORD What would the advantage of going an extra day, 

waiting an extra day, be to do one, some of those investigations? 

STONE No, it's primarily to try to get a handle on the 

problem that Westar had to see if, I'm speculating now, I'd hate 
to tell you what their engineering community is doing, but it's 
just prudent, in an engineering sense when you have a failure on 
one vehicle and you have another vehicle that's identical to it, 
to try to understand what happened to the one that has a problem 
and then check back through your records to see if there's some 
generic correlation that you could make there. But in this case 
we have very little data, so that, that's difficult, and - - 

PAO Paul Recer . 

RECER - Randy, has it been suggested or considered that 

since the orbits are fairly close, moving Challenger within 
visual range of these pieces and try to gather some photo data? 



STS-41-3 CHANG'S-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jd 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 



STONE we started thinking that as soon as had a vector, 

and we've been working just a cursory evaluation of that on ray 
shift, Harold will work it more this afternoon, to see if we have 
enough propellant to go do that. Just looking at the orbit off 
the top of my head and with beginnings of information that was 
starting to come in from my flight dynamics officer, it looks 
like the propellant cost to do that is too great to accomplish. 
3ut that has not, of course, been ruled out one wav or another. 



RSCSR 
done? 



Any 



Okay, 
idea? 



if you are able to do that, when would it be 



STONE I really don't know, NASA would have to decide to 

give up some of the other NASA primary objectives this mission to 
go do that, it is obvious that it would take all the reserved 
propellant that we had to do an operation like that. I don't 
expect that to happen, but we have looked at it just to give the 
managers the cost of doing that. 



RECER 
include 
idea of 

STONE 



Okay, one other, 
a large object. How 
the size? 



The, you said 
large is large? 



these objectives 
Do you have any 



Bill, do, I don't remember the number. 



ZIEGLER We have an estimate from NORAD that it's in the 

order of 3 to 4 square meters. 



RECER 

ZIEGLER 

RECER 



Okay, well. 

Radar cross section. 

Three to four square meters. 



ZIEGLER Three to four square meters, radar cross section. 

And by the way I don't know whether that was, at this point, I 
don't know whether that was a single, one of the objects, or the 
combination of 2 possible objects. 

RECER Okay/ there is routinely kept an inventory of 

orbiting objects, is this, are these objects that you are now 
seeing, an addition to that inventory, I don't quite understand 
why that, if there is in fact a bench mark inventory, why they - 

ZIEGLER We presume so, because they would have told us if 

they already had it in their inventory. 



RECER 



And it was not in the inventory before? 



ZIEGLER Well, as r say, we presume so, because they didn't 
tell us it was in their inventory. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jd 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 3 

KRAMER You talked, Randy, you talked about a flat spin, I 

assume that means instead of this spin, a spin something like 
this, and if you get, if you got a PAM firing would that not send 
you out of plane? And where are these things in relation to the 
plane of the Orbiter's orbit. 



STS-41-B CHANGS-0?-SHIPT BRIEFING p3je 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 



STONE I'll let you answer the flat spin part. The out- 

of-plane part, we don't have enough geometry on the tracking yet 
to look at the out-of-plane components, 

KRAMER Well, it must be fairly close or else you'd see 

this orbit skewing far from the Spacecraft, 

3 TO ME Yes, you would. 

ZIEGLER Part, preliminary information indicates that it's 

in approximately the same inclination, same orbit with the same 
inclination but with a higher apogee, 

STONE That's right. 

ZIEGLER And about the same perigee. 

KRAMER Wouldn't a successful PAM firing pointed the wrong 

way send you into an orbit far from the one you're seeing? 

ZIEGLER if you can visualize this stack of Spacecraft and 

PAM in a flat spin, that means that the PAM plume is spinning 
around like a pinwheel and spraying in all directions which would 
mean that the average thrust in any particular direction would be 
very small. 

KRAMER Let me ask one or two more if I may. Is not 

NASA's responsibility terminated once this thing leaves the 
Spacecraft. This PAM was not supplied by NASA. It was purchased 
by you folks I guess from McDonnell Douglas and it's nice that 
NASA's doing all this and it's nice if the DOD is using 
classified instruments to look for it. But I'm curious to know 
the exact relationship between the customer and the government, 
What point do you stop using these resources for a commercial 
venture? 

STONE That's a toutjh one. NASA, of course, is trying to 

be as cooperative as possible in a situation like this. We'd 
like to have these people as customers downstream, obviously, and 
I think you'd have to ask NASA management much higher than me to 
get a straight answer to that one. 

KRAMER Can I ask you one more thing about the EVAs? You 

talk about extending the mission perhaps 1 day if you have to 
delay the deployment to a further backup day. Why would you do 
that and not shift things so that you could still come down on 
the same day? Move some activities up. 

STONE We could do that. We have a flight planning 

guideline and it's not a rule, it's just a guideline that we 
would like to not do an EVA on the day before entry and that's 
just because of the massive amount of equipment we have out when 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3je 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 



we do an SVA. I mean the Or biter is in a state of disarray and 
it takes a while to pack up after an EVA and it's just good 
business to give yourself a day before deorbit to get your things 
put away and do an orderly cleanup of the ship. It's not a 
rule. One of the options that we'll be looking at over the next 
couple of days, should we extend the PALAPA deployment into 
Monday is keeping the mission length the same but that work just 
hasn't been done yet. 



PAO 



Okay, right here. 



QUERY I have a couple of questions concerning the power 

assisted module. As far as I remember, the distance with the IUS 
was about 50 miles from the Shuttle. How far was the WE STAR 
when it was scheduled to be launched? How many miles? 



away 



STONE Since you asked that question, I brought a note. 

At the time of the PKM burn, the scheduled PKM burn, the Orbiter 
was about 8 and 1/2 nautical miles trailing and 6.2 nautical 
miles above the WSSTAR. 



QUERY 



Was that nominal? 



STONE 



Yes. 



QUERY So the second would be do you have an automatic 

launching sequence for the WESTAR, That means, you don't need 
special command either from the Astronauts or from the ground? 



ZIEGLER 
QUERY 



To fire the PAM? 
Yes. 



ZIEGLER That's correct, It's done by an onboard timer that 

is started when it separates from the Orbiter and that firing is 
4 5 minutes later. 

STONE And just to add to that, before the deployment we 

verify, the crew verifies and your people verify that the safe 
and arm devices which allow the PAM to ignite were rotated into 
the arm position. 

QUERY And who's confirming the launch then, the Satellite 

or the launch of the PAM, the ignition of PAM? Who's confirming 
it? The Satellite gives you a signal or what. Tells you - - 

ZIEGLER That is our job to do that rather than NASA's and 

the way it usually takes place is that we confirm it by finding 
our Satellite in the proper transfer orbit. We haven't done so, 
so we can't confirm PAM firing. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3je 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 3 

QUERY And the last one will be, are the Astronauts 

expected to turn the windows away from the launching of the PAM. 

ZIEGLER Yes. 

QUERY So that they couldn't see it. 

STOflE That's right. We do that to protect the - - 

QIERU I know, I know. 

STONE - - window surfaces from the plume. 

?AO Craig Covault, right here and then we'll get Roy. 
Rignt here in the front. 



*** 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jf 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 



CRAI- 'v>VAULT (AVIATION WEEK) Three questions. Two for Bill, 
The PAM has been used off of the delta as well and I think you're 
aware that early in the history of the PAM it did show some 
coning when coming off of the delta that caused some concern and 
actually some Spacecraft modifications on other payloads. Have 
you thought about this coning problem early in the PAM as perhaps 
beinj something that was a factor in your problem, 

ZIEGLER Well, yes. Into the design of the Spacecraft we 

now have what we call an automatic nutation damper, automatic 
nutation control, and during this coast period - this 45 minute 
coast period - after it leaves the Or biter until PAM firing that 
automatic nutation control will take out any coning unless it was 
faulty or incorrect. Or, one of the speculations is that perhaps 
the sensors got reversed, for example, and caused it to go into a 
flat spin rather than taking out the coning. 

COVAULT I'm not clear on the earlier PAM coning problems. 

Whether that coning was started after the PAM motor was fired or 
as it wa , coming off the delta spin table before fir ing. 

ZIEGLER It took place during the last 20 to 30 seconds of 

the burn and during that last 20 to 30 seconds built up 

essentially exponentially and then it built up very slowly after 
that until separation. 

COVAULT So it's not necessarily, doesn't necessarily track 

with the character isitics you're seeing. 

2IEGLER Right. 

COVAULT Okay. And following that, since you do not have a 

visual contact due to the window protection attitude, it's always 
been an option to place the telemetry on the PAM that would 
report back real time to the Orbiter. I believe SBS was the only 
payload that did this. WESTAR chose not to do that in this 
case* Could you tell me how much Spacecraft life you gain by not 
adding that extra weight and is not that the factor why you don't 
install that extra telemetry weight. 

ZIEGLER That PAM telemetry is - - 

COVAULT 40 pounds? 

ZIEGLER I recall something on the order of 40 pounds, 

yes. But I don't think we were concerned so much about the extra 

weight as the extra dollars. 



COVAULT How much more money does it cost to place the 

telemetry on? 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3 j f \ 2/4/84 U;00 am PAGE 2 

ZISGLER I don't recall that either. I'll have to get back 

to you. 

PAO Let's go to Roy Neal, right there. 

ROY NEAL (NBC) Bill, I'm looking at a Western Union release 
that says NASA compressed a normal 33 month schedule into 10 
months. McDonnell Douglas provided a PAM in less than a year. 
Hughes modified the Spacecraft for STS compatability as compared 
to Arean when you decided not to go Arean and go American instead 
with only 9 months lead time. With that for background, what 
kind of quality checks are you running now to see what might have 
happened on that expedited schedule? 

ZIEGLER Quality checks on the expedited schedule. 

NEAL Yes sir. 

ZIEGLER Well, of course, we're looking at everything and 

when we find out what went wrong, you know, then maybe we'll know 
the answer to that question. But at this point we - - 

NEAL Those checks presumably are being run now, however. 

ZIEGLER Oh, absolutely. 

NEAL Various points. The PALAPA, by comparison, was 

allowed to come to full term waa'n.'t it? I mean, it was on a 
normal schedule PAi-1 included. So presumably, if there were an 
error in quality control that would not reflect with PALAPA. 

ZIEGLER I can't, yes due to that reason. I can't really 

speak for PALAPA but as I understand it their's was a more normal 
schedule than ours. 

PAO Jules Bergman. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) This is I think for Randy again. Though 
NASA's responsibility ended legally when WE STAR left the payload 
bay, it has always been and as stated in the press kit that the 
major mission goal was the launching of these 2 COMSATS. So 
therefore, I submit the Shuttle may not be a simple freighter 
truck. Does that not change NASA's responsibility? 

STONE Well, when we sign up a payload such as a 

communications satellite, and we have two of them on this flight, 
the primary goal of the Orbiter is to deliver those satellites to 
orbit and we will expend, for instance, propellant to guarantee 
that we can deploy those satellites and terminate the mission 
following the deployment and come home without accomplishing any 
of the other objectives in the mission. And if you look at the 
priority flight that we have had ever since we've had satellites 



3TS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3j£ 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 3 

to deploy, and then look at the priority tables that we build to 
use propellant. That's always the case, Jules. We'll, you know, 
our primary goal is to the customer and we'll use up the" 
resources of the Or biter necessary to deploy them but you've got 
to remember in that scheme of things that's implying that 
something happened to the Orbiter. That we weren't in the right 
orbit or whatever that we had to go use up that propellant. 



*** 



STS-41-3 CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p3jg 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 



BERGMAN Well, therefore, I'm probably wrong on this as 

usual, but therefore, is it not worth, if that was the primary 
goal, is it not worth Na3a changing or expending the fuel, from 
the Orbiter to find out exactly what happened to Westar? 

STONE Well I think that's up to Nasa Management to decide 

whether or not that's a prudent thing to do. if the prooellant 
cost was relatively low, and you could go get a subset of your 
requirements, I'm sure NASA would consider that. And I'm not 
sure they wouldn't consider it in this situation. But all the 
votes aren't in, Jules, and I just don't flat know the answer to 
that. 

PAO Okay, we'll take one more here and then we'll take 

questions from KSC. Right here. 

WILLIAMS - (KJOJ) - One quick question tMr. Stone, how would the 
EVA's be affected with a Palapa satellite, still be in, with the 
Palapa satellite still remaining in the cargo bay? 

STONE it would look to the EVA crewman, a normal 

situation, because the sunshield would be closed and the EVA 
crewman doesn't know whether there's a satellite in there or 
not. 

WILLIAMS So it would not cause any dangers or, also, are 

there any checks made on the PAM itself before the satellite is 
released. 

STONE Certainly, there are extensive checks on the PAM 

and Bill probably is more familiar with them than I am. But they 
do go through a check of their sequencers, make sure their safe 
and arm devices are in the proper configuration, make 3ure all 
the relays are set right, so there's an extensive check out of 
the PAM prior to deployment. 

PAO Okay, we'll take question now from the Kenneday 

Space Ccenter . 

KSC we have several questions here. The first from 

Reggie Turnell, BBC. 

TURNELL - (BBC) Is, just two points on the Westar problem. 
McNair did comment on the heavy jolt, when it left Challenger. 
Is this thought to have any bearing on the problem? And the 
other one is, is no consideration being given to allowing 
Challenger to take a very brief look at the Palapa firing if this 
does take place. 

STONE Well, I'll take a crack at answering both of those 

questions. The sensation of feeling a jolt when you deploy a 
satellite from this configuration has been reported on nearly 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jg 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 



every flight on one degree or another. I don't believe anybody 
thinks there was any contributing problem there. With respect to 
looking at the Palapa PKM burn, we've started some analysis in 
the Control Center and brought in some of our off-line technical 
people too look at techniques that would allow us to use the RMS 
camera, either the end affector camera or the elbow camera, to 
peek out around the Orbiter and be pointed at the Palapa at the 
time of the PKM burn. And that analysis will continue" through 
the day to determine, one, whether we can even get into an 
attitude that the camera can look back over the payload bay doors 
and the wing and see the satellite; and two, whether there's any 
risk to the RMS and primarily to the RMS that would jeopardize 
downstream use of the arm. 

LORETZ - (Chicago Sun Times) - I may have missed something 
earlier but in suggesting an extra flight day, do you imply a 
delay of one day in the second EVA, that is, moving the second 
EVA from Thursday to Friday. 

STONE Dick, 1'iv: really not positive how we'll insert that 

extra day, just from the simplicity standpoint, it would be 
beneficial to our flight planners, just to take a day out of the 
middle and do Palapa one day late, and move everything downstream 
one day, including both EVA'S and the rendezvous and that's the 
n.ost simplified thing for us to do from a paperwork standpoint, 
of getting the right Information of when to do what to the 
crew. So that would be the first choice, but we have to look at 
what that really means to us, and we don't have that story fully 
put together. 

SAILSTEAD - (Baltimore Sun) - I have two questions, first to 
double check Mr. Stone's numbers on the position of the Westar. 
I wrote them down as 8.5 nautical miles trailing. That is the 
Orbiter was trailing the Westar by 8.5 nautical miles, and the 
Orbiter was 6.2 nautical miles above the Westar, is that right. 

STONE Correct. That was at the time of the scheduled PKM 

burn, of the PAM. 

SAILSTEAD At that time when they actually saw it visually, 
was it in a proper attitude then. 

STONE We did not, we do not monitor visually the PKM 

burn, the crew actually turns the Orbiter away from the burn to 
protect the Orbiter windows from contamination from the solid 
rocket motor. So we're not, unless we do something that we 
normally don't do, we cannot see the PKM burn. 



*** 



STS-41-S CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jh 2/4/84 11:00 pm PAGE 1 



SAILSTEAD All right. I understand that, but I don't 
understand when they last saw it. We all saw it on television, 
spinning out of the cargo bay. When did the astronauts last see 
it, how high above or beyond the Orbiter was it, and was it then 
in a proper attitude. 

STONS I don't know what the range was when they started 

their raanuever to the sep burn attitude, which would kind of give 
you a feel for where it was. I can get that number for you, but 
I don't know what that it. It was nominal as long as we had it 
in the TV, and it was nominal as long as the crew was looking at 
it. Now they may have stopped looking at before they actually, 
it was actually completely out of the field of view, but I doubt 
that. Normally they watch it until it disapears into the 
darkness. But I could get you those ranges. 

MIKE MEECHAN (Gannette News Service) Can someone clarify 
exactly who has son these objects? Is it NORAD , or is it NASA's 
tracking system? 

STONE It's the NORAD tracking system that is providing us 

this information. 

PAO That's all the questions from KSC, wait a minute 

there's another question, Harry Rosenthal from AP. 

HARRY ROSENTHAL (AP) I know that you've said how much fuel, 
that it would take too much fuel to try to catch up with the 
satellite, or the chunks that you are seeing, but can you tell us 
exactly how far away at this point the Orbiter is, I'm sorry I'm 
out of breath, from the chunks? 

STONE At this instant I have no idea, that's a relative 

motion problem that has to be run almost continuously in the 
Control Center. The, let's see, the approximate orbit that the 
major piece that we're tracking right now is in, is 155 by about 
265, I believe, and the Orbiter is in a 166 by 171 orbit, 
approximately. So it can be a wide variation of ranges, however, 
if you're getting at whether or not we are worried about it 
recontacting, it appears that tho orbits are getting slowly 
farther apart, which is what you would expect; with 2 different 
energy orbits. 

ROSENTHAL And on another subject please, recalling the 
thermal blanket that - where the velcro was loose in the opening 
pictures of the cargo bay and the thump on the PAM when it was 
deployed, are you worried at all about the things that you have 
in the cargo bay that have to do with the EVA? 

STONE No, we're not. In fact, we're looking at during 

the first EVA prior to use of the Cinema 360 camera that's in the 
bay that has the loose thermal blanket, one of the EVA crewmen is 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH IFT BRIEFING p3jh 2/4/84 11:00 pm PAGE 2 



going to go over there and see if it's just a velcro closure that 
nas pulled loose and pushed the blanket back down to where it's 
suppose to be. And as far as the thump is concerned, we have no 
concern over that, that is something we have seen with other PAM 
deploys. 

TOM O'TOOLE (Washington Post) if you leave the Palaoa in to 
bring it back, whether the fact that vou have additional 
pyrotechnics on it would impact any other experiments that would 
be carried out on the mission. 

STONE None that I know of at this time. If Palapa 

chooses to return their satellite, we will out it in itsmost 
safe and powered down configuration. So there is no concern 



PA0 That's all the questions from KSC. 

PA0 we have questions at the Marshall Soace Fliqht 

Center, we'll take those. 

DAVE DOOLING (Huntsville Times) For Mr. ziegler, if, is there 
any credible failure in the Hughes spacecraft oortion of all this 
that could have caused the RCS system to lock on to out it into 
the flat spin? 

ZIEGLER Conceivably, but we haven't concluded that of all 

the speculations of the failures, we haven't confirmed that any 
one of them are possible or impossible. 

DOOLING Ok, Randy, Have you considered changing the orbit 

simply to avoid the possibility of any kind of recontact with the 
debris and what would that do to the Palapa deoloy ooportunities 
and the operations with the IRT. 

STONE Well based on what we're seeing now, and of course 

we don't have real accurate data on all of the particles, it 
looks like things are slowly moving away from the Orbiter. And 
especially when you don't know exactly where everything is, where 
£? u are is as good as any. So no, we are not planning to move 
the Orbiter at this time. The objects that we're tracking appear 
to be moving down track of the Orbiter very slowly. 



*** 



STS-41-B -JHANGS-OF-SHIFT 3RISFIMG p3ji 2/4/34 11.00 a.n, Paqa 1 

DOOLIMG Okay, any indication on how long that would take 

that gradual phasing until the 2 orbits would recontact. 

STONE I asked that question earlier this evening, and 

?ID0 couldn't count that high, it's long after we land, 

DOOLING Okay, and i f don 1 1 extend the mission, what 

activities would rtost 1 ikely be lost, 

STONE If wo do not extend the mission and deploy Palapa 

tomorrow, nothing would be lost* We have flight planned for this 
contingency to give the customer 1 day of backup deploy 
opportunity. Should we have to extend an additional day, you mav 
lose nothing except shorten possibly an EVA and shorten a 
rendezvous sequence, but we haven't, we have a lot of options 
there to work with and we're holding them open until we 
understand what we have to go plan for, 

000 LING Okay, thank you, no more from Marshall, 

?A0 Okay, Olive Talley with UPI, 

TALLEY First of all, either Randy or Bill, we've 

mentioned a number of pieces that you are tracking. Exactly how 
many pieces are we talking about. 

STONE Exactly we have no idea. 

TALLEY What's your best guesstiment, what is the ballpark, 

10, 15, 20, 2, what? 

STONE I would hate to guess, as the reports have come in 

through the night as we've gotten more tracking data, it's gone 
from 3 to 5 to 9 to 18. Bill have you heard any other numbers? 

ZIEGLER No. 1 and 2 and any other number inbetween there, 

TALLEY Several would be fair, 

STONE Several is probably the appropriate answer, 

ZIEGLER It does though, seem to be narrowing down to some 

agreement, that there are 'two sizeable particles. 

TALLEY And Bill, 1 more question please, regarding the 

loss of business to Western Union, you said that the 100 million 
dollar insurance figure covers some loss of business. How many 
clients would have used, or have you signed up to use Westar 6, 
how many clients, how much business, can you pinpoint that any 
farther . 

ZIEGLER No, I can't at this time. 



3TS-41-3 CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING ?3ji 2/4/84 11.00 a.m. Page 2 

T ALLEY Or access any financial impact of the loss to 

Western. 

2IEGLER No. I can't, let's not, neither of those, 

marketing or the financial accounting, is in my area of 
expertise, and I would have to refer you to our Public Relations 
Organization. Oh, by the way, there is an office, temporary 
office down at the Cape, Bill Anderson, is there, in a Western 
Union communications room at the Cape. 

QUERY Phone number? 

ZIEGLER 305-783-1843, I don't know how long they are going 

to be there, but I believe they will be there at least todav and 
probably tomorrow. And then our corporate headquarters ought to 
be opened up Monday. 

?AO David (Garble) (CBS) 

DAVID Mr. Stone, I think you mentioned that by 2 o'clock 

this afternoon there may be an announcement as to the Indonesian 
government's decision. Would you like to know by 2 o'clock this 
afternoon whether or not it's go for Sunday or go not at all. Is 
that kind of a deadline that you've set. 

STONE It's not a deadline, but the earlier we know that 

we would for instance bring it home, the better prepared we can 
be, to work out our flight plan. And that goes for' a one day 
slip too. We would like to know that as early as possible. 
Obviously if we countdown to a deploy tomorrow and for some 
reason choose not to go tomarrow, we still have the option to 
slip one day and it will just compress the flight planning time 
that we have to pull the rest of the mission back into shape, 

PAO Jules Bergman. 

BERGMAN It's probably for you, Bill Ziegler. I have a 

questar telescope, which is hooked to my Nikon, and I can see 
objects the size you're talking about very clearly in earth 
orbit. So even without the Air Force's high powered telephoto 
cameras, or with them, you should be able to see if the flat spin 
theory is true or if burn marks, for example, on pieces of metal 
up there very rapidly, shouldn't you. 

STONE I think you ought to hire Jules to go out and look 

for them. 

ZIEGLER I suspect that was a proposal. I don't know the 

aspects to that. 



STS-41-R CHANGS-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3ji 2/4/84 11,00 a.m. Pago 3 

BERGMAN What I'm curious about is which organization, MAS A 
or Western Union, asked the Air Force to studv this? Or did 
both? 

ZIEBLER I don't know the answer to that, 

STONE And I don't either, Jules, I suspect it was a joint 
effort. 



* * * 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT 9RIEFING ?3jj 2/4/84 11:00 am ?AGE I 



PAO Paul Recer, 

PAUL RECER (AP) Does the relationship of the orbits of the 
object and the Orbiter present any angular or proximate 
advantages in using the onboard radar or radio communications 
equipment to study the problem or try to communicate in one 
manner or another with the objects? 

STONE The onboard radar system, our Ku-band radar system, 

I'd have to look to see what the closest points of accroach are 
of the other orbit. 3ut I suspect, you know, our !<u-band radars 
are very low power device, intended for use fairly close in in 
the rendezvous process and I suspect that we're out of the normal 
range of that instrument but I'd have to look at the relative 
orbits to tell you that for sure. 

2IEGLER Randy's team, though, is looking at that 

possibility. 

RECER Okay, radar . How about of radio or, you know, 

trying to communicate with the - - . 

Z1EGLER Well, I don't think the Orbiter's equipped to 

communicate with our satellite. 

RECER Okay. 

PAO l f m going to take about 2 more questions. Mark 

Kramer right there, 

MARK KRAMER (CBS) Randy, does anyone consider possibly junking 
the IRT exercise and doing a real rendezvous with this 
Spacecraft, or with these objects? 

STONE I'm sure that's a consideration. The tradeoff 

primarily lies in whether or not you have enough propellant to do 
a rendezvous such as what you're proposing with thisobject. It 
looked to me like, when I left the Control Center just on the 
first vector that we had - and granted that vector is going to 
change through the day as we get more tracking stations reports 
of it and hone it down to some degree of accuracy - but it looked 
like the propellant cost was above what we could do even if we 
gave up all other objectives of the mission. 

KRAMER I know you said you didn't know exactly where this 

group of objects was in relation to the Spacecraft but other than 
exactly, can you characterize it in some way? Is it a quarter of 
an orbit away? Is it 500 or 15,000 miles away? Is it still 
ahead or below? 



STONE It f s behind us, at least it was when I left the 

Control Center and I would expect it to get more behind us 



STS-41-3 CHANGS-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING ?3jj 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 

because it has a higher average altitude of the orbit so its 
orbit is higher so actually it, with respect to us, it's going 
slower so it's moving to a trailing position, a farther trailing 
position to the Orbiter and it f s varying quite a bit now because 
of the - - 

2ISGLSR Randy, the last number I heard was that it was 25 

miles behind and increasing, 

STONE And I would like to, before wo say that it's 25 

miles behind us, I've also heard the same folks say it is 25 
minutes behind us which at 17,000 feet per second is a whole lot 
more than 25 miles and I just don't know at this time how far 
this is truly behind us, But it is behind us, 

KRAM3R So it's exactly somewhere between 25 and 8,000 or 

something like that, 

STONE I wish I could give you some exact data, 

KRAMER With a real firm maybe. 

PAO Doug Miller with KTRH in the back there. 

DOUG MILLER (KTRH) Okay, First of all, Steve can we get the 
exact figure on that. Is there some way we can determine that or 
try to get a better idea? 

STONE Of how far behind? 

MILLER Right. Can we get that and pass it through the 

PAO? 

STONE I don't believe you're going to be able to get it 

quickly because as we, like I say, we have 1 vector so far on 
this object. It is not what you would describe as the best 
vector that we can put together because it has very few stations 
in it and the geometry, if you will, the way it points at the 
object has so far been fairly poor. We don't have a good 
selection of sites looking at the target and it'll be, I'm sure, 
much later today before they tie that orbit down and could give 
you an answer like that. 

MILLER All right. And secondly, what do you need to 

finally determine if this debris is your satellite and when do 
you expect to get it? I mean obviously you 1 ve got to figure it 
out at some point. What's it going to take and when do you 
expect to make that determination? 



*** 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljk 2/4/84 11:00 am ?A3E 1 

ZIEGLER Well what it would take would be either close up 

photographic evidence or radio communi cat ions with it. And see 
if it responds to it's identity code, and that kind of thing. 
How long it's going to take. That could be 2 minutes, 2 hours, 
or 2 years. 

?AO Okay, I think we will close it off with that. 

Thank you for coming this morning, thank you gentlemen. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4ja 2/4/84 5:30 on PAGE 1 



?AO We've got not one, but two Flight Directors, M 

Draughon whose 41-8 lead Flight Director, who's been sort of off- 
line today working the rescheduling and flight planning problem, 
while Gary Coon has been minding the spaceship all day* And also 
on the far end is Mr, Bill Ziegler of Western Union. Al why 
don't you run over some of the planning you f ve been doing on the 
various options that are onen to us tomorrow. 

DRAUGHON What we're going to do here today, and the 

reason there are three of us, as Terry said, I've been involved 
with the replanning aspects, and I'll try to acquaint you with 
the kind of decision points that we're planning to go through for 
the next couple of days, Gary will debrief you on the things 
that went on today's shift because he took that shift in my stead 
today. And Bill will fill you in on whatever they have learned 
in there continuing quest to get some data. We've briefed the 
crew shortly before we left the Control Center, that for 
tomorrow, we still have, the decision has still not been made on 
whether or not to deploy the Palapa or not tomorrow. The 
options, there was a, in the premission planning, there was, this 
was to be - tomorrow would have been the backup date that we 
would have used for either Westar or Palapa. That would have 
nominally been REV 32. We have looked at the over all coverage 
from looking at ground tracking station coverage, both during the 
deploy, and after the deploy looking at immediate coverage after 
a PaM burn and have decided that we will recommend that if we do 
deploy tomorrow that we use REV 34, which will be a 2 REV slip, 2 
REV delay. The decision as to whether or not to deploy, yet 
indeed whether or not to use that particular REV will reside with 
the customer. They have scheduled a meeting to deal with that 
issue around 6:00 o'clock local. And I don't know what the 
answer will be coming out of that meeting. We will respond to 
either way, if they want to go tomorrow then we are fully 
prepared and ready to do that. If they want to delay then we are 
making plans to go to an alternate profile to bring whatever 
flight activities we can for tomorrow, and try to do as much 
constructive work as we can. So the nominal plan will be, if we 
deploy probably REV 34, but a firm commitment won 1 t be made until 
later this evening. If the decision from the customer is that 
they would rather take some more time to simulate what data they 
have to do further checks, going back through records, and what 
have you, we're trying to make every opportunity available to 
them, to go later in the flight. To fill in tomorrow if we don't 
deploy the Palapa, we will be bringing forward the IRT deploy. 
That's a 2 meter balloon that I talked to you all about in the 
Mission briefing a few weeks prior to launch. We will, if we do 
the balloon work tomorrow, it will be slightly different but if 
all of you had heard that premission briefing, I described to you 
2 rendezvous scenarios. One that was a nominal where we deployed 
the thing on one afternoon, do a little work enclosed with the 
sensors and then separate out to 175 miles, re-rendezvous the 
next day. And then another rendezvous profile that we would have 



3TS-41-B CHANGS-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p4ja 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 2 



used had we been on a priority flight and only devoted one d^y to 
rendezvous. That second profile is the one we will fly if we do 
a rendezvous tomorrow with the IRT. Basically it is made up of a 
deployment, with the I RT, a maneuver to go out to S miles 
different distance from the IRT, on the velocity vector, 8 miles 
behind it. Then we do an approach hack in to 5 miles behind it, 
go back out to 8 again, and then return in and essentially do a 
final phase rendezvous coming all the way back to the target, 
And by all the way back I moan up to 200 feet. That will, as far 
as what do you get out of that versus the nominal, what was the 
nominal full rendezvous, you get everything except the ground 
involvement* If you do the wrong rendezvous, the difference is 
that you're starting out the return leg from 175 miles, the 
ground makes those computations on those first 2 maneuvers, what 
is called the NC maneuver and the NH maneuver, to bring the 
vehicle back to the TI point, or the terminal phase point at 8 
miles at which time they, onboard takes over and does that job 
for themselves. So we essentially lose that part of it. I think 
all of you that have been following the program know that we have 
done targeting, ground targeting of maneuvers quite a bit. We 
even did come phantom rendezvous on fliqhts 3 and 4, I believe. 
But on 2 or 3 flights we did this kind of thing, and we did it 
quite a few, quite a lot in the Gemini and Apollo programs, so 
it's not something that's new to us. The softwares is a little 
bit different, the filters are a little bit different, but it's 
something we know how to do. So we don't feel badly about 
missing that particular exercise if do. The important thing to 
get out of this flight as far as the rendezvous is concerned is 
to get this sensor performance between the Orbiter and whatever 
the rendezvous target is. That's the highest priority. Another 
high priority objective was to get the terminal phase involvement 
of the crew and the onboard sensors from the 8 mile point back in 
to the rendezvous target. That's where the job reverts totally 
to the crew. And you've got the man interaction of the NAV 
states, and executing 4 or 5 burns, and doing terminal phase and 
stationkeeping. So we've preserved all of those aspects that are 
rendezvous DTO. So that's the basic plan, we're really trying to 
give the customer as much lee-way as they can in dealing with 
whatever the problem is and taking our best shot at getting a 
good deploy off on the next one. There is consideration even 
begin given to slipping the deployment even further than that, if 
the customer is so desired. That would potentially result in 
moving one of the EVA's day one day forward and putting the 
Palapa deploy between the 2 EVA days. That is not high in the 
list of things that are being considered right now, but it is 
something that is being entertained. It's an option that we can 
do. And the thermal analysis that have been done, would indicate 
that the Palopa and the PAM would not have a problem as far as 
the attitude profiles that we would fly in performing both the 
rendezvous and the first EVA. So it's an option that is 
available if we choose to take that course of action. As far as 
things that we might do differently, whenever the Palapa deploy 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT 3RIEFING p4ja 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 3 

is scheduled, so far we've identified 2 things. One I've talked 
to you briefly about, and that is rather than putting it on the 
earliest REV, the earliest convenient REV, which is what REV 32 
was, and having a subsequent REV to deal with little nagging 
problems, or problems that we might encounter during the 
predeployment checkout, and having a backup REV, that's why it 
was put on REV 32, We've opted to recommend at least that it go 
on RSV 34, which gives us the additional coverage during the 
deployment and additional coverage directly after the PKM burn. 
So that is different. The other thing that is different is, I 
also mentioned during the premission briefing that we were doing 
a thing called a witness plate evaluation* And that is there was 
a test article put on the RMS arm, that we were going to hang out 
in the PAM plume, and see what kind of erosion we got on that 
particular sample material, and more or less calibrate the 
erosion factor of the plume at 10 1/2 miles distance. The reason 
that we would like to do that, is to relieve ourselves of 3ome of 
the self imposed constraints on protecting the Orbiter windows 
and bay from erosion and getting in very specific attitudes when 
a PKM burn is going to occur. If we can measure that, and 
convince ourselves that's it is not as detrimental as our worse 
case analysis are and we know that they are terrible 
conservative, then we would relieve some of those constraints, if 
not relax them totally. We're going to continue to do that, but 
in addition to that, as you know there's a camera on the end 
affector for the RMS, a TV camera. We intend to, the arm 
configuration for that witness plate is the vehicle is, if the 
nose is towards you folks, the arm is on the port side. It will 
be across the bay, and out this way with a little, just a little 
bend in the elbow, and the witness plate is along here. We're 
now going to take the end effect if it's on the end of this guy, 
and turn it down, and to look at the PAM at ignition. There's 
obviously going to be some contamination of that lens when the 
aluminum particles get back to where the Orbiter is, but it was a 
concession that was made to looking and getting what additional 
data we can at ignition for the next deploy. So, other than 
that, everything is pretty much the same. That pretty well 
covers the planning aspects. You want to cover questions now on 
that? 



*** 



STS-41-3 CHASGE-0?-SHI?T 3UIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30 pm ? AGE I 



PAO Well, perhaps we ought to go ahead and covet what's 

happening to the Challenger and then go to questions on both 
aspects* Gary. 

GARY COSN Okay. As you know, I stood in for Harold today on 
the execute shift and as you know the deploy of the PALAPA 
planned for today was canceled , vje did do some checkout on the 
BMU's. We checked out all three BMU's and the EMU's are ready to 
go so when we do the rendezvous part of the mission, those 
particular sets of hardware are squared away and checked out 
quite well, Also did some SPAS checkout. He checked out the RF 
links, all elements of the RF links to the SPAS. We learned some 
things from the crew today about one of the lockers, one of the 
lockers he had problems unlatching. Bruce was able to tap it a 
little bit with a hammer and was able to get the locker open. We 
don't expect any problem getting the door on that locker 
closed. Crew also accomplished a cabin debris inspection, They 
reported they didn't see a whole lot of debris. They did clean 
all the filters today, all of them except the filters associated 
with DDUs 1 and 2 which they plan to clean tomorrow. They did 
report plenty of lint on the IM'J fans which they cleaned up and 
they also vacuumed the cabin fans. Most of you, if you watched 
TV today anyway, saw that, or most likely knew, that we did some 
Cinema 360 work in conjunction with that*. The vehicle's in good 
shape as far as consumables are concerned. We think we have 
enough consumables to support any reasonable plan that comes up 
in the next few days. If there are any questions. 

PAO Okay. Please wait for the mike, Jules Bergman, 

ABC . 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) For Harold Draughon. What time tonight 
will the decision be made on whether to launch PALAPA tomorrow 
and why rev 34? 

DRAUGHON Jules, the meeting is scheduled to convene at 6 

o'clock between Hughes and the Indonesians and I don't know how 
long that meeting will take. I know that there's a lot of 
preliminary work going on so I suspect they We got their stories 
in order. So I don't know how long that will take but the 
meeting starts at 6:00 to discuss that and have a final 
recommendation to us. 

BERGMAN Second point. Do you see any chance that the 

Indonesians might elect to bring it back to Earth without 
launching it? 

DRAUGHON That's their prerogative. We're fully willing to 

take that course of action if that's what they want to do. We 
carry the propulsion. You know it does make the deorbit delta-Vs 
and things like that go up. They increase slightly because of 



STS-41-3 CHAiJGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 2 



the increased weight. If they want to do that then we f re ready 
and willing to do it, 

?AO Craig Covault, Aviation Week, 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) For both Harold and Mr, 
^io^jl^r. Any further characterization of the debris, 
specifically were you able to get some imagery that heloed you 
characterize it? 

ZIEGLER Well, we haven't gotten any imagery to the best of 

my knowledge, but we did have one clue, if you would, that one of 
our stations has received about 2 minutes of signal from the 
objects that were tailing the Orbiter, But it was so weak that 
we were unable to log onto it to gain any intelligence from it. 
However, it had the proper frequency and it was operating on the 
batteries which in the deployment configuration it's not hooked 
up to charge from the solar cells. So analysis shows that the 
batteries are pretty far down, pretty well discharged. So we 
think one of the first things that goes out is the traveling wave 
tube amplifier on the telemetry transmitters at low voltage, and 
all we were getting was a signal running through the traveling 
wave tube amplifier and out to that. We are attempting to put in 
commands to change the configuration to charge batteries and, of 
course, if we get a — during daylight and a favorable attitude 
of the sun to the solar arrays, we should be able to get voltage 
and battery up and so forth, but so far we haven't been 
successful in that. It was a signal of the type we would expect 
from an HS 376 spacecraft but it's nowhere near conclusive at 
this point, 

PAO Follow up with Craig. 

COVAULT Yes sir, but there are not a lot of lost HS 376 

spacecraft out there tonight. You have found the bird then, have 
you not? 

ZIEGLER I would say probably. Proabably, but I can't say 

that with certainty. 

COVAULT And the indication on the signal would indicate 

then you did not have an explosive failure that totallv 
fragmented your spacecraft then although you ... 

ZIEGLER I guess that would be an assumption you can make 

that we don't know if the spacecraft was damaged or not. 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. 



ZIEGLER 



We're hoping to get some firm information you know. 



STS-41-3 CHA:;G3-0?-SHIFT BRIEFING ?4jb 2/4/34 5:30 ?m PAGE 3 



PAO Paul Recer. 

PAUL REC3R {A?) In the event that the Indonesians, in and of 
their own decision, decide not to launch the PALA^A, is NASA 
going to charge them freight? 

DRAUGilON Paul, I'Ti not in the loqal o:v\ o; this thing but I 

believe we contracted. My belief is that we contracted to give 
them a ride in a deploy opportunity. r ;e are offering them those 
deploy opportunities and if we do that I iouot that we legally 
owe t:henT another free ride. We're re^dy to deploy them in the 
attitude and in the configuration and checked out the way we were 
preflight. We're still ready to do that, 

REC2R So if they chose not to deploy they still pay the 

fare, right? 

DRAUGHON I would assume so. 

?AO Right ne:<t to Paul there. 

From receiving the signals, could you find out 
where the satellite falls, in the low earth orbit, high Earth 
orbit, in between or didn't you have any idea where it was? 

ZIEGLER Yes. This wno a signal coming fron an Sarth orbit 

corresponding very closely to the orbit that NORAD had given us 
for the particles following the Challenger. 

PAO Okay. Jules, did you have another question? Okay. 

32RGMAN So your flat spin theory now seems more likely than 

an explosion during first stage ignition and to a second question 
which ought to be the first, I guess, following on what you just 
said. If it's in the same orbit as NORAD charcterized it, which 
was 190 by whatever it was - low earth orbit, it's of no 
potential use. 

ZIEGLER That 1 © correct. 

BERGMAN It's just going to burn up as it reenters* 

ZIEGLER Yes no it's possible the amount of energy that 

we have onboard after the P AM firing is the apogee kick motor and 
some hydrazine that's intended to control it over the 17 years of 
life but that's nowhere near enough energy to get it up to the 
geosynchronous orbit. 

PAO Chris Peterson, 

ZIEGLER If in fact that object is Westar VI. 



STS-41-B CHANGS-OF-SHIFT SRISFING ?4jb 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 4 



PAO Chris Peterson, KTRH radio* 

CHRIS PETERSON (KTRH) Two questions. First one Cor Bill. How 
long are w<* going to continue this search? I mean, if you seem 
to have a pretty good confirmation on it and if it seems to be of 
no potential use why are we going to continue? 

2ISGL2R We're going to continue - well one would need to 

understand what went wrong foe the sake of all future spacecraft 
and launches. And until we do that, you know, we are going to 
continue until we've exhausted all possibility of getting 
additional information. How long that will take I have no idea. 

PSTERSQN Okay, Second question's for Harold, You mentioned 

moving the EVA forward. Why are you doing that in order to 
accompl ish a deploy or look ing at that and are you plann ing any 
possible extensions of the mission? 

DRAUGHON Chris, we're' trying, it's not mandatory, but we're 

trying to stay out of the extension. We'd like to because if we 
Jo extend you know we only have one more day with a daylighc KSC 
landing, Vance trained for night landing. He can pull that off 
and we know that but we would prefer to have a daylight 
landing. Pulling the thing one day forward, we have that 
flexibility in the way we build a checklist and modularise the 
crow activity plans, Xf the Indonesians and the Hughes 
contractor wants to go a day earlier, you know — the longer they 
ctay in the bay the more potential there is for something to go 
wrong in the bay. The vehicle was designed, that vehicle was 
designed to be a free flyer. It was never intended to live in 
the Orbiter. The sooner you get it out and on station, the 
sooner it's in the environment in which it was intended to live 
and that's one of the main reasons you always see these deploys 
early in the flight. We want to get those things out of the bay 
and into the environment they were designed to live in. 

Does that mean EVA Monday before the Tuesday 
(garble) this case? 

DRAUGHON It's a consideration. If that's what it takes to 

get all the data analysis and get all the procedures and things 
in place then we're ready to step up and do that. 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press, 

RECBR Gary, you said you had, after your consumable 

analysis you had enough onboard for any reasonable plan. Does 
that reasonable plan include a visual rendezvous with the 
disabled satellite or not? 

COEN I didn't hear Harold mention that particular plan 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OS-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30 om ?P.G!3 5 

and no, that may well have been considered, l f m not sure what 
the outcome is, Harold would probably be a better source of 
that. 



STS-41-3 CHANGS-OP-SHIFT 3RIEFING p4jc 2/4/34 5:30 ?m PAGE 1 

DRAUGHON Paul/ right now there are enough, the results are 

fragmented enough and there are enough different pieces up there, 
you know. 3e£ore each flight, as soon as we get the trajectory 
defined and get close to flight, we take that trajectory and beat 
it against all the things that NORAD has cataloged on orbit. And 
you can get a pretty long list, depending on what you want to 
establish as youc call point , We normally go through a sor t 
"ja-sod on about 100 miles or so and say list out everything that's 
within 100 miles of this particular trajectory for these 8 or 9 
days, Then you take that and look at those individually, see 
what kind of orbit they're in, how recent the vector is that you 
were running that to catalog against. If it's coming close and 
it's a recent vector, you might go tweak up that vector, ask 
NORAD to track it a little bit, dress up their vector and see 
exactly what kind of a problem you may or may not be dealing 
with. If it's a current vector, and it's out on the fringes of 
where you establish this stress alright, then you quit worrying 
about it. So we routinely go through that. But the catalog of 
things that have been coming in as targets that are in some 
proximity, and you know you folks have been hearing about things 
that are as far as 500 miles from the Orbiter, we generally don't 
start to vibrate on things 500 miles away, they've got to get a 
lot closer, It's a big world out there, and we don't worry about 
things that are that far away. At the current time, there is not 
a piece, a new, undefined, piece that's close enough to make it a 
viable candidate for a rerendezvous . 

PAO Craig Govault, Aviation Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) I have for Mr. Ziegler a quick 
one and then one for Harold. Which tracking station picked up 
Westar VI today? 

ZIEGLER The Hughes Filmore station in California — 

COVAULT And about what time today was that acquisition? 

ZIEGLER -~ assuming it was Westar VI. 

COVAULT Yes. 

ZIEGLER About what time? 

COVAULT Roughly. 

ZIEGLER 1800 .+ GMT, I don't remember how much time after 

that. 

COVAULT Harold, if you go ahead tomorrow and deploy the 

IRT, what time will you deploy? 



DRAUGHON Craig, you can decouple. If you do that deploy, 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SH IFT BRIEFING p4jc 2/4/84 5:30 Pm PAGE 2 



the one where you just go out to 8 r and back into 5, and hack out 
to 8. That's unlike the long rendezvous where you go out, and 
you have to have particular you have the radars in the right 
place to compute those first two maneuvers to come back in. In 
the long rendezvous sequence, we're kind of tied to where the 
radars are, which revs are going over the radar sets, in that 
short rendezvous, it's more or less done onboard, just relative 
nav onboard, and we don't target any of the manuevers, so' th«r*» 
is a lot of flexibility. I honestlv don't know where it is." 
It's going to be about 6-1/2 hours lonq, I know that because v*» 
designed it preflight, but Larry Bourgeois, who is on shift rioht 
now, he is dealing with that very issue during this shift. 
Should he start it early, should he start it midday, or late. 
3ut it's completely insensitive to where during the day. It'll 
depend on what else Larry tries to shoot or/and bring forward 
from the latter part of the flight and how compatible it is with 
those activities, 

COVAULT And the final phase rendezvous, will that duplicate 

the final phase that would have been under the primary rendezvous 
plan where the Or biter comes up underneath and then comes back 
in? 



DROUGHON It will be exactly the same Craig, with the 

possible exception of a little bit of sun angle. It depends on 
if he puts it in the same time of day sun wise, you know, if he 
does that, then the sun — the lighting will be the same on thf> 
approach, The geometry to relative motion is exactly the same. 
We come in to 8 miles, do exactly the same approach, with the 
midcourse corrections, and back in to 800 feet and then walk in 
on the V-bar. Just what you've seen. 

COVAULT And the night, again, if he does it exactly as you 

discussed, it would be a night approach to the target, the very 
last one. 

DRAUGHON You terminate the final approach along the V-bar, 

either when you get to 200 feet or when you get into darkness, 
yes, that's correct. 

p AO Let's take one more question here, and we'll go to 

the Cape. 

Can someone explain why if it turns out that the 
Westar is intact, it would be impossible to have it repaired bv a 
future Shuttle. * 

DRAUGHON I really think we've got to wait for industry to 

catch up with us a bit in the full utilization of the Shuttle. 
You know a lot of there are spacecraft being built today with 
grapple fixtures on them, or being built so that they are 



STS-41-3 CHANGS-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING 



p4jc 2/4/84 5:30 om PAG^ 3 



conoatible with going and getting them. This PAM-Hughes 

in lhatV was intended to go up ge t checked out in 
the Or biter and then go up to geosync. We don't plan to go up „o 
< eosync and get anything. So they didn't, it was not designee, - 
that kind of capability wasn't designed into it. It would be 
difficult to grab a hold of and if you did, you don't have rwe * 
piace to ? u? it. There's are no stowage, there are no tie downs, 
tnose kind of considerations. 

?A0 okay. Let's go to KSC for some questions, 

DICK LEWIS (CHICAGO SUN TIMES) I have two questions. For 
Harold Draughon. Did you say the Hughes Filmore Station in 
California? 



DRAUGHON 



Bill, that was . . . 



ZIEGLER Yes, it was Hughes Aircraft Company's Station at 

Filmore, California. 

LEWIS Can you tell us what the position of PALAPA would 

be If it does achieve stationary orbit. Where would it be a mod? 



DRAUGHON 
ZIEGLER 
DRAUGHON 
ZIEGLER 



I don't know what its OSP is. Bill, do you know? 

Well, you mean its longitude? 

Yes. 

I don't know. 



DRAUGHON Neither do I. The PAO folks can g et you that. 

It's well known, it's something that's done with the AKM burn 
that's done after the deployment from the Orbiter , jo that * 
we're not that familiar with it. It's done af ter they re stand 
alone from our operation. But we can get you that data. 

PA0 okay. I guess back to Houston now. Any further 

questions here? Second row. 

MIKE WILLIAMSON (KJOJ) Have the, has there been any - for 
Harold, for Mr. Draughon. Has there been any plans to cut the 
EVA short by any length? I know you said you went to the 
secondary rendezvous. Is there a secondary EVA plan as well? 

DRAUGHON There in fact is. For the priority flight we 

5«e ordered the EVA activities so that we had everyth Ing 
that we were extremely desirous of prior to the Solar Max Mission 
oS the Mm m N tie priority, EVA-wise ^ Priority stuff U 
'n/A l or the first day. We have no reason to be thinking aoout 
making the IvA shorteJ. In fact, we've added two new aspects 



STS-U-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING o4jc 2/4/84 5:30 on ?AGR A 



that are going to be sandwiched into the EVA activities that are 
already ongoing. Those are to look at camera delta, the forward 
starboard bay TV camera, that won't tilt and the color wheel is 
stopped on it. The other thing is, if you'll recall front the 
first or 3econd shift debriefing, the thermal blanket around the 
Cinema 360 has partly got its fly open and we're ooinq to zip 
that up when we go out, 

PAO Olive Talley, UPI. Right behind you, Theresa. 

OLIVft TALLEY (UPI) Bill, you said that the object was ocobably 
Westar VI. What probability can you give us that it is and if it 
turns out to be, how long does it have to live? How long will it 
be before you know, well maybe that's three questions in one. 
But how about probability first and then we'll go with the 
others. 

ZIEGLER I don't — I once had a boss when he was told by 

the marketing guy that the Air Force had signed our contract, 
we've won it. And the boss says, "let me see it". He nays, M oh 
they've put it in the mail", "Oh," he says, "well then I guess 
I'll raise the probability of that being a win from 10% to 
50%". So, you know I hate to speculate on the probability that 
this is Westar VI. I think it's a reasonable guess that yes it 
is Westar VI. We haven't been able to lock up on the signal that 
we got from it but it did have the right frequency. It was only 
one instead of two but that might be due to the expected low 
battery voltages and so, you know, we're hoping for the best and 
we did judge it sufficiently — there was evidence sufficient to 
cause us to concentrate more effort on getting commands into 
those objects that are tailing the Orbiter. 

TALLEY Is there any chance of saving it, or is the only 

chance of saving it dependent on whether or not you lock up with 
it and get some commands to start recharging the batteries? Is 
that where the hope lies? 

ZIEGLER If Westar VI is now in that low altitude orbit 

there's virtually no chance of it becoming useful* 

TALLEY How long might it remain there before it just, will 

it just burn up or what? 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jd 2/4/84 5: 30 pm PAGE I 

ZISGLER If Westar 6 is now in that low altitude 

orbit, there is virtually no chance of it becoming useful, 

TALLSY How long might it remain there before it 

just, will it just burn up, or what? 

ZltSGLER it will gradually decay, because of the atmospheric 

drag; however, we haven't made any plans, there is still some 
energy onboard, There's an apogee kick motor, and hydrazine. 
And we may U3e that to put it into higher orbit, or a transfer 
orbit, or I guess conversely, we could use that energy in a 
retrograde manuever to have" it crash into the ocean someolace. 

TALLEY One final question, if you are able to 

maneuver and get the apogee kick motor to fire somehow, and you 
got it into a higher orbit, could it stay there until vou could 
is there a chance that it could be revived at that ooint? 

ZIGGLER Mo we could never get it up to geosynchronous 
orbit, 

PAO Okay I've got an an3wer for Die* Lewis at the 

Cape on the parking place for PALAPA 8 2, It's 113 degrees east 

longitude. Back here over to John Petty, Houston Post, 

PETTY ~ (Houston Post) - When you say you're booing for the best, 
wnat is the best under these circumstances,? 

ZIEGLER I guess the best is that we are able to make 

a fairly conclusive failure analysis, 

DRAUGHOH That's really the truth, that's what you 

can hope to get out of that thing. Mow you would really like to 
know what went wrong, so that we can, the design peoole can take 
whatever actions they need to, to correct that anomaly — like to 
identify it. 

PETTY But you're not looking any place else. You 1 re 

convinced that this it? 

ZIEGLER Oh, we are looking other places. All I'm 

saying is we have devoted more of the effort towards this 
particular one, because it's a clue that's worth following up 
on. 

PAO Over here. 

Two questions for Mr. Draughon. Is there anytime 
tonight, tomorrow morning at which you could no longer do the 
PALAPA good tomorrow. In other words if this meeting that's 
going to take place, takes too long, are you out of the water tor 
tomorrow? 



ST3-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jd 2/4/84 5^:30 pm PAGE 2 

?K2S°? rt Kn N S' in u° Ur n ° rmal way of getting readv to do one of 
these jobs, we know how to do a pam PALAPA or pam Westar 
deploy. We're fairly proficient at that. The ingredients that 
go into that are first knowing rather accurately where you are 
oecause their burn to kick it up is hooked to where we denial, 
start some timers and things to run it. So we have to tie down 
the vector, we generally keep pretty good track of vector anvvav, 
but we do pay some extra attention when we're goint into one o? 
these deploys, if we've got the vector tied down fairlv well % 
normal activation and orderly deployment takes about an* W in* 
20 minutes. We could shorten that up some in a real emergency. 
But it doesn't take long. y Y ' 

Essentially the same question about advancing the 
EVA to Monday. is there a time when you have to make that' 
decision, or you can't do it? 

DRAUGHON The things that you want to look to on the EVA 

?i lng C the fir f fc thing that is a lon 9 lead ^em is that w« 
need to get — you know we are using the new prebreatho 

a°?0 TS!! 1 ^!? P i° CQ 1^ e €o i , this fli ^ ht that's going down to 
a 10.2 psi cabin. We will probably schedule that tomorrow 

iS?!J: l ?!!\hi ^ 0n>t ^ 0W whe £ her ifc come early in the dav or 

i J?L ® ^ ay * °?? e we have don * that, and have gone through 
a sleep period, we will have fulfilled the medical requirements 
for denitrogenization. So we could schedule an EVA as quicUy as 
tne crew could unstow all the things they need to get into the 

PAO Paul Recer 

RECER^ Earlier we were told that NASA was bending a lot of 

efforts toward trying to find the bird. Now since oresumably it 
has been found, have you all abandoned those efforts? 

DRAUGHON No Paul, nobody has slacked off any. But 

it's a very promising sign, and a lot of people think that's 

in^L^^^f^i^^ 6 the vehicle, but no we have not relented 
in the other facilities that we are looking for that vehicle 

RECER Okay. Now I understand that you use some ground 

based radar to establish the vector for the spacecraft, and have 
you been using that radar — you've been lettina vour i-nnn** 
vector checks slip, in other words? and uslJg that ?ada? fo? 
search? 

?o^ H0 \ , , We haVe been givin g U P some of the normal 
GSTDN network radars to go off and look for that vehicle. 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jd 2/4/84 5:30 om ?AGS 3 



.Normally, we don't need as much radar coverage as is available in 
just flying in a routine daily fashion. There are times when you 
do need all that help and that's when you are trying to anchor a 
vector real good for one of these critical alignments, critical 
deployments. Another time is when you are trying to compute a 
lot of maneuvers that are coming within a couple of rev's of each 
other, and you've got to drive out the arrows from one maneuver 
and get ready to target the second one. So sometimes you need a 
lot of radar sets. Other times you don't need quite so many. 
But you've got to have them for the time tha you need them/ And 
we're letting some of those go, the Or biter support and the 
vector maintenance there is not suffering, it's down to within, 
the last one I heard was about 3 miles, I think, somewhere in 
that handover . 

RI3CER How much vector checks ahead do you need to narrow 

it down to the point where you feel safe to deploy PALAPA? In 
other words how much time ahead would you need to* cor rect for 
that? 

DRAUGHON The computations — 3ill you might know 

these better than I do. When do we owe you your first vector? 
But it's like 5 hours ahead of time, on that order, vie actually 
go through two comp cycles, We get in a bunch of tracking data 
and give the customers a first look at the deployment, the time, 
another crossing, and those kinds of things. They look at 
they put it into their simulators and see exactly how it's going 
to fit with the PAMs guidance equations, and do thev agree with 
the solutions and those kinds of things, and then we go back 
again a little closer to deployment and refine that. So we go 
through it twice, but 5 hours or so ahead is in the general time 
frame. 

RECER You would have to start that initial 

refinement about 2? 

DRAUGHON Yeah the FIDO, the flight dynamics officer, 

that was going to do that on rev 3 2 for tomorrow was supposed to 
come on console at 3 a.m. because I talked to him about how 
enthused he was about that, 

RECER But it would be about 2:00 in the morning that 

you would have to start that refinement? 

DRAUGHON He would have started around 3:00 to make a 

rev 32 deployment, We are now talking about a rev 34, so it 
would have been 3 hours later to start that process. 



PAO Okay, one more question right here, and then we 

will shut it down. 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING ?4jd 2/ A/HA 5:30 on ?AGS 4 

Okay, one question for Mr, Coen and then a real 
quicky one for Mr, Draughon, Mr. Coen did we hear a call about 
some voltage anamolies in the EMU's this morning, or was that 
just a little glitch from turning then on? 

COEN We have a reading anomaly, it 1 s not voltage it's 

current. One of the switches on one of the HMD's, it's the EMU 
number 1 , it's the one tha t 3r uce uses . %T i th the sv;i tch in the 
main 3 or main A battery positon shows a tenth of an amo, :;e 
can't exactly figure that out. We have duplicated that wit!) an 
3MU on the ground and we have one on the ground that shows a 10th 
of an amp also. We don't understand it, but it's not worrying us 
right now, we're trying to figure out what the real storv is 
there, though . 

So it 1 s no constraint to the spacewalk then. 

COEN No they're not. In fact, I didn't get to give you 

some other minor problems with the EMU's which I would like to do 
right now. EMU 2, that's 3ob's SMU, has a crack in one of his 
helmet light lenses. This is the outer lens on the light. He 
reported that to us, we have considered that, and also decided 
that that's no problem, EMU 3, when they did their comm checks 
with it, they had some static in the VOX position, voice operator 
relay position. That static is there, it is acceptable to' us. 
But the checkout went well. We did pick uo these minor things, 
and we're not concerned really about* any of them. 

PAO Okay back here. 

PORTUNIA (Televisa) Harold, I have one question, I 

understand, and correct me if I am wrong, one of the objectives 
of this mission is to test NASA's ability to recover satellites 
and do you find it ironic that Westar was lost this time, that we 
don't know where it is or what happened to it? 

DRAUGHON Well, perhaps. You're right about the 

objective, we are testing out the backpacks, the EMU's, the EVA 
capability. And the rendezvous objectives are forerunners the 
solar max repair mission which is a retrieval and reoair on 
flight 13. 

PAO Thank you very much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5ja 02/05/84 9s 45 AM PAGE 1 

PAO Thank you for coming. Let's start off with Flight 

Director Randy Stone going over the early morning activities and 
the attempt to do the IRT rendezvous. Randy. 

STONE Now that you've set the stage with the good news, 

I would like to report to you that the Orbiter is performing 
flawlessly as is the crew, they are doing everything we ask of 
them and doing it in a very timely manner. We have been 
extremely pleased with the performance of the vehicle. I have so 
few anomolies written down on my anomoly sheet on the console 
that I keep forgetting where it is because usually it's a great 
big list and it's not very big at all this flight. We have been 
accomplishing secondary test objectives and primary test 
objectives today with the SPAS and the MLR, but I'm sure the 
topics of interest to you today are, what's the latest on Westar 
and tell me about the balloon deployment this morning. So I 
would like to give you as much information as I know and then 
we'll open the floor to questions. The latest summary of 
information that we have from all the tracking stations that 
we've been using to track what we believe is Westar has homed in 
on the following few topics. We believe that there are two 
objects in an orbit of about 600 nautical miles by 150 nautical 
miles. They're about 12 to 7.5 miles apart. One of the objects, 
the larger of the two is presenting about 5 square meters to the 
radars and radar reflectivity. That object is believed to be the 
Westar, It is rotating at about 20 rpms. The other object, the 
smaller object is about 2 1/2 square meters in size and it is 
suspected to be the PAM, The total number o£ pieces being 
tracked in the orbits close to that are 13 total. The two high 
ones that I described to you, the two larger objects and then 11 
other smaller objects that are scattered from about 25 minutes in 
front of the Orbiter to about 50 minutes behind the Orbiter, 
They are a large distance in feet and miles from the Orbiter, 
The last report that I heard was that any rf contact that they 
believe that they might have had from Westar was a false 
signal. I can't comment on that any more, that's all I know 
about it. That's a piece of data I got when I left the control 
center. The consensus is that we are tracking the Westar in this 
orbit that I described to you and I will move on to the 
successful deployment of the balloon or the can that the balloon 
was in. You may have heard through the night that we have 
changed the Orbiter 1 s orbit, we have lowered it to 150 nautical 
miles. That was done to protect our end-of -mission lighting and 
crossrange constraints at KSC to give us a nominal profile into 
Kennedy on the normal end-of-mission day and a 1-day extension 
should we need that. The planning at the end of yesterday 
probably didn't include all that because we just hadn't run all 
the trajectory data that we needed to run to know what we needed 
to do with the orbit to protect those end-o£-mission 
constraints. Because of that change in orbit the deployment rev 
for Palapa which we told you yesterday was probably going to be 
on 51 is a little bit uncertain now. The only reason it's 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5ja 02/05/84 9:45 AM PAGE 2 



uncertain is because at the lower altitude the Palapa flight 
dynamics people are looking at what the most optimum rev to go 
out on would be. We've given them a number of revs up to and 
probably beyond 51 that are acceptable to the Orbiter and they 1 re 
just picking the one that is most optimum for their needs. We 
should have that decision - you probably heard, I heard it on the 
monitor over here a few minutes ago that the decision on what 
orbit we're going out on will probably be made about 10 o'clock 
this morning. Once that's made we can go ahead and put together 
out flight plan for tomorrow and then be back on - basically back 
on schedule for the EVA's and the other activities. The 
deployment of the balloon this morning was in support of a 
rendezvous test which I'm sure you all are familiar with, we've 
described it to you several times. The rendezvous test today was 
an abbreviated rendezvous from what was scheduled in the flight 
plan before we had the problem with Westar and subsequently 
changed the deployment opportunities for Palapa, We abbreviated 
the rendezvous sequence from a 2-day sequence down to a 1-day 
sequence to allow us to stay on a timeline that was very close to 
our normal flight plan. Faulting down to this 1-day scenerio 
will get us about 90 percent of the objectives of the rendezvous 
and we felt like it was a prudent thing to do to keep the mission 
running smoothly. So, I came in this morning with the intention 
of rendezvousing with a big white balloon and we deployed the 
balloon at 1 day 22 hours and 50 minutes, approximately, The 
deploy was on time, we had a TV camera on the deployment, if you 
were watching at that time of day. The deploy leaving the 
Orbiter looked totally nominal from our standpoint. Just looking 
at it on the TV, of course, it was a very short period of time 
that we could see it since it ran up in the colorwheel on camera 
Delta that's kind of down over the lens. But we did get a good 
view of it for several feet as it left the Orbiter. Shortly 
after deployment there is a pyrotechnic device in the balloon can 
that is ignited, it's a timed burned type pyrotechnic device that 
blows the stays or the constraining sides of the can off to allow 
the balloon to subsequently inflate. At the time the stays were 
suppose to come off there was no activity, we still had a canned- 
shaped object leaving the Shuttle at about 1,8 feet per second. 
At the time that the balloon should have inflated there was still 
no activity, the stays were still attached to the balloon oasing 
and about, I don't have the exact time, I wrote it down and then 
didn't bring the piece of paper, but at a time probably 2-3 
minutes after the scheduled inflation of the balloon, Bruce 
McCandless watching the balloon through some binoculars said that 
it appears to be inflating. So, we all said, "Ah* Looks like 
we're going to get out of this just a little late," And his next 
statraent was, "It blew up," Well, some of us took that to mean 
that it broke and blew up like a popping balloon and some of us 
in the control center says, "Well, good. It blew up." I 
rephrased my question to Bruce and ask him if it broke blew up or 
just inflated blew up and he told us it appeared to break. By 
that time we were out at a range where the rendezvous radar would 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5ja 02/05/84 9s 45 AM PAGE 3 

lock on to the object and it locked on, started tracking, and I 
elected to have the crew continue on with the nominal subsequence 
for the ~ that sets us up for the rendezvous, it's a maneuver, 
about 8 tenths of a foot per second that takes the Orbitec out to 
an 8-mile point from the balloon and then we would start the 
rendezvous sequence from there. 



*** 



STS-41-B CBANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jb 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE I 



STONE We started that sequence, started analysing the 

relative motion of an object that we weren't sure what It's drag 
was since it wasn't any of the configurations that we had worked 
with. We had worked with just cans, where we intentionally put 
out a can where we knew the balloon was not going to inflate. 
There were some failure modes that we knew about that could 
possible put you into that scenario that we would choose to just 
rendezvous with the can. Unfortunately, in this case we had - it 
deployed normally, it tried to inflate, and then burst and left 
us into a configuration that we neither knew the drag nor knew 
the reflectivity of. As we were out bound from the balloon, 
Bruce was giving us extremely good engineering reports on what he 
was seeing. He, before the incident where it did break, Bruce 
was describing a couple of lanyards that appeared to be trailing 
behind the can. That brought to our engineering folks 
considerable concern right there because there are some lanyards 
that are in the can that are suppose to stay with the structure 
on the Orbiter. And these lanyards pull some pins that start 
pyrotechnic devices into operation. We, of course, don't know 
that these things that Bruce were describing were the lanyards 
that were suppose to start the activity in the canister rolling, 
but we suspect that that is the case, that something possibly 
failed and the lanyards instead of staying with the Orbiter and 
pulling the pins in the IRT that it just went with the IRT. 
There's a lot of engineering analysis that has to go on before we 
can be certain that that's what happened. But as we were 
continuing outbound in the rendezvous sequence, we had to make a 
decision fairly quickly about whether or not we wanted to 
continue the rendezvous sequence, which amounts to going out to 8 
miles, doing a maneuver into about 5 miles and then returning on 
a nominal rendezvous sequence with a, what we call terminal phase 
initiation burn, that would take us into a point in front of the 
balloon and do proximity OPS with it. Because Bruce was telling 
us that he could not see the can or the weights, the things that 
give the balloon mass in this flapping mass of mylar out there, I 
was relatively convinced that I didn't know enough about the, or 
we didn't know enough about the configuration that we were trying 
to rendezvous with, to go back in and get close to the object, 
we probably had two objects, one of them that had large frontal 
area no mass; and one that had large mass and no frontal area. 
Two different drag configurations and I was going to be 
rendezousing with the one that didn't have any mass and therefore 
I would not know where the heavy object was. And the mass that's 
associated with the balloon, which is a weight that is part of 
the can and the balloon actually Inflates around this weight, is 
about 200 lbs. We elected to abort the rendezvous sequence, by 
just not doing the next burn. And thon instead of making us 
start to loop back towards the target, that just allowed the 
relative motion to march out down the orbit, getting farther and 
farther behind the balloon. To salvage as much of the test as we 
could, we kept on our navigation sensor profile, we locked on 
with the rendezvous radar and kept tracking. It tracked much 



STS-41-3 CHANGB-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING P 5jb 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 2 

farther out than we expected it to track when dealing with a 
f?2i X ,? b 2 0Ct ' somethln 9 that was not spherical shape? £he last 
time that we go an acquisition was about, it was about 96,000 
feet. We expected it to break lock with this poor target at 
about 3o,000 feet and we went much farther than that The fir«?h 
day time pass after we deployed, we got star^ackef information 
and tnis is very important to the engineering community that we 

U te? f ^ t ?^, r6nde2VO f d f U and the 3tar tracker data! because 
iLJ il? i k °' Jr navi 9 atio " sensors are actually better than 
that l;, 4 !?! WG W6re S6 ! in9 ' Seein ^ thin ^ s that ranges, 

to loir -J rJS mS V ° e F eCted to see them ' since the target was 
.I- t th ° rendezvou s targeting software in the Orbiter 
and it waa doing exactly the right thing. We could tell that it 
was gotting a solution, it knew what to do, to go back to the 
target and wo gained some experience and some good information 

?n^d.— SVV^' accom P iUh the rendezvous DtS as we had 
.ntendeu «.o do it, but we were able to salvage some qood 

tor anot^? J.m ° Ut ° f '5° tQ3t ' We Can th « *ta^racSer Passes 
for anotoer full rev, m fact when I left the Control Center, we 

were just coming in to daylight again, and we're trying So lock 

on to the oiece of the balloon that we had been locked on in the 

previous daylight pass and I expect that it diS lock on? I aidn't 

hear the report when I left. Because we have terminated the 

endezyous sequence today, we have a little bit of£?iS timS in 

the flight plan, this rendezvous sequence was suppose to run 6 

i/i, 7 nours. we have moved some shopping list items into that 

area, wVre doing the, when I left the Control CeutTt w2 were 

doing tne HMS checkout, checking out the arm for OPS downstream 

U% So^mL?? 3 days ' J"" setting that out of the Jay ?S 
tree up the timeline, downstream. Crew did some cabin 
measurements, engineering measurements, to see how the cabin 
m? l^ n .t pa ^ and that ' s something we do, that we do a little 
of the SJmJS! H m jU ? fc fc S l0 5 k at What the structural movement 
Jm. i t you've heard us say, this cabinet won't close, 

or this locker, the door doesn't work quite right on previous 
flights, we haven't had any problems this flight, and we're iust 
nll< n S t0 "^ erstand flexing, the thermal flexing of the 
Orbiter. And we accomplished that this morning in this free time 

it^hS; th?js: d .s h# ren ?r vous ? nd as 1 ieft ?he * «•« looking 6 

at other things they could move into that area, so we're, even 
though we didn't do the rendezvous today we are pickina uo some 
2S5?J n«?L? bjeC f 1Ve 2 f° C SPAS and the People ?h?iare g on P tSe e 
tnd Sift Ittl t? ? a i <, 2 in * aom f scl ^tific data takes for them, 
all of their!? y ° U Rations, I thought I answered 

PAO Mark Kramer, CBS. 

KRAMER - (CBS) Seems like everything that leaves the pay load 
bay on the spacecraft explodes, who made the irt canister, and - 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jb 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 3 



STONE When I walked in here I was going to know that and 

I don't have the name of the company, I'm sorry. 

PAO Space Data Corporation, Tempe, Arizona. 

STONE Super, he knew that question. 

KRAMER Space Data, okay. And would you know by any chance 

if the 200 lb weight was painted black r white, or unpainted, or 
whatever . 

STONE Since I never expected to see it, I really don*t 

know. It was probably a dark color, just guessing, because 
nobody would have attempted to make it radar reflective, and - 

KRAMER That's the nature of my follow up which is do you 

know it's approximate dimensions? And had it been painted white, 
would you have been able to do what you had to do. 

STONE It's an extremely dense object, very small, it's 

less than 8 inches in diameter, I'm not sure what it f s height 
is. It would have been, no, I don't believe we could have. We 
looked at a lot of scenarios where we put at, where we had to 
jettison the entire can because we knew the balloon wouldn't 
inflate, we looked at that scenario, that was a much bigger piece 
of metal, to look at, and it would have been very difficult even 
with that canister to do the full rendezvous DTO. So I don't 
think so, I don't think it would have been practical to try to 
rendezvous with just the weight. 

KRAMER Have you put to bed the possibility of moving the 

EVA's around? Are you pretty well resigned to launching Palapa 
tomorrow without messing around with EVA times? 

STONE The NASA is, our planning is heading towards that, 

and that f s Palapa has agreed that tomorrow is their deployment 
day. The only piece of information that I don't have yet is what 
rev were going to attempt to deploy tomorrow. 

KRAMER Thank you. 

PAO Let's take Jules Bergman, up here. 

BERGMAN Randy, what danger is there that that 200 lb weight 

could hit the Challenger in what might be histories first 
midspace collision? 

STONE Well, I told you that we were trying to decide 

whether or not we wanted to continue the rendezvous sequence when 
I elected to not continue because I didn f t, we really didn't 
understand whether I had two objects out there, one object, 
multiple objects. We did not do one of the burns, which would 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jb 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 4 

have brought us back in. When we didn't do that burn we're on a 
trajectory that's marching away from that weight, we can estimate 
it's drag knowing what it's size is and, no, we're not in the 
same orbit. We may do an additional small tweak burn later in 
the day. That was undecided when I left. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jc 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 1 
BERGMAN Do we know where it is? 

STONE Oh, certainly* It didn't go any place with respect 

to the myler that was around it. In fact, it may still be 
attached. We just couldn't confirm whether it was or was not 
attached to the balloon material, and because we couldn't confirm 
that, we didn't want to rendezvous with 2 objects that had very 
great difference in drag. We can make a very good assumption on 
what the drag of that weight is and we are in a safe orbit that 
will never come back and recontact with it. The Flight Dynamics 
Officers are looking, I told them to be extremely conservative in 
their, in the way they computed whether or not we had a recontact 
problem, and because of that conservatism, we may, once they get 
a little more data, we may do about a 1 foot per second tweak 
burn to get away from it, 

BERGMAN There's getting to be a lot of junk around the 

Challenger, up there, 

STONE I wish there were a lot of, at least one balloon, 

but unfortunately there is not, Jules. 

PAO Craig Covault, Aviation Week, 

CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) Randy, could you discuss the 
final test sequences on the balloon hardware before launch? It's 
my understanding that the test hardware had a number of failures, 
pref light . 

STONE Craig, the balloon has gone through 2 sets of 

certification tests for flight. The first set of tests showed, 
and these are vacuum chamber tests, that, let me restart this. 
The mechanism for deploying the IRT can has worked in every qual 
test that I'm familiar with* The problems we had in 
certification of the balloon had to do with its inflation rate 
and ripping the very thin mylar skin of the balloon as it 
unfolded. You know it's like one of these plastic raincoats that 
you buy that comes in a package that once you take it out, you 
can never get it back in. Its folded up very tightly inside the 
can and it was ripping small holes along the folds in the mylar 
material. There were some changes made to the inflation 
mechanism which slowed down the inflation rate, very slowly. And 
once we completed that modification, we ran some additional 
chamber tests, one of which the balloon inflated and stayed 
inflated indefinitely and there was absolutely zero leakage from 
the balloon. The other test tore a very tiny hole in it and the 
balloon stayed inflated for many hours. Certainly long enough 
for us to complete a one day rendezvous sequence. So our history 
of problems with the balloon are different than the problem we 
had today. We have never seen a failure of the inflation 
mechanism where the stays don't come off. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jc 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 2 

COVAULT Ok, and to follow that, this was oriented to help 

you plan solar max. Obviously NASA has flown many, many 
rendezvous over the years, so you haven't lost your only 
rendezvous attempt you've ever made, but - relate it to the 
problem in April. 

ST0NE There were 2 things we wanted to accomplish on this 

flight. Granted we have done many rendezvous, and we understand 
how to do rendezvous, and everybody is totally confident that the 
ground system and the software system that we have put together 
will do a rendezvous. The only piece of information that we 
truly didn't have was the sensor perfomance, the startracker, 
which is the same startracker we use for IMU alignments on how 
well it will track an object that we're trying to rendezvous 
with. And 2, the Ku-band rendezvous radar. These are 2 new 
sensors that we have not used in a rendezvous scenario. So we 
wanted to do an integrated rendezvous. That's one that the 
ground system interfaced with the onboard, did the initial 
targeting to start you back towards the, start you towards the 
target, and then the final phase, which is totally an onboard 
relative navigation problem, the ground does not participate in 
that last 8 miles on in set of manuevers. We wanted to just 
demonstrate that all those integrated procedures worked 
together. The information we learned today, one makes us very 
happy that the sensors performed like they're suppose to, and 
two, we saw the. close-in rendezvous navigation problem being 
solved by the onboard software. And it does not take any of our 
enthusiasm or confidence away from the solar max mission. 

PAO Roy Neal, NBC. 

ROY NEAL (NBC) Two questions, first just a casual one. We had 

heard some conversation just prior to this session, that there 

could be a Palapa deployment today instead of tomorrow. 

STONE I believe the conversation you heard, I was 

listening to it too, and several people have asked me the same 
question, but I believe the conversation was, had nothing to do 
with the deploy today, it was picking which rev tomorrow that 
they wanted go out and that - I was just handed a note, the 
CAPCOM on duty says that the Palapa community has elected to go 
for a 10-D deployment tomorrow, the ascending node on orbit 50, 
which is 1 rev earlier than we told you yesterday, so we have 
made our decision, we're pressing on. We'd plan to deploy 
tomorrow. 



N f A ^ That's very good. Now you mentioned an anominally 

list earlier being very short. I wonder if you could run down 
just a few off the top of that anomnially list for us. So that 
we have some idea. And most particular I'm interested in the 
Waste Management. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jc 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 3 



STONE We have one, the water separator device in the 

Waste Management System, there's 2 of them, 1 of them on flight 
day 1, I believe, started slowing down, we saw higher currents on 
the motor that spins this device. We have switched to the other 
water separator unit in the Waste Management System, And at the 
last time I heard a report, it was working normally, and when I 
left we were putting together a message of questions we'd like to 
ask the crew about that and we're still putting together the 
story on that. It's not a big deal. The Waste Management System 
is working fine, we just have lost some redundancy in it. Just 
to give you some typical things that are on my failure list, very 
minor things, and if we hadn't had all these other exciting 
things to talk about we would have talked about them because that 
is normally all the kind of things we have to talk about. We 
lost a quantity gage reading in the OMS propellant system today 
during the burn, if you listened to the first circ burn. The 
crew reported that they got a fuel alarm and our prop guys on the 
ground confirmed that it was no problem, we continued the burn 
normally, And it was just a sensor that failed, and we lost the 
gage in the fuel tank of the left OMS engine, or the left OMS 
pod. That's absolutely no impact. We can use the gage on the 
oxidizer side as our gaging tool because the propellant - the 
fuel and the oxidize go down together as you use the engine. But 
it's that type of thing, in fact the others are so minor, none of 
them have happened on my shift and they're not things that are 
continued opened, you know, that we are working trying to 
solve . They are things that we have put to bed and we're just 
not talking about any more, 

NEAL How about that Delta camera? For instance, are you 

going to have Bruce or Bob go out and give it a kick? Maybe 
start the colorwheel? 

STONE I don't know what the plan is on the delta 

camera, I haven't been working the EVA planning. We're kind of 
compartmented a little bit on the EVA's this time. We have a 
group of people that are totally dedicated to the EVA planning 
and their execution and I have not been working that planning, 

NEAL We have a more than passing interest in that 

camera, of course, 

STONE I'm sure you do, buV: if you saw the deployment this 

morning, the lower portion of this camera gives a great picture, 

NEAL In black and white. 



STONE 



Yes. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 1 



PAO Lynn Sherr, ABC. 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Randy, how much is the replanning and the 
sending the new CAPs up to the crew getting in your way. You* re 
losing an awful lot of time through all this. Aren't you? 

STONE Well actually we have not f the only major objective 

that we haven't completed, you know, by the timeline has been 
this rendezvous and it's really been through no fault of the 
replanning effort, The replanning effort has worked extremely 
well. You know, our planning team, as we call it, when we're 
operating in this mode, not like Spacelab where you're planning 
all the time and redoing things. We have a team dedicated to 
redoing the flight plan to get things organized for us and 
they've done just an outstanding job of keeping it flowing. We 
have, as far as I know, we'll be able to complete all of the SPAS 
activity, all of the data takes that for them all the Cinema 360 
things. The MLR has been running in the background. All of the 
data takes on the various payloads that we ran yesterday and day 
before have gone well. So we're really not losing time. What 
you're seeing is, you know, 1 or 2 crewmen that are dedicated for 
instance, to rendezvous that we had busy today. But the other 
guys that don't work the rendezvous problem have been off doing 
their things - SPAS activation, getting ready to do data takes 
for the SPAS, activating GAS cans, that sort of thing. All of 
that's going on in the background just normally, 

SHERR Well, now that you have a new Palapa deploy time 

that means yet another plan revision, right? 

STONE Yes. Yes it does but getting ready to deploy a PAM 

spacecraft, you know, is something that we have well documented 
and we can just move it in in mass one way or another and 
start. You know, once we decide when the deploy time is we just 
back up from that and the plan works no matter what day you do 
it. So that's not a big effort but we'll be looking at the 
things tomorrow to get ready for the EVA. The things that can 
give the crew a leg up to be ready for the EVA - the suit 
checkouts and that sort of thing, depressur izing the cabin to 10 
2 for the prebreathe activities. That may be done today, but 
since they have - Palapa has for sure decided to go I suspect 
we'll delay going down to the lower cabin pressure until tomorrow 
after the deployment, 

PAO Second row back here, 

QUERY If there's a failure with Palapa, just as there was 

with Westar, if Palapa is lost - would that cast such a pall over 
the mission that you would think the prudent thing to do would be 
to postpone the EVAs? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 2 

STONE No si r. I don't believe that's the case at all, I 

believe we would press right on. We expect Palapa to be a 
nominal deploy and we'll be telling you about it tomorrow night 
that they're headed outbound. 

p A0 Doug Miller, KTRH Radio. 

DOUG MILLER (KTRH) One of the possibilities we heard under 
discussion earlier was that if the Palapa deploy were delayed 
until Monday the mission might be extended an extra day. what's 
the, what's under consideration as far as that's concerned riqht 
now? ^ 

ST0NE Wel1 that's still an option from the point of view 

of cryogenics, the consumables to run the fuel cells. We have 
plenty of propellant, RCS propellant, to extend a day and that 
option is open to us. The activity we did this morning, the 
recirc to 150, assured that we still had that option to nominal 
end of the mission 1 day later and that's why we were anxious to 
do those burns to get to an orbit that would allow us to extend 
that 1 aay if we needed to, 

MILLER But right now, does it look as though you'll have 

STONE No it does not. It looks like we'll be able to 

accomplish all of our objectives in the boundaries of the planned 
mission, 

MILLER So how are you going to buy the time? Are you 

rescheduling tomorrow's activities for today so you can buv time 
for Palapa tomorrow? 1 

STONE Now, what we've done, you know, the big time buy 

off that we have done on this flight was going from a 2 day 
rendezvous sequence down to a 1 day rendezvous sequence that 
lasted about an hour and a half. So we have bought back a lot of 
time with the way we planned the rendezvous today. 

p AO Paul Recer, Associated Press. 

PAUL RECER (AP) You may have already covered this, but you also 
bought back a lot of fuel that you were going to use in 
rendezvous. Do you, are you considering the possibility of using 
that fuel plus your surplus to visually rendezvous with the 
debris from Westar? 

STONE i don't believe we, you know, even with all the 

fuel that we bought back we have enough fuel to rendezvous with 
the Westar thing. What we are looking at, and it is that we 
would like to find where the closest points of approach are to 
our orbit and see if, you know, if it's 10 miles or 8 miles maybe 



3TS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 3 

we could look at it through the binoculars onboard or one of the 
other optical devices - the COAS for instance, 

RECER And the rendezvous radar perhaps? 

STONE Yes, certainly if we got a good enough vector that 

we could point the rendezvous radar that would be a 
consideration. But that's in the background. Our primary task 
is to deploy Palapa tomorrow so those are all very low key things 
that are going on in the background. 

RECER Well you say it's in the background, but is it 

being actively studied as a - - 

STONE No rendezvous plan is being actively studied, 

RECER But a look at the debris, 

STONE We're going to look to see if there is a closest 

point of approach that might allow that, 

PAO Okay, let's take one more question here, Roy Neal, 

and then we'll go to the other centers for awhile. 

ROY NEAL (NBC) When you deploy the Palapa, will you attempt any 
television coverage of it this time? 

STONE Yes sir. I think Harold Draughon may have told you 

that, yes we' re - - 

RECER We had talk of that with him, I just wanted to be 

sure that it's still in the - - 

STONE We're still, as far as I know, we still plan to do 

that looking at it with the end effector camera. 

RECER End effector camera, right, 

STONE And that plan is in place and you know it's not, we 

haven't flight planned it for tomorrow yet but we're putting 
together the procedures to accomplish it on - - 

RECER I assume you'll either be TDRS or ground station 

located so that live TV would be possible at the time? 

STONE Since they just picked it I haven't looked. 

RECER Yes, I haven't looked either. 

STONE I flat don't know. 

RECER Okay, thank you. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 4 

PAO Okay, how about Kennedy. Do you have any questions 

down there? 

REG TURNELL (BBC) Going back to Westar, am I right in thinking 
that you just don't have any data on which you can have much hope 
that you'll ever find out what went wrong with that deployment 
thus making observation of tomorrow's PAM firing all the more 
important. 

STONE I think that's a fair assessment of where we are. 

I don't see us getting a lot of - more information on the Westar. 

ED TOBIAS (AP RADIO) Just following up on that a bit, you're 
still using words such as suspect and probably in relation to the 
debris. Are you as convinced as you're going to get now that 
that debris that you've been tracking is, what was or is Westar 
and the PAM? 

STONE I belive that we are fairly convinced. You know, I 

have to use the word suspect because I haven't been actively 
pursuing all of the data that people are looking at. I'm 
responding on this particular subject on data that has been given 
to me by the people that have been doing the analysis and I 
believe the community is convinced that what we are seeing is the 
Westar and probably the PAM. 

MIKE MEECHAN (GANNETTE NEWS SERVICE) It's unclear to me. Do 
you suspect whether the pyrotechnics went wrong on the IRT or 
whether they did not fire and then it exploded because the 
nitrogen gas started to expand. I'm not quite sure what you 
suspect caused the explosion. 

STONE The one thing we know for certain is that the 

nitrogen gas tried to expand because the balloon tried to inflate 
with the stay still around it and you can just imagine a can with 
an open top and inflating a balloon in it. It squirted out the 
top and because it was attached to the can it broke. As to why 
the stays didn't come off, we just haven't evaluated it 
completely. I gave you what was a possible failure scenario that 
the pyrotechnic device did not get armed when it left the Orbiter 
because thes^ lanyards may have had a failure in the lanyards 
But that at this time is very, very subjective and no hard 
data. The engineers that are responsible for the balloon and the 
deployment mechanism will be working on that over the next couple 
of days so they can understand it. 

MEECHAN Switch ground here a little bit. What is the 

health of the crew? 



STONE It's outstanding. Everybody is performing to the 

timeline and you saw the live TV yesterday, everybody looks 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 5 

good, Everybody sounds good on the air-to-ground and we're very 
pleased for their preformance. 

MEECHAN The health of the rats? 

STONE I'm not a rat specialist. 

*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5je 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 1 



QUERY Have you heard anything from the crew, I think they 

were suppose to check on them periodically • 

STONE They turn a light on and off in the animal 

enclosure container, and that is about the extent of the 
experiment, to make the rat, animals think they are going through 
a day night cycle, there have been no reports on the activity. 

SALESTEAD (Baltimore Sun) One more time on the balloon, if I 
may, when you said just a moment ago that apparently the balloon 
tried to inflate with the stays still around it, that was the 
first fact that caused the subsequent problem, but could you take 
it one step beyond that* When the balloon tried to inflate with 
the stays still around it, what then happened? 

STONE It broke, not being facetious it appeared to break 

and we had instead of a round balloon, we had a flat piece of 
mylar which, you know, indicated that we were seeing either one 
flat side of the balloon after it ripped up the side, you know, 
by that time the range was several thousand feet, so the view of 
the small object was not very good. 

SALESTEAD But when it broke was it out of the canister then, 
with the stays still attached to it in someway or was it still in 
the canister. 

STONE Let me straighten out the nomenclature. It comes 

out of a canister, the stays are the part that I have been 
refering to as the canister that the balloon kind of came out of 
when it popped, but ordinarily it comes out of a can that is, 
that's on the Orbiter, and then once it's out of that can, the 
stays come off exposing the balloon and allowing it to inflate. 
And the stays did not come off. So it was presenting to the 
balloon like it was constrained by a can, but that's kind of a 
misnomer, I was just trying to make it clear in your mind for a 
picture. 

MCCONNELL - (Readers Digest) ~ I would like to follow up what you 
said earlier about the Mission Specialist deploying the SPA's and 
working to timeline, in view of all the problems that have 
arisen, would you say that the diversity between flight 
specialist and mission specialist have proven in this case to be 
a strong point. 

STONE Yes, I think that is absolutely true. The 

diversity of the crews that we're flying have been a very strong 
point for the shuttle and it allows us to do a number of complex 
jobs simultaneously. 

CHINELL You did say, you expected to do a nominal Palapa 

deployment tomorrow, can you tell me why you're confident that 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5je 2/5/84 9; 45 am PAGE 2 



there's no different, that there is a different between Westar 
and Palapa? 

STONE Well we do have a good track record on deploying 

PAMs and having the PAMs operate normally, and I for one would 
like to believe that we have a nonrepeatable problem, nothing 
generic with the PAM system. It is an extremely reliable booster 
system. 

MEECHAM Could you run iown the rest of today's activities 

and what you'll be doing tomorrow besides getting ready for the 
deploy, Since you've got all this time to fill now, how exactly 
will you be filling them? 

STONE well the rest of today will be taken up with some 

SPA's activities, at least that's one of the scientific things 
we'll be doing. We're going to calibrate the mass spectrometer, 
which is an instrument on the SPA's pallet. We plan to do the 
yaw sensor test which is another experiment on the SPAs and I 
don't know the exact scheduling of those items today. We'll 
probably do a number of MOMs data takes, it's another instrument 
on the pallet, and items like, items like that. I don't have a 
redone flight plan in front of me, and I'm not, I won't try to go 
through everything. 

MEECHAN That's sounds like a fairly relaxed day. 

STONE Yes it will be a fairly relaxed day, because what 

we've actually done is added the - three of the crewman are 
running their normal timelines today. The Commander and 3ruce 
McCandless who were the rendezvous specialist had been freed up 
and we're putting in things to fill up their free time, but the 
other three crewman are running through their normal flight plan. 

MEECHAM And aside from the deploy and the suit check out 

tomorrow, what other activities would there be? 

STONE Well we'll go in and give the scientific community 

with SPA's all the opportunities that they would like to take 
data takes for and we'll be looking for any shopping list items 
that we can givo the crew to fill in where they have time. 

MEECHAM You are open to suggestions? Is that what it 

amounts to? 

STONE We'll 1 wouldn't say it like that. We carry a 

number of things in our flight planning bag of tricks to fill up 
time if it becomes available, and our flight activity people are 
looking at those that have the most merit. 



MEECHAN Thank you. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5je 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 3 



MCCONNELL Going back to the diversity of the crew, given 
these problems that have arisen, are they in affect, filing 
writing accident reports on board as these things happen, or are 
they leaving that to Houston* 

STONE We'll every crew keeps a very detailed engineering 

log of what goes on, especially those things that he is directly 
responsible for, and yes, there will be a detailed debriefing of 
the crew observations with respect to any of these problems that 
we 1 ve had , 

MCCQNNELL Just one more, and will these engineering logs 

eventually be available to the public? 

STONE I'm sure they are from the standpoint that the 

debriefing material is totally available to everyone once the 
flight is complete. 

BOYLE You mentioned more time for the SPA's people, What 

consideration is given to SPA's maybe being rendezvous target? 

STONE None. 

QUERY Yes, I have a question phoned in by Jerry Lipman, 

I'm afraid it's about the old balloon again. Could you explain 
please what the actual inflation mechanism was, was there a 
bottle of nitrogen involved, or what exactly was suppose to 
happen in terms of the inflation? 

PAO Tell him to read the press kit, 

STONE Yes, there is a nitrogen bottle involved and it's 

just opened up to the balloon and slowly fills it through a 
restrictor device in the bottle, so it doesn't inflate to 
rapidly. 

SCOTT (CBC Radio) Going back to the subject of the solar max, I 
don't know, I might have missed it. What exactly did not happen 
today, fchat you would like to have seen happen as a preparation 
for the solar max, 

STONE We would have liked to have been able to run the 

integrated rendezvous, both the ground processors and the onboard 
processors in concert, just to demonstrate our level of 
proficiency of doing that with a new spacecraft, and a new set of 
sensors to solve the old rendezvous problem that we understand 
quite well, 

KSC We have no further questions from KSC, 



PAO 



Marshall you have questions? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5je 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 4 

QUERY I wanted to double check on a couple of numbers 

before I get to my main question. What was the orbit before you 
trimmed it down to 150, 

STONE It was I believe 166 by 171. 

MARSHALL Okay, what impact will that have on the Palapa 

people in trimming once they go into geostationary orbit? Is 
that just a minor number of, bunch of number changes for them, or 
does it have any real impact? 

STONE It, and I would be speaking for them, before, 

obviously before we committed to an orbit change, we talked to 
the customer and the impact of them was primarily just 
reselecting the deploy orbit. And I don't believe it was a 
giganic redo effort foe them. 

QUERY Okay, did I understand the numbers correctly on the 

Westar orbit, you said 150 by 600? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5 jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 1 



STONE That's an approximate set of numbers, I was 

roughly computing from meters, so that's a rough set of numbers, 
it's not down to the hundreds of feet, 

QUERY And the last one, again, back on the balloon. This 

is a rather nifty, elegant little deployment system you had for 
it. But was it really necessary? The Payload bay wasn't exactly 
full, why couldn't you have launched with the balloon just 
partially inflated and let it come up to fully inflation as the 
Orbiter ascended to altitude? 



STONE I was not involved in the design of the balloon 

package, but that as far as I know, was never a consideration. 

PAO Ok, no more from Marshall, 

STONE The IRT is the engineering that went into the 



deploy mechanism 'n the balloon is something that these folks 
that designed it have been doing for a while, and they've done it 
for other sounding rocket programs. And that's, we were taking 
some off-the-shelf-type hardware when we did this. 

PAO Ok, I guess we're back in Houston now, Lynn Sherr, 

ABC, front row, 

SHERR Randy, just one more on the Palapa, is it, is what 

you're saying is that you don't really know anything different 
from what you knew at the time of deploy and the time of the 
problem with the Westar, but you are confident in going ahead 
with Palapa because of your past record, I mean is there 
something, did I miss a beat in there? 

STONE No, I don't believe you missed anything. You know 

we've gone back over all of the, from the Orbiter's side, and I'm 
sure the McDonnell Douglas people with respect to the PAM and the 
Hughes people with respect to the spacecraft, are going back 
through their quality control records to make sure there's - no 
glaring error was made, as are the Palapa people and the same 
thing. Any time you have a failure on a device that's as complex 
as one of these spacecraft, you go back and look at all of the 
things you can possibly look at to understand its pedigree. And 
that's what's going on, and nobody is finding anything that just 
jumps up and says, ah ha, I think I've found something that's a 
problem. Things like that are just not showing up. We've gone 
back on the Oribter and looked at the procedures and made sure 
we're doing everything properly as we were asked to by the 
customer, and we're convinced that all of that is as it should 
be. I believe everybody has a* high degree of confidence that 
tomorrow will be very sucessful. Obviously, since we've had a 
failure, I'm sure the pulses will be up at a higher rate than 
they would have if we had had a nominal Westar deploy. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p5jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 2 



PAO Olive Talley, and then back to Mark Kramer . 

TALLEY Randy, just to clarify. You are going to be using 

the camera on the end of the arm? 

STONE That's the plan right now. You know, we hadn't 

transmitted that up to the crew, but we 1 re building the 
procedures to do that, and we have found no engineering reason 
from our standpoint that that's not an acceptable thing to do. 
There may be some lens cover damage, not really damage but 
coating, from the solid rocket motor plume, but we believe that's 
the right thing to do. 

PAO Mark Kramer. 

KRAMER Randy, I think you used the figure 90 percent when 

you said that by giving up the long-range rendezvous, if you had 
been able to do this mornings rendezvous successfully, you would 
have gotten 90 percent of what you had hoped for from the 
original Intergrated Rendezvous test procedure. Is there a way 
to come up with a number that represents what you think you got 
now? Are you down to 10 percent, or 50 percent, or 75? 

STONE To be honest with you I haven't sat down and tried 

to make that kind of assessment. Our navigation people, and our 
procedures people will certainly look at, the holes on the things 
that the we didn't really cover with what we got done today. But 
no, I don't have a number like that. 

PAO Fourth row back here on the aisle. 

JIM BARTLETT {Houston Chronicle) Would you translate the Palapa 
deployment inTO the Central Standard Time? 

STONE 1 can get it close. I tell you what, I would 

rather have a FIDO call in and give us the exact deploy time, 
because I would surely miss it by 30 minutes and then you would 
think I wasn't telling you something right, and I don't want to 
do that. I'll get you the exact time, though. 

BARTLETT Ok, thank you. 

PAO Ok, next over there. 

AL MARSH (Aviation Week) Are the 11 smaller objects also 150 by 
600 miles? 

STONE I don't have, I wasn't given that data. That was 

just a summary report from the tracking stations and I don't know 
that, I just don't know. 



PAO 



Front row over here. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 3 



QUERY (Germany) Are you absolutely sure that the failure is a 
PAM failure by now or are there any other possiblities possible? 

STONE I can't comment on that, I'm not involved in the 

failure analysis that the customer is going through. 

QUERY (Germany) But this was the first time ever that a PAM 
didn't function properly, is that correct? 

STONE It's the first time that a, I'm speaking from our 

NASA point of view, it's the first one that we have deployed that 
hasn't functioned normally, And I don't know the history of the 
PAM's on other launch vehicles, 

QUERY (Germany) You said earlier that the astronauts might look 
with binoculars to the debris of Westar. Could you give a rough 
guess from what distance that would be? 

STONE That's the kind of answer that we'll be looking 

at. We're trying to see if the orbits get anywhere close to each 
other, that would allow something like that to take place. 
Because the orbits are actually, they are actually getting 
farther and farther away from us, and we're looking to see if at 
any point in the rest of the mission that the orbits aire close 
enough that you might have a chance of seeing it through a 
device. We don't even know that that's possible yet. 

PAO Ok, Roy Neal, NBC • 

NEAL Randy, I'm having a tough time reconciling 

something here, maybe you can help me. Here-to-fore we f ve always 
heard from NASA "We'll only launch, or deploy in this case, when 
we're sure we know what happened to the last one." Now, is it 
that you now know something that we don't know about what 
happened to the last one, or is this just a case of taking a 
calculated risk that you'll get away with a good launch on 
Palapa. I'm confused. 

STONE Well, let me try to put that in perspective for 

you. What I think you're referring to is something, that if we 
have a failure we will not go and fly an Orbiter until we 
understand that failure, if it is something that is significant 
that woul^ be vehicle or crew threatening. You have a situation 
here where we're already flying, we have had a failure of a 
customer's spacecraft and it really is, as long as NASA deams it 
safe, and we do, we're willing to do what the customer would like 
to do with their spacecraft. 

NEAL So the customer's the one that's deciding then to 

take a calculated risk with that stuff, is that right? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 4 

STONE I think any time you're dealing with complex space 

vehicles there is some amount of calculated risk, if you will. 
We like to term it as opposed to risk, good preparation and 
engineering analysis, but it's the same thing, 

NEAL Yes Ok, 

PAO Mark Kramer, 

KRAMER Since we spoke of last, yesterday, since we were 

here yesterday, have you seen any photographs from the DOD or 
even Jules Bergman that show you the - - ' 

STONE No, and I'm really disapointed that Jules didn't 

bring his pictures today, 

PAO I want to know how he can afford a Quastar, 

STONE The question that was asked in the back, sir, the 

Palapa deploy is 9:13 am Central Standard Time, 

QUERY Thank you. 

STONE I'm sure glad those people over there are 

listening. 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press, 

RECER Are your, is your tracking network still exerting 

maximum effort trying gather data on the debris or whatever of 
Westar, or is that effort looking back, 

STONE It is my understanding that the report I gave you 

is the summary report and we 1 re now concentrating on our normal 
business, 

PAO Ok, one more in the back there, and lets shut it 

down, 

QUERY Can you tell us what the current weather report is 

for a landing for KSC, We heard bad words about the weather 
yesterday, 

STONE I don't know what the current forecast is right 

now, 

PAO Ok, thank you very much. 

END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6ja 2/5/84 4:30 pm Page 1 



PAO Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's 

briefing. Off-going Flight Director Harold Draughon and once 
again Mr, Bill Zieglec from Westar. We will go ahead and turn it 
over to Harold and see where we've been the last shift. 

DRAUGHON Okay, today has, after the IRT incident this 

morning, we spent the remainder of the day trying to get some 
order back into the timeline's you might say and get back on an 
even keel. We continued on with taking as much rendezvous data 
as we could or as much sensor data as we could on the section of 
the IRT that the crew acquired. I have some data here, there it 
is, on what kind of performance we did get. It turned out that 
the sensors with the rendezvous radar, the sensors that you use 
on a rendezvous radar and the star tracker and the COAS. The 
startracker and COAS, two optical devices, rendezvous radar is a 
radio. So we used all three of those guys in looking at the 
largest piece of the target that the crew noticed and continued 
to take data on that thing just to get relative motion 
measurements. The rendezvous radar gave a solid lock or solid 
indications out to about 40,000 feet and then there was 
intermittent data out to about 110,000 feet. The startracker 
went out to almost 400,000 feet, about 370,000 feet with solid 
data. Then the crew reported that there was intermittent data 
after that and they reported even at that range with the COAS, 
and I don't remember the exact magnification power of the COAS 
optics but they could still visually with the aid of the COAS see 
the target even at 370,000 feet. The measurements were extremely 
consistent as far as the angular data that those instruments were 
measuring and things that we were looking at was a consistency in 
that data. The sensitivity of using those instruments, 
particulary the two optical instruments with the lighting that we 
had, it worked very well, the lighting was not nearly as 
sensitive as some of the people had thought that it might be and 
as I think Vance had thought it might be, having flown before. 
It was working extremely well. They obviously had no problem at 
all in deciding on the piece of the balloon that they were taking 
measurements on. The other aspect was a thing called the filter 
and that probably doesn't mean much to some of you folks but the 
filter is a mathematical tool that's used to weight data that's 
taken - measurements that are taken by the rendezvous radar or 
the optical elements to give the navigation hardware and software 
something to deal with. It's a way of saying, how well can I use 
this data, how much can I believe this data. When you first get 
data you think you didn't know a lot about - you don't have good 
knowledge of where the target is so you believe any measurement 
you get real strongly. As you get more and more measurements on 
it you think that, well, I've learned a little more and a little 
more and so you shrink down this filter and you become more 
selective in the kind of - the weight you would put on subsequent 
measurements. And it's a way of not letting a particular piece 
of data come in and completely throw out your knowledge of what's 
going on in the rendezvous situation. So that process was one 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6ja 2/5/84 4:30 pm Page 2 



that we needed to validate and the behavior of what we thought or 
what we had estimated is the right way to weight those 
measurements, so it turned out to be quite acceptable, quite 
good. So we got a real good feel for the sensitivity to lighting 
and to the interpretation of the data from the three rendezvous 
sensors. The rest of the day was fairly uneventful. The only 
thing that I think that you might even closely call a problem and 
it really wasn't, when we did the checkout o£ the RMS , that would 
normally be done after the Palapa deploy, but since we had 
slipped that a day we went ahead and did the RMS checkout 
anyway. The checkout went good and the RMS is completely 
functional no problem at all. When we were stowing the RMS back 
down into the cradle that f s along the longeron, the mid MPM or 
the mid support that you have to put the cradle in before you 
latch it down, there are microswitches there to tell the crew 
when they've got it close enough so that the hooks that come up 
can pull the cradle in and secure it , They weren't getting 
those indications and it just turns out you have to jam that 
thing further into the cradle harder than you might anticipate or 
at least than this crew might anticipate. They had it well 
within - there are some markings on it that you can look out the 
window and tell when you've got it close or not and they did 
that, and we told them they were close enough but they elected to 
go ahead and tweak the system some more and in about 20 minutes 
they finally succeeded in getting the microswitches in each of 
those support mounts to close and went ahead and latched it up. 
So that all went well. Not a great deal of other activity going 
on today. The SPAS was activitated and some MOMS data was 
taken. The systems - there was on the mass spec there was one - 
you can think of it as an inlet (garble) on one of the devices, 
that there are some conflicting indications as to, it reorients 
itself based on the way they are taking data and some conflicting 
indications in telemetry on where - what the positioning of that 
thing is, It turns out the crew can look out the window and see 
it. It did perform as it was supposed to and went through the 
right sequence so it's a data problem and not a problem with the 
instrument, As far as plans going forward for tomorrow, flight 
day 4, and this is roughed out. Larry Bourgeois is over now with 
the planning team and they are putting together the details and 
some of this may move a little bit but none of the major events 
are going to move very much. Tomorrow morning we will try a 
longer range startracker acquisition, looking back at APs from 
the target, from the IRT. The 2 or 3 revs when I was paying 
attention to what the ranges were doing between the Orbiter and 
the piece we were tracking, it was increasing at about 9 miles a 
rev, I believe, something like that, and that may be off but it 
was growing something like that. We'll look tomorrow morning and 
try to get a long range acquisition and see if we can just get 
one calibration out at whatever that range is tomorrow morning. 
The big event will be on rev 50 descending node, rev 50 will be 
the Palapa deploy. That's a mission elapsed time of 3 days, 2 
hours and 13 minutes. Central standard time is 9:13 central 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6ja 2/5/84 4:30 pm Page 3 

standard. Their Orbiter separation maneuver, which is an 11-foot 
per second sep to leave the area, which is a standard sequence 
after any PAM deploy is done 15 minutes later at 9:28 central 
time* The PKM burn which is also a timer event 45 minutes after 
deploy is at 9:58 central time, Following the PKM burn we have a 
phasing maneuver scheduled that we may or may not execute. We 
are really put it in the timeline to give us the timeline option 
to have the thing there and if we choose to do it we will, Later 
in the day after that deploy a burn is being scheduled right now 
to fix up end of mission lighting, Y'all have heard all of us 
probably talk about the trade between crossrange and the sunrise 
and sunset or the terminator crossing at KSC. You can build 
yourself into a box of getting there when you've got plenty of 
range capability to get close enough to KSC but it's just gotten 
dark or you can get that another time and you can't quite fly 
that far out of your ground track, but you're in the day time. 
You've got to work that problem and the trick to that is to get 
there at the right time on the right rev, That's controlled by a 
thing called phasing. We do that by adjusting the period of the 
orbit that we are flying in some days before planning. We're 
putting a maneuver in there, we may elect to do it then, we may 
elect to delay that to the next day. We'll decide that once we 
get there, we get a little closer in on it. That 's pretty much 
what I have. I 1 11 entertain any questions you might have, 

PAO Okay. Before we get started in that, Mr. Ziegler, 

do you have anything particular you wanted to say before went to 
questions. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jb 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 



ZIEGLER I thinK so. We have succeeded in locating Westar 

6, thanks to the orbit information that NORAD was able to supply 
us. And I believe the NASA network assisted in that. Our 
Hughes, Filmore station in California, picked up early this 
afternoon, 19, about 19:30, That's - I'm trying to convert to 
central time, 

PAO Was that Greenwich. 

ZIEGLER That was 18:30, I'm sorry, Greenwich time, yes, 

about 2:30, 

PAO About 2:30, 

ZIEGLER About 2:30, Picked up Westar 6 in a pass and got a 

limited amount of data. It appears that our blind commanding to 
the Spacecraft during the last, well since the loss after PAM 
firing, was successful in getting the conf iguration, such that 
the batteries would charge from the solar energy that's received, 
and the indications are, that we've learned so far, the 
separation switch had operated, so it had separated from the PAM, 
which implies that the PAM timers worked, and as far as we can 
tell, has all the electrical systems on the PAM provided all the 
commands to the spacecraft that it should have, We also have a 
pressure in one of the two hydrozene systems, which is exactly 
the same pressure as it was prelaunch and which also implies that 
one of the two, neutation damping thrusters, did not fail, did 
not stick open, I should say. It is consistent with either no 
firings or with the normal firing that you would expect during 
the post period for neutation damping. The amount of fuel that 
you'd normally used for neutation damping, in the drift period, 
the 45 minute drift period, is so miniscule that we couldn't 
measure the change in pressure in the tanks. All the 
temperatures, the temperatures that we could measure, are normal, 
what we would expect. The both bus voltages are up to what was, 
normally expect, and the currents are nominal and the batteries 
are charging as commanded, one is on fast charge, and the other 
battery is on trickle charge. The reason for having only one on 
fast charge was that we - in commanding it that way, was so that 
we'd get at least one battery up to snuff as quickly as 
possible. So the conclusion is that we will, we'll be getting 
more data from the spacecraft, that we have clearly identified it 
as Westar 6 in this orbit that the NORAD was able to give us this 
morning. Our next, there are several opportunities to get 
addi tional information. Several intelsat stations, are 
attempting to get lock up on this signal and get data for us and 
get commands into this, but all of the intelsat stations have 
very large dishes, 30-meter dishes, which implies a very narrow 
beam. With a target that is going by so fast, they have 
difficulty in locking on to it and getting any appreciable amount 
of time on it. The station net Yamagutchi, Japan, after this 
(garble) acquisition, did get a signal, but the, for insufficient 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jb 2/5/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 2 



time to lock on it and get any data. The next opportunities Cor 
the smaller stations, that is the wider beam width stations, are 
for Glenwood, Glenwood, New Jersey, the Western Union station, at 
Glenwood, and the Hughes station at Filmore come early tomorrow 
morning. Ten o'clock zulu, which is about 4 o'clock, central 
standard time, for the first Glenwood possibility of seeing it, 
and they can see it for 4 more orbits, about an hour and a half 
tor each orbit, And Filmore can see it beginning about 11:30 
zulu, which is 5:30 central standard. And it would have an 
opportunity again for 4 passes. So we're hopeful that we will 
get more data, we do not yet have a spin rate, we do not yet have 
the pressure on the other RCS system, and all of these things can 
tell us more about the failure mechanism. 

PA0 . Okay. All right, I guess we'll go ahead and go to 

questions, and Jules, Jules Bergman, right here. 

BERGMAN Mr. ziegler, I don't understand exactly what you're 

saying. Are you saying we have a cripple spacecraft, that we can 

now talK to? That's batteries are already chargable but cannot 
leave earth orbit, it cannot ever reach synchronous orbit, or 
what? 

ZIEGLER As far as we know we have a spacecraft that's in a 

wrong orbit, that's completely healthy. 

PAO Olive Talley. 

TALLEY Bill, you do look a little bit better this 

afternoon. Two questions, please. There's been a conflict in 
the orbitoral figure, that NORAD has given out and that NASA has 
given out, and Hughes has given out. Is it 600 by 155, if it is 
please say so, if it's not please give us the correct figures, 
and one other question, the other pieces that were tracked 
earlier by NORAD that we've discussed, the figure ranged from 13 
to 15 pieces including these 2 major pieces, what are they and 
where are they? 

DRAUGHON I'll take the second. 

PAO Several 

ZIEGLER I haven't gotten the report from the orbital 

dynamics people since we've had this, been able to communicate 
with the spacecraft, but it was based on the NORAD report that we 
got this morning, earlier this morning. Which was, and I don't 
know the nautical miles, but it was 1,218 kilometers apogee, and 
307 kilometers perigee, for the 2 major pieces. So we are 
consistent with that, within the tolerance of that measurement. 
I believe that's good orbit. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jb 2/5/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 3 



TALLEY Does the figure, 600 by 155 nautical miles, does 

that correspond with the kilometers or you 1 re saying you're not 
sure, 

ZIEGLER Without getting out a calculator, I don ? t know* 

DRAUGHON It's about half, it's - - 

ZIEGLER It's approximately consistant, just from the, it's 

about 6/10ths of a kilometer in a nautical mile, 

DRAUGHON It's not surprising, it's not surprising in the 

people in the business, if you go look someplace for a lost 
target, or target that you're not sure where it is, to find a 
bunch of other things already there. There's a lot of stuff in 
space, A good indication of that is the kind of work we do. You 
know everytime we get a mission defined and get a trajectory 
defined, we go through a search on all the things in the NORAD 
catalog, and if you just ask, you've got to get that list down to 
something manageable* If you, if you said give me a list of 
everything within 500 miles, you wouldn't want to carry it around 
with you. We do a call of about 100 miles or so, and we say give 
us, show us, tell the computer to give us a list of everything 
that's going to come within 50 to 100 miles of you, then you look 
at that thing, and find out, off that set which ones do you have 
real accurate vectors on, what kind of orbits are they in, what 
kind of approaches are they making, and you make some estimation 
of how well you need to go in and look at in depth at any one of 
these things. So if you just, and everytime we change our orbit, 
we go off and do that again, Everytime we make a maneuver we've 
got to make that search. It's not surprising that if you go to 
someplace new and then all of a sudden you turn all to radars out 
there and say <f Do you see anything?" You get a long list. 
You've been watching us for the last few days, go figure out, 
that's not it, that's not it, that's not it. 



* ** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04:30 pm PAGE 1 



TALLEY But you had said earlier that one of the pieces 

looked like it could be the PAM. Could the PAM have shattered 
into several, or many pieces and could that be pieces of the PAM 
that have been so close to that - - 

ZIEGLER It could be pieces of the PAM NOSL. 

DRAUGHON It's possibly, 

TALLEY And one final question, is Bruce going to go fix 

camera delta when does the EVA? Has that been decided yet? 

DRAUGHON It has not been definitely decided, it's being 

considered by the team that's on right now. 

PAO Paul Recer. 

RECER Ok, now that you have a healthy spacecraft in the 

wrong orbit, what are you going to do with it? 

ZIEGLER That's my job for next week. To figure that out. 

RECER What are the possibilities? 

ZIEGLER I don't think there is any possibility we can get 

it into geosynchronous orbit. Even if spend, well, the amount 
of energy onboard consists of the apogee kick motor, and the 
hydrozene, and I don't think the apogee kick motor by itself 
could even get us into the geosynchronous transfer orbit much 
less the hydrozene get us into circular sequence orbit so just 
what we'll do with it, we'll complete this getting the data and 
finding as much as we can about the failure analysis. And there 
was one possibility suggested, although I don't know if it's even 
worth the try, is maybe to put it in a 12 hour orbit, but I don't 
even know if that is feasible at this point in time. 

RECER If you put it in a 12 hour orbit, it would have some 

communications ability or some use then? 

DRAUGHON Well, we might get a few hours twice a day out of 

it. We could arrange it so that it's almost stationary for maybe 
a couple of hours every 12 hours. 

PAO Ok, John Wilford. 

WILFORD Are we to infer then that the most likely site of 

the failure was in the PAM? 

DRAUGHON It's very clear that we did not get the delta V 

that we expected to get from the PAM* It is not yet conclusive 
that it wasn't a failure of the spacecraft to provide automatic 
nutation control. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04:30 pm PAGE 2 
PAO Ok, Chris Peterson, 

PETERSON Harold, did the IRT failure really suprise anybody 

in the control room, and if not, why not? 

DRAUGHON I think most of you are aware the qual tests stuff 

that had gone on with the IRT, the balloon, preflight. The 
testing that we had had with that particular balloon, that 
particular balloon was procured from a vendor that's been 
building balloons like that to put on sounding rockets and we 
tried to lowball it to make something as cheaply as we could to 
use for this rendezvous demonstration, and not spend any more 
money than we had to for that. There had been some development 
problems with that particular system. Most of them related to 
temperature affects. I don't believe that those qual issues that 
we found in the testing, and made some mods to fix, led to the 
real problem. It looks, and it's early yet, but it looks like a 
ring, a lanyard that's suppose to pull and start a pyro timer to 
charge it - to timing out and then release the strap that holds 
the stays on. It yanked itself out by the roots • It did not 
stay attached, and therefore it never started that timer. And 
that looks like the failure mechanism. But there was some 
question as to how long it would stay inflated because of the 
qual history before it, but there had been some changes made and 
the recent testing had been promising. 

PETERSON One other question for you, Harold. How does the 

failure of the IRT - manuevers on this flight going to affect 
your confidence lovel or what your going to try on the next 
mission? 

DRAUGHON Well, we got the main thing, the highest objective, 

which was the sensor performance, that was the big unknown, and 
the other 2 things that I talked about yesterday have to do with 
the, secondly with the manned machine interface on how you 
interact with that software compute manuevers and edit that 
data. And we obviously did not get that. The last ingredient 
that we didn't get was the ground involvement in computing those 
very few, and remember from my discussions yesterday, the ground 
computes the first 2 manuevers and getting those things in. That 
we never really needed to begin with, it was just an ingredient 
that bridged between the 1st and 3rd objective. So we got the 
most important and we feel very confident in going forward with 
13 for that rendezvous. We can handle it. 

PAO Ok, Lynn. 

SHERR Harold, how does the information that Western Union 

now have figure in your feeling about the deployment tomorrow for 
the Palapa. Does it Increase the confidence at all, although I 
realize that NASA has been confident and says its been confident 
all along. But how does that figure in. 



r 



STS~41-§ CHANGE~OF~SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04; 30 pm PAGE 3 

DRAUGHON w-all Lynn, I don't think it really, its nice to 

have that knowledge, but I was truly confident that we ought to 
go ahead with the Palapa the next day. There have been lots of 
PAM's flown and they have a good track record. If that's where 
the problem was and, I felt like we should have gone ahead with 
it. It was unlikely in my opinion that we would have learned 
anything in a couple of days that would have led us to doing 
something very much smarter, 2 days later, if you could have 
found out what it was, It was probably something with the amount 
of interaction that we have with those vehicles that you could 
have fixed it or responded to it. So I was ready to go ahead 
with it to begin with. It's nice to have that piece of data 
behind you tnough. But we 1 re still confident, and I expect the 
PAM to work. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC News) This is for Bill Ziegier and Harold 
for you too, What is your best surmise now on what actually 
happened to Westar? 

ZIEGLER I tell you, I guess, I would guess, my opinion is 

that the PAM failed probably, NOSL failure. But you know, that's 
not confirmed. 

DRAUGHON If you want to take a shot in the dark, and that's 

all your doing, that's the most likely thing to have happened. 

BERGMAN Will you ever actually find out from the telemetry 

you're getting back now that that did happen or didn't happen? 
And do you know, do you know that the apogee kick motor is still 
onboard? 

ZIEGLER We have an apogee kick motor temperature which is 

nominal. We don't yet have a spin rate and so forth* Let's see, 
the first part of your question was will we ever know what 
actually happened from the tolemetry. From the telemetry, I feel 
quite confident, we'll obtain a complete health status of the 
spacecraft and we will know whether the automatic nutation 
control is working properly and can, of course, that doesn't 
conclusively prove that it did work properly during the coast 
period. But it could rule out a lot of things, if those things 
check out as we get more data from the spacecraft. 

BERGMAN I apptjciate your fatigue, sir. But neither of 

your answers answered my question. Will that tell you what 
actually happened? 

ZIEGLER No, it won't tell us what actually happened, it can 

only rule out a lot of possibilities. 

BERGMAN So the wire service quote, attributed to a Hughes 

spokesman, is therefore wrong* 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04:30 pm PAGE 4 
ZIEGLER Oh, I don't know about the - ~ 

BERGMAN "There's no hope of saving it," I'm quoting, "but 

it is exciting that we will be able to piece together the story 
of what happened," you 1 re saying that that's not so, 

ZIEGLER It is true that there is no hope of saving it, the 

spacecraft ♦ 

BERGMAN I wasn't in doubt about that. 

ZIEGLER We will be able to eliminate a lot of possibilities 

and narrow it down to a few, based on spacecraft telemetry. 
There are other sources of data that may tell us what actually 
happened, 

BERGMAN Such as, 

ZIEGLER Well, NORAD is continuing to collect information 

about the Item #2 out there, and the particles, the other debris, 
to see if they can reconstruct where they originated and give us 
some timing of what events happened at what time which can help 
to track it down. 

PAO We need to move on, I'll take 2 more before we go 

to XSC. We'll have this gentleman in the white, and then we'll 
have Paul, 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 

ANATOLIA (GERMAN RADIO) Mr, Ziegler, you said you have a 
healthy spacecraft is it possible that once you get further data 
you found some damage within the spacecraft or could you rule 
that out right now? 

2IEGLER Oh, of course, it's possible we'll find some 

further damage, yes. But from the data we have now we have found 
no damage within the spacecraft, 

PAO Paul Recer, 

PAUL RECER (AP) You said that your guess was that the failure 
was probably a NOZL failure. Such a failure, would that be an 
explosive event or could you characterize that, 

ZIEGLER Well, there has been a failure in a ground test of 

an engine which was a failure of the NOZL and pieces of the NOZL 
came off in this test. That allowed the plume, if you will, to 
create more heat behind the rest of the NOZL assembly and the 
eventual - it took only about 20 seconds - failure of the whole 
rear end of the PAM engine and that caused the whole rear end of 
the PAM engine to come off with a big jagged hole and that 
reduced the pressure so much the flame goes out and stops 
burning. And that, the amount of impulse to get us into the 
orbit that we are in, the one that NORAD reported here is 
approximately consistent with that second flame out in about 20 
seconds after the start of burn. 

RECER With a failure of that type, is the size of the 

second object, second large object that has been seen, would that 
size be consistent with such a failure also, 

ZIEGLER Yes. 

RECER Okay, And one other thing. Is there any 

indications that any debris impacted the spacecraft itself so 
that you're getting degraded performance from some of the 
elements such as it's not charging or not creating or generating 
enough electricity as it would if all the cells were healthy or 
anything like that. 

ZIEGLER There's no indication of any damage to the 

spacecraft. 

PAO Okay. Let's go to KSC for questions. 

KSC PAO Okay* KSC has a couple of questions. Prank 

Hucenda of Today. 

FRANK HUCENDA (TODAY) First question's for Mr. Ziegler; Is 
there any chance, or for Harold, is there any chance that this 
might be a candidate for a future satellite rescue operation? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 2 



2IEGLER This satellite wasn't designed for that purpose 

with that possibilty in mind basically because it was intended to 
go up to geosynchronous orbit and I don't think repair capability 
is even in the minds of NASA yet at that altitude. So, I doubt 
that that's a possibility although since it's in a low altitude 
orbit now maybe at some point we could bring another PAM engine 
up there and attach it on and go from there. But that's pretty 
far out thinking and I suspect by the time that that happens why 
our solar cells will have deteriorated and the bat teries* will 
have worn out and we 1 11 be out of hydrazine. 

HUCENDA A ways down the road then. Second question, how 

does this work out for you for insurance purposes? Is it the 
equivalent of banging a fender and not totally out or do you 
still intend to collect the whole amount. 

ZIEGLER I'm not an expert on our insurance policy but in 

the (garble) of cars I think it will be a total loss. 

KSC PAO One more question from KSC. 

QUERY Last question. This is for Harold. We've been 

getting indications of problems with the waster management system 
again. What is the story with that? Is it working? Is it going 
to continue working? Are they bagging it? What's the story? 

DRAOGHON The situation has not changed since the first shift 

and I think it was debriefed there. There are 2 fan separators 
in that system that are used to keep a flow through the various 
tubes and what not. One of those, the first fan separator #1 had 
indicated stall currents. We talked to the crew about it. They 
could preceive, listening to the thing, that it was running but 
not running at full RPM. We switched to the redundant system and 
that one is performing satisfactorily, in fact, it's performing 
nominally and we have not changed the way that we are using that 
system, normal operations. 

KSC PAO KSC has no further questions. 

PAO Okay. Go to Marshall for questions. 

TOM KNIGHT (WAFF TV HUNTSVILLE) For Harold/first of all from 
the initial inspections at Kennedy on the NOZL and SRBs, any 
report on that? 

DRAUGHON If there are any, they've been coming into the JSC 

Management here. That doesn't affect anything that I'm doing in 
flight and I've got lots of other things to be worried about 
until after the launch. We just, the guys on the console don't 
get concerned with that until after the flight. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 

KNIGHT And for Bill Ziegler, based on the fact that you do 

say you have a healthy satellite, if you find down the road a bit 
that you are unable to move the Westar to a different orbit or do 
something with it how long would the current orbit, will you be 
able to maintain that current orbit before it will begin to 
deteriorate, 

ZIEGLER I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question at the end, 

KNIGHT The Westar VI. If you are unable to, if you find 

down the road that you will be unable to move, how long will it 
be able to maintain that orbit before it begins, the orbit begins 
to deteriorate? 

ZIEGLER Oh, it's a good long time. I don't have any 

figures on that, 

DRAUGHON It's a real long time. 

ZIEGLER Probably a good many years. 

MARSHALL PAO No further questions from here. 
ZIEGLER Harold, I guess you ... 

DRAUGHON It is on the order of years. It's a long time. 

MARSHALL PAO No further questions from Marshall, 

PAO Okay we 1 11 come back and take a couple more here 

and close up. Craig Covault. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) Bill, some things on the Westar 
deployment. Does the fact you're charging batteries indicate the 
big drop skirt has come down? 

ZIEGLER Negative. We won 1 t deploy that until we get a lot 

more information about the spacecraft and maybe not even then. 
But we have enough solar cells exposed to the sun to provide the 
command and telemetry operations that we need to do. More than 
enough as a matter of fact, and therefore, we won't do any 
operations on that until we've thoroughly checked out the 
spacecraft. That is an operation that requires a command and so 
we're not going to do that until we're pretty sure we know what 
we 1 re doing. 

COVAULT And to follow on the condition for engineering 

analysis of the failure to help you out there, is the temperature 
situation on the Westar a comfortable one or is this a serious 
concern just from maintaining your engineering data flow since 
you're not in a geosynchronous orbit? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 4 

ZIEGLER No. The temperature on the spacecraft from the 

limited data that we have is all perfectly normal and we are not 
concerned about it. If we were to turn on more like transponders 
and start using up a lot of power, then we would have to drop the 
skirt in order to expose the thermal radiators. But that's not 
the situation right at this point in time. 

PAO And John Petty, 

JOHN PETTY (HOUSTON POST) Have there been any private medical 
conferences? 

DRAUGHON No, there have not. 

PAO Okay. Anymore? Yes sir right here. 

QUERY Would it be to correct to state that you were able 

to check some of the rendezvous instruments successfully although 
you didn't fly the maneuvers you originally planned for the 
balloon? 

DRAUGHON Yes, that's perfectly true. We have gotten the 

instrument performance. We just didn't get to apply that 
performance to a rendezvous situation. 

PAO Okay. Final one here from KJOJ. 

MIKE WILLIAMSON (KJOJ) Mr. Draughon, I noted in the pref light 
handouts that we were given that pogo testing was an objective on 
the launch for this flight. Has pogo become a concern for the 
space shuttle and could that have caused some of the incidents 
that we've seen happen in the past few days. 

DRAUGHON No there's, the latter is not the case or I would 

have certainly known about it. I didn't work ascent and I don't 
know what the pogo testing was but there is nothing that is 
significant in a pogo area on that vehicle. 

PAO Okay, that'll do it for today. Thank you very 

much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7ja 2/6/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Good morning, Change~of-Shif t Press Conference 

with Randy Stone. Randy, why don't you hit your log there and go 
from there, 

RANDY STONE Good morning. My shift this morning was very 
quiet. The Orbiter is performing as advertised and we've 
accomplished a number of tasks to set us up for the EVA 
tomorrow. When I left the control center, Palapa had been 
deployed from the Orbiter on time and in attitude and we're 
awaiting the developments of that deployment. Today on our shift 
we conducted a long-range startracket sensor test, one of the nav 
sensors required for rendezvous, trying to track the IRT - the 
balloon that we deployed yesterday. We were unable to lock onto 
it. It was at about 290 miles and we would not, it is not 
surprising that the startracker was unable to acquire the remains 
of the balloon. A number of housekeeping-type events occurred 
today. We have reduced the cabin pressure in the Orbiter to 10.2 
psi. And that was accompanied with a prebreathe of the two EVA 
crewmen. The 10.2 cabin pressure is the protocol to set us up 
for deni trogenat ion of the crew prior to the EVA to prevent the 
bends. And that went as advertised and we are, the cabin is 
stable at 10.2 psi. We have started the work on the EMUs or the 
backpacks for the EVA tomorrow to dump the water that's in them 
out and to recharge them and that is just a normal function for 
the backpacks to have fresh water in them so that we maximize the 
cooling capability in the backpack. The rest of the morning was 
taken up with preparations for the deployment today and that all 
went very smoothly and I'm open for questions. 

PAO Okay, Jules Bergman, 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) Randy , whatever became of - - 
PAO Wait for the mike please. 

BERGMAN Randy, whatever became of the 200-pound lead 

weight? 

STONE The weight on the IRT, that is part of the IRT 

balloon, yesterday we suspect it had separated from the mylar 
covering. After tracking the IRT remains through the night, you 
can make an engineering judgement that the weight is probably 
still attached to the mylar. If the mylar had been without any 
mass to it it would have changed its orbit significantly and 
started to deorbit. It has not done that. It is acting like a 
piece of material that does have some mass so we 1 re assuming that 
the IRT weight is still attached to that mass because we were 
able to track it all night and it, the tracking showed us that it 
was probably still there. 

BERGMAN And so you 1 re not concerned about any midspace 

collision taking place. 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p7j» 2/6/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 



STONE Oh, no. No we're not, Jules. Even if it had come 

loose from the mylar we were convinced that we had a separation 
rate and there was absolutely no problem with the Orbiter. 

PAO Mark Kramer, CBS. Second row over here. Second 

row back there. 

MARK KRAMER (CBS) I may have missed discussion this morning 
about putting the arm out with the wrist camera to look at the 
Palapa firing. Is there any reason to assume that's not going to 
happen? 

STONE No sir. That is going to happen. There was very 

little discussion about it because it was in our teleprinter 
message from last night that went up and gave the crew the joint 
angles to do that and when to turn on the camera, etc. There'll 
probably be a reminder over the air-to-ground that you'll hear 
just prior to the PKM burn that will confirm that that's all in 
place but it's going to be done. 

KRAMER And will be done as described the other day, that 

is over the starboard side? 

STONE Yes sir. As far as I know there were no changes 

in that procedure. I just looked at joint angles last night and 
they looked the same so I don't believe there's any change in the 
procedure. 

PAO Craig Covault, Aviation Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) Randy to follow on that, did you 
hear any discussion on the type of imagery you expect to see off 
the RMS camera, specifically being sure that you will be able to 
acquire the plume, that the camera will be pointed in the right 
location and following on that about how long you expect to be 
able to follow the burn? 

STONE I'll take your last question first. We are not 

going to move the camera to track the burn. We are pointing the 
camera as close as we can to where the burn should be taking 
place which is about 10 miles away from its line of sight. The 
plume or the rocket motor will light up the sky fairly 
significantly as far as the TV camera is concerned so it doesn't 
have to be pointed exactly at the target to see the, to confirm 
the ignition, 

PAO Okay, back here second row. 

QUERY After the ignition of PAM, how long will it last 

until we get the first signal of the satellites or how long will 
it last until we know whether it's on its transfer orbit to 
geostationary orbit after the ignition. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7ja 2/6/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 

STONE I don't know when they acquire. That's not out 

network and I don't really answer to that. 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. 

PAUL RECER (AP) You may not be the right one to ask this but do 
you know if there's been any finalized plans to change the orbit 
of the Westar at this point? 

STONE I am not the right one to ask and I have heard no 

discussion on that topic, 

RECER All right. Let me ask you an engineering question 

then. Based on the predicted orbit and the actual orbit of 
Westar at this point, can you express in percentage terms about 
what portion of the PAM did, in fact, fire in the appropriate 
direction? 

STONE No sir, I just, I don't know the answer to that 

either , 

PAO Lynn Sherr, ABC, 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Randy, was there anything, excuse me, anything 
done any differently this morning in the deploy from what was 
done on Friday morning? 

STONE No they were identicals. 

SHERR Is there anything different being done in terms of 

the tracking or was there any extra caution in terms of the 
predeploy preparations. 

STONE We're always very careful when we go through our 

checklist and so no, there was nothing different done with the 
checklist. As far as tracking is concerned, yes. We are doing 
something a little bit more than we would normally do for a 
deployment of this type. We have assigned radars that would 
normally be tracking the Orbiter. We have turned them over to 
track the satellite at the time of the PKM burn just to get added 
data on the deployment and the status of the burn. 

SHERR Can you tell us which radars they are? 

STONE I wish I had brought a list, I know we've turned 

over Guam and Hawaii. Beyond that I'm not sure of the other 
radars but there are some, there are other radars that are 
involved In that. 

SHERR Approximately how many? What's the difference from 

a normal procedure? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING P 7ja 2/6/84 9:30am PAGE 4 

. W f U ' normall y our NASA radars are not part of that 
tracking network so any of them that we are supplying are 

t^fno 6 ^ *\T thG n ° rmal course of action - B «t we «?e just 
i£2,m3 ,L a ovM S J me assurance ^at we understand what happens 
around the PKM burn. it's just conservatism. «ppens 

SHERR I'm just trying to get a sense of how many, how 

many more radars will be tuned on than were before. Is t half a 
dozen, is it 3, is it 10? 

know E W h^ hhft !?IS e 1<m n0t sure how manv raaars they use I don't 
kno*? what the difference is. i think we have another 3 that are 
going to be utilized for this purpose. 

PA0 Front row down here. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (READERS DIGEST) This morning on the 
television of the broadcast of the flight crew thev looked 
extremely healthy. I realize they hid slept a fun 8 Souls etc 
but could you comment on why there has been so little talk of 
space sickness or what are the procedures on this flight that 

on Ve th?r n fn^ t a in f te?m S S ^•procedure, been an7dif?erent 

cms tugnt in terms of sickness? 

f??l . hart " eU the " are no different procedures on this 
flight than there were last flight or the previous flight. You 

a mattL h nf e ^ UC P r< ? toco1 ? n P^te medical comm that we did as 
a matter of course xn previous flights. We don't do that unless 
there's a crew request and there has been none and the crew looks 
and sounds like they are doing quite well. 

McCONNELL Have there been no mentions of disorientation at 
ai.i, of a dizziness or nausea or anything like that? 

STONE None that I'm aware of. No sir. 

PA0 Jules Bergman. 

?5!5fi N .„ u f 5?f t° <U«er Randy but there is one procedure 
that's^somewhat different on this flight. Your commander Vance 
S»!J? *?\ flown b t €ot * f nd , he learned the hard waH? SS-5 Sbout 
2g2S5 s i;5 n IS 8 ;- f°J? ould lt not stand to that h«, Vance 

Brand, had advised the crew about not overeating or moving their 
head in sudden directions and things like that? 9 heir 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-GF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/84 9s 30 am PAGE 1 



STONE Jules, we share all of the knowledge that we learn 

from flight to flight/ from commander to commander, and crew to 
crew, the things that you know can aggravate the situation, yes, 
we talk about them, and say take it easy. So that sort of thing 
is just a learning process that we're going through and some of 
the things that we do seem to help. 

BERGMAN And that may be trickleing through to each crew. 

STONE That' 3, it's not trickeling through, if we learn 

anything, we're passing it on. This is something that all of us 
in the space program want to overcome, so it is not a liability 
to us in later flights we have planned. 

PAO Greg Covault (Aviaton Week) 

COVAULT Randy, have you sent or do you plan to send any 

teleprinter messages or voiced instructions on changes to the 
EVA. I believe you are going to bring your camera inside for 
repair. 

STONE This morning we asked the crew how they felt about 

adding a procedure to bring camera delta, the one we're having 
problem with out in the bay, into the crew module, and either 
replace it with one of the cameras that's in the cabin, or do 
some in flight maintenance on that camera. The decision is not 
final whether or not we're going to do that additional task. I 
suspect we will, it looks like a very simple task and it has been 
run in our simulators, and it looks like it will probably be 
done. But the final decision to bring the camera in, will 
probably be made later on today. 

COVAULT Anything else in the EVA change world? 

STONE We've talked about the procedure to put the thermal 

blanket back down on the cinema 360, trying to think if this - 
Oh, there is one other thing that you may have heard us talking 
about on the loops , over the last couple of days. The mass 
spectrometer on the SPAS, evidentually has some microswitches 
that are either stuck or not operating properly, and we're 
looking at a, if there is anything we can do to help that 
experiment. Right now it can only point in the z axis, straight 
up out of the payload bay. And they have some experiments they 
would like to run with that instrument that requires it to be 
pointed in the X axis or down in the payload bay. And right now 
it cannot be pointed down in the payload bay. But whether or not 
to do that depends on whether or not there is something 
beneficial with - the EVA crewman can do. And we don't know that 
yet. 



PAO 



John Wilford, New York Times 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 

WILFORD why is fixing the delta camera so important? what 

would you lose if you don't have it operational. 

??°!!L n , We don ' fc lose any engineering data if we don't have 
it operational. it's a matter of providing as good of TV 
coverage of this EVA as we possible can, since It is entirely 

Si"S5Jri rt c i r Snif? ything WS ' Ve 6Ver d ° ne before with the man 

n^2 8 S u What phases of the EVA will we not be able to see 
if we don'b have the delta camera? 

STONE you will be able to see all of the EVA whether we 

do anything to the delta camera or not. There are some imoroved 
views you get of the MMU crewman docked to the SPAS when it's out 
on the end of the RMS, and that's one thing you'd like to 
document asjood as you can. But you will not lose anything, 
you ll be able to see him up there from one of the other 
cameras, it's just not as good a view. 

PA0 Paul Recer, AP. 



RECER 



In your ground simulations, have you been able to 



duplicate the apparent failure of camera delta. 

M2 el f ev ! the camera People understand the color 
i«ES ?i*2' 1£ ; he *her .or -not they have been able to shake one 

S£2*?!S;J^V5 a M' 1 dori : t * now ' bu t the camera folks seem to 
understand that failure mode. 

* E0E ? . j .? kay ' can you 3ust kind of roughly tell us what is 
involved in fixing the color wheel? 

STONE The concensus of those of us that have talked so 

far on the camera is that we will not, probably not try to fix 
it, but just replace it with one of the cabin cameras. The TV 
cameras inside and outside the bay are identical except for the 

thV Ki»??I2 r i2?'-u hat,S ; ju f t w heia on by velcro ' *° we'll take 
the covering off the payload bay camera, put it on the cabin 
camera, and then reinstall it outside. 

RECER. Okay, what is involved in taking it off its rack 

outside, I mean remove a pin or what? 

STONE There are, and I'm not absolutely positive the 

oi^ e th»h P i n n^i at r} atCh i fc down ' but 1 b « lieve there are three 
SrSLvi 8 pina ' 1 v ! got a 9 UV out there giving me hand 
signals, there are 4 pins and a, just a standard electrical 

very e simple task?" unS0CeW and pul1 a P art to take it off. it's a 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 



RECER Okay, and they would put a thermal blanket from the 

outside camera on the inside camera, and put the inside camera 
outside, right? 

PAO Whose on first? 

STONE If you can repeat that, maybe I can answer it. 

We'll take that thermal blanket on the one that's on the outside, 
put it on the cabin camera and then return it. But we won't do 
it, obviously can't/ won't do it in the same EVA. It will be 
bring it in on 1 EVA, put it back out on the next EVA. 

PAO Mark Kramer (CBS) . 

KRAMER 2 things. Can you put to rest speculation that the 

spacecraft might fly over and try to look at pieces of Westar and 
can you also talk about the traveling wave tube amplifier on the 
Ku-band antenna, and where that stands and how you (garble) all 
be. 

STONE I'm glad you brought that up, I'd forgotten to tell 

you that the Ku-band after we cycled it this morning, is 
operating normally. So there is nothing wrong with the traveling 
wave tube, it was a power supply that just tripped off, and when 
we reset the logic in the Ku-band it came back up and it's been 
operating normally. Your other question, I missed it. 

KRAMER There's a rumor about flying over to look at 

Westar . 

STONE There are no plans and there will be no plans to 

rerendezvous the, with Westar. We do not have the propellant to 
do that. 

PAO KSC has a couple of questions, let's switch to KSC 

at this time. 

MIKE MEECHUM (Ganette News Service) When they go out on the EVA 
tomorrow, will you be back on the same schedule that you 
previously were or have there been changes there. 

STONE The EVA schedule tomorrow, the only changes that I 

know of that are being planned in that EVA., are the one, or the 
couple that I related to you about possibly bringing in delta 
camera and putting down the thermal blanket on the cinema 360 and 
possibly if we come up with a fix for the mass spectrometer 
adding that to the EVA, but the day should be as advertised in 
the premission CAP pretty much. 

MEECHUM Could you refresh my memory then, when does that 

put them, starting the EVA, at what time? Do you know that? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/84 9:30 am PAGE 4 

STONE You'll have to give me a moment, I'll have to look 

that up, I'm not sure what time the EVA starts. 

7:15. 

STONE I have some help from the audience, it's 7:15 

eastern. 

KOBAL (Space Age Times) - Question regarding Westar. Because of 
what happened with that satellite, is it likely that you're going 
^nf^? S f P r ? c ?dure and use the RMS camera in the future to 

monitor future satellite deployments? 

ST0NE I don't believe we have even discussed that 

question, on what changes we would make to a normal procedure, 
but I suspect we would not do that normally. 

KSC No other question from KSC. 

l k0 u J- understand Marshall has no questions* Back to 

Houston, any further questions here. We thank you very much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8ja 2/6/84 4; 30 pm PAGE I 

WARD Good afternoon ladies and gentleman, I'm Doug ward, 

Deputy Director of Public Affairs at the Johnson Space Center. 
I'd like to introduce our participants for the briefing this 
afternoon. On my right is Glynn S. Lunney, Program Manager of 
the National Space Transportation System at the Johnson Space 
Center; to his right is Richard D. Brandes, Group Vice President 
and Manager of Commercial Systems Division of Hughes Aircraft; to 
his right is Charles A. Ordahl, Vice President, Space Program 
McDonnell Dougl Astronautics Company; and on tha right, I'm 
sure you're all familiar with Harold Draughon the Lead Flight 
Director for the 41-B mission. Before we begin with Dr, Lrnney 
I'd like to read a statement we have from the Indonesians, The 
statement reads as follows: After an apparently successful 
deployment from the Shuttle, it appears that PALAPA B2 has not 
achieved the proper orbit. The Indonesian Government has bsen 
involved in communications satellite operations for a number of 
years beginning with the successful deployment of PALAPA Al and 
A2 on delta rockets in 1976, and 1977, and more recently the 
successful deployment of the PALAPA B! on the Shuttle in June, 
1983. Obviously, the apparent failure to successfully inject the 
PALAPA B2 into an operational orbit ia a major disappointment. 
However, our communication satellite svstem continues to be 
operational with the other three PALAPA satellites in 
geosynchronous orbit and supports our current needs. We will 
continue to work with all participants in an effort to resolve 
the cause of the failure. And that concludes the statement and 
we will have copies of that available for you in the news 
center. I'd like to turn it over now to Glynn Lunney. 

LUNNEY Thank you, Doug, Is it working all rignt? I guess 

I'd first like to say that NASA joins with the Government of 
Indonesia in the regrets and disappointment on the deployment of 
the satellite, It appears now that both of the satellites will 
not reach the geosynchronous on this mission. In the course of 
the discussions that have occurred on events surrounding these 
satellites and some of the discussion-making process, we thought 
it would be useful if we took a few minutes to explain the 
relationship that we at NASA have with the commercial customers, 
in this case, of coarse, a foreign commercial customer from the 
Government of Indonesia. NASA has also a - has kind of what you 
might call a fleet interest in the PAM program, the PAM program 
as it supports the communications satellite indjstry because 
obviously a lot of our traffic is of the communications satellite 
type. A lot of those satellites are lifted by PAMs which have 
been used on this flight, A lot of them are of the same kind of 
design. So, we have a tremendous interest in this kind of design 
either the PAM or the communications satellite, all of them 
together as a combination. We're also interested in whatever 
affects our customers but X thought it would be useful for you if 
we differentiate it between that general interest in our part, 
our specific concern in terms in how hardware works for the 
benefit of our customers and what the decision process is in real 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8ja 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 

time or even in terms of getting ready for a flight. It's quite 
separate from those above interest on our part and it's new for 
us. There has appeared to be some confusion about it, in that 
people don't quite seem to understand the respective roles of the 
par ties involved ♦ That 1 s understandable because it's new, it's 
certainly new for us in the manned space flight business and for 
those of you who have covered it for many years and we have been 
taking time to try to learn how to do that. There's been a body 
of experience in NASA in the expendable launch vehicles where 
people have worked for, in effect for communications satellite 
industry for a long time and we have been trying over the last 5 
oc 6 years to apply those lessons to the STS, modified as 
appropriate* In the case of these flights we provide, we agree 
to and we provide orbiter services, conditions, and also and 
importantly, I believe, operational options so that customers can 
exercise as much room as they can in making whatever decisions 
they want to make during the course of the flight. We have, 
however, agreed from the beginning on all these flights with 
communications satellites that the decisions to deploy or not are 
primarily essentially theirs to make. We will offer whatever 
support we can to that decision-making process, on this last 
deployment we offered time* We offered 48 hours, we could have 
offered more and we continue to offer more if the customer wanted 
it* However, he appeared to be satisfied that he had exercised 
all of the information channels tha he wanted, all the background 
that he wanted and he had come to the point where he thought it 
was time to make up his mind and he so did. We do not become 
actively involved in that process on his side. He has a variety 
of considerations that frankly we at NASA are not aware of nor do 
we fully understand. But, my observation, our observation of the 
process was that it was very thorough, very careful, complete, 
took enough time that all of the available evidence and thoughts 
could be brought to bear on the subject and a decision was made 
to proceed. Again, I want to say, I separate that in-flight 
decision making on a satellite that a customer owns in effect, 
from our interest in this subject which is real and continues* 
We are very interested that we be able to get back in the air 
with communications satellites and as soon as possible* So, we 
are very interested in this subject and, of course, it's too 
early to tell and it would be unfair to speculate where the 
problem really was, but where ever we find it to be, hopefully it 
will be soon. And in the course of that we at NASA and probably 
other people in the government, the Air Force for example is 
interested in the star motor, will be involved in the failure 
analysis in case that comes to be the part of the system that is 
focused on. In any case, we and others will be involved in the 
post-flight failure analysis and the recovery plan to this. But 
I thought it might be useful for you to differentiate that and 
our interest in this subject and the communications satellite 
industry as a whole from the details of what are, in effect, 
private decisions made by customers as they get ready for a 



STS-41-B CHANGB-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8ja 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 

flight and as they indeed make their decisions to deploy or not 
in the course of the flight while they're in the Orbiter. I hope 
that clarifies it. 

WARD I think Richard Brandes also has a brief statement 

and then our intent is to go to questions. If there's time left 
when we finish that we'll have Harold Draughon do the usual 
summary of today's activities* Dick. 

BRANDES Okay. I have a statement which will be available 

to you. It's titled, "The Hughes Aircraft Company Mission 
Report, 6 February, 4:30 CST." The attempt today to inject the 
PALAPA B2 spacecraft into a geosynchronous transfer orbit was an 
apparent failure. NORAD tracking has identified an object which 
appears to be the satellite in a low-earth orbit of approximately 
650 nautical mile apogee by 150 nautical mile perigee. Telemetry 
information was obtained at approximately 4 p.m. CST which 
indicates the spacecraft is indeed operating in this orbit. From 
this orbit the spacecraft cannot reach synchronous orbit and 
carry out its intended mission. Indications point to a failure 
similar to that which we believe occurred on the WESTAR 6 in- 
jection, namely a failure of the PAM motor to properly complete 
its burn. The McDonnell Douglas PAM stage has successfully 
launched 12 Hughes HS-376 spacecraft. We understand it has also 
had 6 other successful space firings. Two similar failures after 
18 consecutive successful space firings, obviously suggest a com- 
mon technical problem may have existed with these two motors. An 
intense effort is underway to explore this hypothesis. 



*** 



STS-4'l-S CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jb 2/6/84 4 1 30 pm PAGE 1 



PAO With that we'll begin with your questions starting 

first in Houston. Here in front Craig Covault and if you would 
please, state your name and affiliation if I don't, 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) For Mr, Brandes and Mr, Ordahl, 
did either Hughes or MacDonnell Douglas make a recommendation to 
Indonesia not to fly the deployment today? 

BRANDES I'll take that. No, the problem with the WESTAR 6 

Spacecraft was the subject of an intense investigation and study, 
as you might imagine, from the time it didn't appear in the 
proper orbit at the right time until we finally sorted out what 
had happened to it. We concluded yesterday after receiving 
telemetry from the WESTAR 6 spacecraft that the problem had been 
with a limited burn of the PAM stage and the data and the studies 
we had done in our mind eliminated any other possibilities for 
that problem. We had at the same time, of course, been studying 
- all our experts and those from MacDonnell Douglas and Thiokol, 
had been studying the motor history and the motor pedigree of 
both the PALAPA and the WESTAR motors. We concluded, that 
investigation was completed and we concluded that there was no 
apparent defect with either motor or any problem or any unusual 
characteristic with either motor. Based on the results of all 
that study and the activities, all of the parties associated with 
the launch, that's Hughes, MacDonnell Douglas, COMSAT which is 
the technical advisor to the Indonesians, recommended that they 
proceed with the deployment today, 

COVAULT In a quick follow, based on your discussions with 

Thiokol on the Star 48 manufacture and the integration of that 
into the PAM, have you come across anything that you could 
identify as being done differently to these two PAMs as opposed 
to previous PAMs? 



BRANDES No, we cannot, 

PAO Jules Bergman, ABC, 

BRANDES Do you want to add to that, Chuck? 

ORDAHL No, that 1 s a correct statement. We have not. 



JULES BERGMAN (ABC NEWS) Mr, Ordahl and Mr, Brandes, we - 
understand, some people have said that is, that both these 
engines for both the WESTAR and the PALAPA used a new nozzle 
construction and they came off the line at the same time. Is 
that true? And if not, what else do you think caused it? 

ORDAHL First of all, there is no new design consideration 

here. The design is exactly the same as the design of all of the 
successful missions that PAM has flown. In so far as the nozzle 
construction, the exit cone did go through some of the processes 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jb 2/6/84 4;30 pm PAGE 2 



at HITCO, a subcontractor to Thiokol, at the same time which is 
not unusual, of course. That is a situation a number of exit 
cones go through the processes together. In this particular case 
two did go through the process together, 

BERGMAN I don't think that's being quite responsive sir. 

What I really was getting at, was were either the exit cone or 
the nozzle of lighter weight construction or of any different 
type of construction than the previous 18 successful PAMs. 

ORDAHL Absolutely not. All of the production acceptance 

data on these nozzles was as good or better than those which have 
flown before. That was the basis of our judgement, 

PAO John Wilford, New York Times, 

JOHN WILFORD (NEW YORK TIMES) when you say a limited burn, what 

are we to infer. My impression is with a solid, once it lights 
it's got to go to depletion. ^ 

BRANDES well, what I meant by a limited burn is that the 

impulse generated by the motor was substantially less than it 
would have delivered if it had burned properly for its entire 
burn time. I think, check me, it's 80 some seconds is the normal 
burn time. 

ORDAHL No, 85, 

BRANDES 85 seconds. The orbit that these spacecraft are in 

are similar. As I said, approximately 650 nautical miles by 150 • 
and that would correspond to a substantially less burn and I 
don't have the number at my fingertips but it's on the order of 3 
to 15 seconds in that time frame, 

PAO Right here on the aisle. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (READERS DIGEST) I have a two part 
question. Were either of the flight, the PAM-D flight system 
cradles and spin tables used in a previous STS, and also, what is 
the avionics interface between that flight craddle and the 
satellite itself. Could there have been a malfunction from the 
avionics interface between the satellite and the launching 
cradle? 

ORDAHL I think I should 

BRANDES You take the STS part of it, 

ORDAHL The cradle portion. As far as the cradle, they 

have been flown before and as far as we know at this time, there 
is no means by which those cradles could be related to this 
condition that we have here. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jb 2/6/84 4s 30 pm PAGE 3 



BRANDES With regard to the interface between the spacecraft 

and the PAM, Prior to completing the analysis of the WESTAR 6 
problem a number of hypotheses were generated which could account 
for malfunction. We tracked all of those to ground and 
eliminated those as possibilities. The telemetry we received 
from the WESTAR 6 spacecraft eliminated those possibilities as 
candidates and reduced the population to a PAM motor failure. 

PAO Back here in the back, Chris Peterson, KTRH. 

CHRIS PETERSON (KTRH) For Glynn Lunney. Glynn, you have a 
number of PAMs scheduled coming up later on this year and a whole 
bunch in the future of the Shuttle program. Is NASA going to 
reevaluate the reliability of the PAM and not fly anymore until 
they figure out what's going on or what's your position on that? 

LUNNEY Our position on the subsequent use of the PAMs is 

that they are a very, very important part of our communication 
satellite industry and getting the communication satellites to 
geosync orbit. We are going to offer all the help that we can in 
the resolution of this problem and that can come perhaps in a 
number of ways and I don't know what they are today but whatever 
they are, we'll be able to offer help to that solution and it may 
be of some value it may not, But we're going to try help in 
solving the problem. 

PAO Roy Neal, NBC. 

ROY NEAL (NBC) Can you give us a handle on how you will begin 
setting up failure analysis on this Glynn? What will you do, set 
up a task force to work on it? will the Hughes people do this? 
Will MacDac do it? How will this effort be coordinated? Where 
will it take you? 

LUNNEY Well, I think we probably - - Let me just answer 

the first part. I think we need to probably pursue this problem 
a little more to be sure what all of our evidence is. There's a 
discussion that says we're clearly dealing with a PAM problem 
which the evidence suggests that we are but that, one still ought 
to keep an open mind about that. On the assumption, though, that 
there is a PAM problem I believe Chuck has already started some 
work on that subject, 

ORDAHL That's true, Glynn. We have started a review board 

activity, a senior review board activity. We have participation 
on the part of Morton Thiokol personnel and their suppliers. We 
started this work earlier and are, of course, continuing it at 
this time and NASA has also offered, as Hughes has, to 
participate in that over a period of time. 



PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. Back here in the 

second row. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jb 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE4\ 

PAUL RECER {ASSOCIATED PRESS) If I understand you correctly, 
^?o W ^JV? 0 healthv communication satellites in two wrong 
orbits, what do you plan to do with them? what do you plan to 
recommend to your customers to do with them? 

BRANDES well we, from this orbit as I said earlier, we see 

no way to, they certainly cannot perform their intended 
mission. Offhand we don't know of any other mission that would 
be useful that they can perform. What we are currently doing, 
though, as interim measure is to Dut the spacecraft svstems or 
subsystems into what we would call a safe Sedition so Shat 
nothing^deleterious happens and we'll continue to monitor them 
indefinitely until we reach a decision about disposition. 

PAO Olive. 

OLIVE TALLEY (UPI) Couple of questions, what are you going to 
p?m£? W Sm? the 5 ch ? dule that you have for other satellites using 
Z^aI c lU 2? U ju ? fc sort of st °P and P ut somfe of those on 9 

r2i«diS2 C ?h2lJ'f W -? t ° f UabUitv "tight you be looking at 

regarding these failures? 

Mf N 2rLhi aa <!J e *} 1 h f Ve P robab ]-y different views on that. As 
rl; a ?n« ?iu!cM^S- ear } y a Y ery lnt ense and thorough and wide 
£ a ??^?J?r S 4 9a ^°D is going to- start, has started, we'll be 
participating in that as a very interested party as a supplier of 

;!ff Ui i e 5 r n t ? > SUr f ° ther P e °P le in the industry will be as 
haJi'^l^^ 1 !^ 6 that SOme clarification of the problem would 
2 evaX ? p b !J°" ? e could c ^oiumen6 further use of the pam 
22?™ \ N 2 W whe " that mJ -9 bt happen is speculation but we are all 
qSiSkty ° WOrking on that as hard as wo can to make it haopen 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jc 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 



PAO Lynn Sherr (ABC) 

SHERR (ABC) - I guess these are for Harold, first of all has the 
crew been told, second of all, will this in any way affect the 
EVA's. 

DRAUGHON The crew has not been told. And the EVA's are on 

for tomorrow as scheduled. I've got a list of when the pertinent 
activities are going to be happening tomorrow and I'll give those 
to you later on. 

PAO Third row on the isle, Tom O' Toole. 

O'TOOLE Mr. Brandes, you said the orbit suggests an 8 to 15 

second burn. The crew reported seeing with the wrist camera, the 
burn taking place for what they thought was for 30 seconds. Can 
you reconcile those two numbers for us. 

BRANDES We have reviewed the video, that was taken by the 

crsw, and let me add that, that's very helpful in the fact that 
we were able to get that, and had NASA turn that procedure 
around, and create that information has been most helpful, what 
we can see is that the spacecraft, PAM combination was visible, 
for a period of approximately 30 to 40 seconds as we timed it, 
several times. What is not clear is the duration of the burn, 
from that picture. And we have obtained, again with NASA's 
expedited help, we have obtained copies of that - tapes, they've 
been given to McDonnell Douglas, and they're being used as part 
of the failure investigation. I think they'll be helpful. 

PAO We'll take one more question here, then we'll go to 

the Kennedy Space Center. Back here towards the back, on the 
r ight . 

ANITOLEAS (German radio) - You had trouble with the IUS rocket 
earlier. You have trouble with the PAM now. Do you expect that 
this will bring more clients to the Europea Areon rocket. I 
understand that the WESTAR 6 was originally meant to fly on the 
Areon and you booked Shuttle because you thought it would be 
safer. 

BRANDES I hope not. 

PAO We'll go to the Kennedy Space Center now for 

questions. 

KSC Walk up as I call on you and give your name and 

affiliation when you ask your question. 

LAWRENCE - (Chicago Sun Times) - I have two questions. One, is 
there any possibility of using the four hydrozene thrusters to 
change the orbit? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jc 2/6/84 4:30pm PAGE 2 



BRANDES Hydrozene - 

LAWRENCE The question is, was the price of PALAPA B about 

the same as WESTAR? 

BRAMDES Well the first question you asked was, is it 

possible to fire the hydrozene thrusters, The answer is yes, 
however, the amount of propellant on board the spacecraft, is no 
where near adequate to raise these spacecraft orbits to 
synchronous altitude. You, and so that while that capability 
exists to use the thrusters, there's no, not adequate fuel to, as 
I say, to get the orbit anywhere near what we need. We also have 
an apogee motor on board, that's presumably usable, but it also 
has insufficient capacity to, that was needed to get in 
synchronous orbit with a proper perigee stage burn, and clearly 
cannot substitute. Now what was the second question? 

LAWRENCE Second question was the cost of the machine? 

BRANDES The WESTAR and PALAPA spacecraft, there are 

difference between the two spacecraft, but I think in the sense 
of what your asking, they're small and so the cost are 
approximately the same. Yes. 

LAWRENCE Around $35 million dollars. 

BRANDES I don't recall the exact number. 

LAWRENCE Let me follow this, my earlier question. If the 

power board, thruster power board was brought to bear. Could the 
satellite be maneuvered into an orbit where it could function, 
even though it couldn't reach a geosynchronous orbit? 

BRANDES The spacecraft can function, can operate in the 

■orbit it's in, but it can't provide a useful mission, and the 
same, I know today, I don't know of any mission that it could 
serve, using the hydrozene fuel either. 

STEAD {Baltimore Sun) - Does anyone there know if the satellite 
was fully insured or do they know what the insurance, the name of 
the insurance company, or do they also know if the insurance 
people will take any part in this investigation? 

BRANDES Well I can only say, that to my best understanding, 

the mission was insured, but I do not know the details. That was 
a matter between the Indonesian government, (garble) and tell. 
The telephone company and the insurance people, but I do believe 
that they had insurance on the mission. But I can't, I'm not 
aware of the details of that insurance arrangement. As far as 
insurance people participating in an investigation, that would be 
really up to the customer. And we certainly would have no 
objection. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jc 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 

SLADE (Mutual Broadcasting) ~ For Glynn Lunney. Glynn you have 
four PAM's scheduling for the rest of this year, the first one in 
June, could you say at this point that if this investigation goes 
on very far it won't impact that June flight, 

LUNNEY As matter of fact, just for completeness, we have 

one earlier than that, on a delta, on a galaxey spacecraft in 
May, But it's probably too early to tell whether the failure 
analysis that is now started is going to result in affect on 
those schedule* Obviously everybody in the system, would hope, 
emd would work very hard to prevent that from happening, but it's 
just simply too early to tell whether the conclusions will be 
such that we'll have to adjust those schedules. We'll wait and 
see* 

KSC We have one or two more questions, 

LETTMAN (Detroit News) For Mr, Ordahl, or whomever else is best 
qualified. We heard a report that the fuel from these two PAMs 
came from the same batch. Is that true, if it is, does it 
suggest a defect in that batch of fuel, if it doesn't, is there 
in general hypothosis, to cover both of these failures? 

ORDAHL No, actually as far as the propellant is concerned, 

it f s poured on a single batch for each PAM motor, so there's 
really not commonality of this specific propellant between 1 
motor and another. And we really have no particular pypothosis, 
as far as any commonality between these two motors. They are, 
for all practical purposes, were very similar in terms of the 
data, production acceptance test data, all the manufacturing and 
quality insurance data, and they all met all the specification 
requirements, so we have not been able to find that common thread 
at this time, 

TURNELL (BBC) - We were told the crew has not been told of this 
second failure, is the intention not to tell them until after the 
MMU for obvious reasons? 

DRAUGHON No, there's no intention like that at all. The 

intent was to have something factual to tell them before we told 
them anything, and that is all the intent was. The crew was put 
to bed around an hour and a half, or 2 hours ago, and up until 
that t-ime, I didn't think we had an factual enough story to tell 
them exactly what had happened. So we didn't bring it up. They 
didn't ask. Had they asked or requested information, then we 
would have told them what we did know at the time. They did not 
ask and I didn't volunteer it. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE I 

MIKE MEECHAM (Gannette News Service) You mentioned that the 
orbits they've been put into are similar. How close are they? 

BRANDES Well the orbits are similar, in terms of the 

hysical location of the spacecraft in these orbits, I just don't 
now. I would imagine that they are not particularly close. The 
orbit definition is similar in terms of apogee and perigee, but I 
don't know the exact displacement or distance of one spacecraft 
from the other. 

PAO I understand we have one more question from 

Kennedy, then we'll come back to Houston. 

QUERY Are we to assume that those rockets offer no 

danger to Challenger? 

PAO Would you repeat that question, please? 

QUERY Are we to assume, once again, that the Palapa 

orbit offers no danger to the Challenger? 

BRANDES That is correct. We've looked at that orbit and it 

is no problem at all to the Orbiter. 

PAO We'll come back to Houston now for - - 

JAMES SLATE A point of clarification, you say that you have the 
spacecraft, and you have its orbit, do you have a spacecraft that 
is talking to you? Have you interrogated it, and are all the 
systems functional? 

BRANDES Yes, that is correct. 

PAO Ok, we'll come back to Houston now for questions. 

Let's start on the aisle here, the second row. 

DAVE JACKSON (Time Magazine) When was the last time, how many 
days ago, were the PAM's and the satellites inspected by the 
contractors? And when was the last time that somebody with NASA 
looked at them? 

BRANDES Well, the spacecraft go thru an elaborate test 

program, certainly at our facility. They're brought down to the 
Cape, to Kennedy Space Center, they're mated, they're further 
tested there, they're then mated to the PAM assembly by ourselves 
and McDonnell Douglas people working together . Then they go thru 
a processing period, taking that combined assembly out to the 
vertical processing facility, and then out to the Shuttle pad. 
At each step there are certain tests made, not by our people, and 
the McDonnel Douglas personnel test the PAM. These are largely 
electrical tests and then finally we check out the system in the 
Orbiter bay, prior to launch. So all of those tests were normal, 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 



and all the processing was normal. There were no significant 
abnormalities that I'm aware of. 

PAO Would you wait for the mike please. 

QUERY What day was that done, how many hours before 

the lift off? 

LUNNEY Couldn't be matter of hours, because we had the 

doors closed for some time. I can't recall exactly, probably the 
last time people had acess was a couple of days before the 
launch. 

BRANDES Might have been 2 or 3 days, yes. 

LUNNEY And that's normal. 

PAO Roy Neal, NBC. 

NEAL Some years ago, there was discussion of using a 

separate rocket system, teleoperator , I think it was, to send the 
Skylab into higher orbit. Now we ' re involved in what could be a 
rehearsal for a rescue mission for a satellite. And in this 
case, it would seem that you perhaps have a couple of satellites 
in need of a rescue. Is it possible to put that kind of thinking 
together and come up with some learned conjecture on the fact 
that these satellites could live under such a system, and would 
NASA be prepared to support the customer to that extent? 

LUNNEY Roy, what might be done with ^hose satellites will 

take a little while to sort out. Perhaps nothing will be the 
answer* First thing I guess that will have to be established is 
who they belong to and what if anything they might want to ask 
NASA to do about it. We haven't even speculated or anything what 
that might be. But here you have two live satellites in low- 
Earth orbit, which are perhaps accessible by the Shuttle, pehaps 
not. But it's too early for us to technically look at that, and 
I think we would have to have some clear reason and we'd also 
have to understand what the financial arrangements for such an 
undertaking might be. So all of that is still too early to tell ♦ 

NEAL Would it be possible? 

LUNNEY Well, we don't even know. I mean its possible, but 

I don't know whether it 1 t technically feasible in that there 
might be things onboard that we would be concerned about in the 
safety since, for example* that we just haven't had time to think 
through. So it's too early to tell and the satellites, to return 
to the point I was making at the beginning/ the satellites don't 
belong to NASA, they belong to somebody else. And if somebody 
else wants us to do something with them, or at least consider 
doing something with them, then that discussion will need to be 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 3 



held. But as I also said at the beginning, NASA tries to offer 
the customers whatever we can do to help them in their jobs. So 
if someone thinks that will help, and they want to talk to us 
about it, we would be happy to talk about it* 

ROY That's what I said, how far is NASA willing to go 

to support the customer if such a project were possible? 

LUNNEY We do not sign blank checks, Roy, But we would be 

willing to do whatever is reasonable and whatever arrangements 
would want to be made with anybody who wanted to represent them, 

PAO Jules Bergman, ABC. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) I know it's early and perhaps speculative 
but what went wrong? You had two rockets here. Both of them cut 
off early. Both of them produced similar orbits. Did the exit 
cones fall off, break off? Did the thrusters, nozzles come off 
or what? 

ORDAHL It's a very speculative answer I would have to make 

at this time if I tried to answer that question. 

BERGMAN What is your best guess? 

ORDAHL If I was going to make a best guess I would say 

that there would probably have been some problem with the nozzle 
of the motor. The fact that it terminated would indicate -~ and 
essentially snuffed would indicate that the pressure in the motor 
dropped abruptly, snuffing out the burning and to do that 
requires an increase in the opening into the motor. 

PAO Back here on the second row. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (Readers Digest) A followup on my firs; 
question. You said that the cradle assembly had been used 
before. Is this the first time that a cradle assembly which has 
flown in space has been used to launch a spacecraft and also, was 
there any flight dynamics data update through that cradle to the 
spacecraft immediately before launch? 

ORDAHL We have used «*- I haven't checked all the records, 

but we have used the cradles before. In other words, we have 
used ref light cradles before. Now what was the other part of the 
question* I'm sorry I missed that, 

McCONNELL Was there any flight dynamics update to the onboard 
spacecraft computers immediately before deployment? 

ORDAHL No, no. 



PAO 



In the second row. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4 J 30 pm PAGE 4 



GEOFFREY LEAVENWORTH (Time Magazine) Mr, Brandes, is there any 
part of that satellite which could be safely grappled by the arm 
or is that — ? 

BRANDES The satellites were not designed with any 

requirement or sense of being recovered so there are no special 
measures taken to have places to grab ahold of them. 

LEAVENWORTH So in your opinion, is it impractical to think of 
the shuttle retrieving these satellites on a future mission? 

BRANDES I think that, I think I'd really be just 

speculating on that. That's in front of us to even think about 
and it is a matter that will occur to people and we would look 
into but I would have nothing to say on that at this time. 

PAO up here in front. Lynn Sherr . 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Could you go back to your NORAD statement 
earlier. Is the, is what they're tracking one object or two at 
this point? Do you believe the PAM, in fact, separated the same 
way as the Westar or is there some other - - 

BRANDES Yes, we believe the PAM separated. We have 

telemetry from the spacecraft that indicates that. The tracking, 
understand that the tracking information we get has, you know, 
has varied as they refine their predictions and gotten more 
sightings. The last I heard was that there were three objects 
that they were tracking that were in the vioinity. Well three 
objects and one large object that they felt was a spacecraft. 
And in that orbit, wo have received telemetry from the spacecraft 
so it confirms that one of those objects is the spacecraft. I 
would presume one other is — 

SHERR Do you believe the second one is the PAM? 

BRANDES - - Yes is the PAM, would be the PAM separated 

motor . 



PA0 Take one more up front. Olive Talley. 

T ALLEY Glynn regarding NASA's efforts to cooperate with 

the customers on all this matter, would you consider allowing 
both Palapa and Westar to launch other satellites in the future 
either at the same price rate that you gave them now or would you 
try to give them, speed up a chance or try to fit them into a 
tight schedule to give them another chance to deploy another 
satellite earlier than maybe they had planned or anything like 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 5 



LUNNEY. The answer to that, I guess, is that we would try 

to do whatever was reasonable to do to service them. If however, 
I mean there's a whole set of a variety of complicated proposals 
that might be made. Some of them might be acceptable, some of 
them might not be acceptable and we are also, as a matter of 
fact, trying on our side to run this thing as businesslike as we 
can in terms of whatever we offer one customer would then have to 
be offered to all customers and would we be satisfied with doing 
that and if so, then we should. So, I think a lot would depend 
on exactly what people asked for and what they wanted. I know 
that, although maybe there's some hardware available, there 
generally is not a set of extra spacecraft and rockets laying 
around so to speak available for flight. Although there might be 
and if there were and we were asked, we were certainly bend every 
effort to try to work them into the schedule as early as possible 
in recognition of this problem. 

PAO Right here on the left, 

JIM BARLOW (Houston Chronicle) The Western Onion people said 
their satellite, PAM, and launch cost them about 53 million and 
when you threw in their engineering work and ground facilities it 
was 75 million. Could you provide similar figures for the 
palapa? 

BRANDBS NO I couldn't because I just don't have access to 

all those numbers. 

PAO Paul Recer . 

RECER Have you got all the data that you're going to be 

analyzing to determine the cause in hand now or do you expect to 
get some more and if so from where and will this data possibly 
include some photographic information? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 



BRANDES I think we have most of the data that is useful for 

us to get from the, from the Spacecraft in orbit. We received, 
and the kind of data we get from them simply confirms that 
something didn't happen and therefore eliminates various 
hypotheses. I think that, I don't want to speculate too far on 
where the investigation will go but I think the investigation 
will obviously use all o£ the history data on the motors and 
anything related to that. As I mentioned earlier, the NASA tape 
of the, of the ignition and burn I think will prove to be 
extremely useful and that will be subject to further analysis, I 
would guess that, that we probably have the data and it's a 
question of thorough further analysis and investigation of it, 

PAO I'd like to take a break here and ask if anybody 

has any questions of Harold Draughon relative to today's 
activities and if not, I think we'll take about 2 more questions 
on this one and wrap it up. Roy, did you have a question. 

NEAL I was going to say how about tomorrow's activity 

which Harold was prepared to give us, 

PAO Okay. 

NEAL I think a lot of us need that — 

PAO All right, why don't we do that, Harold. Why don't 

you give us a run down on what's going to happen. 

DRAUGHON Okay. You folks had, in general, expressed some 

interest in sensitivity and the scheduling of the activities 
tomorrow and 1 didn't have time to get these events in local time 
but I do have them in mission elapsed time and it's a fairly easy 
conversion. I'll get these to the PAO people and they can get 
copies for all of you afterwards but I'll just hit 4 or 5 of the 
highlights. The airlock egress, everything's going on schedule 
tomorrow are a MET of 3 days, 23 hours and 25 minutes. The 
checkout flight on EV1 which is the short flight is at 23 hours 
and 55 minutes. The first long range translation is at 4 days 
and 25 minutes, That's out to 300 feet. The first T-pad docking 
which is to the C-cell or the box up in the front of the bay is 
at 4 days and 55 minutes, The MMU dolf or taking off that 
particular MMU is 4 days and 1 hour. MMU prep for the second one 
is 55 minutes after that at 1 hour and 55 minutes and the second 
long range translation is at 4 days, 2 hours and 15 minutes with 
another docking at the C-cell by the other crewman at 2 hours and 
45 minutes. That's followed up by some simulations of some of 
the solar max repair tasks in the MEV at 4 days and 3 hours and 
then some MFR or manipulator foot restraints where one of the 
crewmen gets into the foot restraints on the end of the RMS and 
does some work at 3 hours and 45 minutes. I've got, that's about 
a third of the line items that I've timelined up for you and 
we'll get you copies of that, I've also got for your perusal the 



3TS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 2 

PET or the time for coverage for Goldstone, Mila and Hawaii which 
are the 3 TV stations and I'll make that available to PAO for 
you. But in general, the activities tomorrow are just as you 
were briefed by John Cox prior to the flight . We have talked 
about, and I know Randy and I have mentioned in previous sessions 
over here about 3 tasks that have been added to the EVA. The 
first one is the camera repair of that forward starboard camera 
delta that's having a problem. We 1 re going to take it off the 
bulkhead on the first EVA, at the end of the first EVA, bring it 
inside, change it out with an identical camera inside, put the 
thermal cover back on it, Put it back in the mount. Take that 
whole mounted and assembly back outside during the second EVA and 
put it back on the bulkhead. They're going to fix the little 
thermal curtain on the cinema 360 and velcro it back down and 
we've had a problem that I believe Randy talked about on the mass 
spectrometer. There is a capability for the thing to point along 
the X-axis or along that minus Z axis of the vehicle, it will - 
they have two ways that they use it. One is they go on a scan 
pattern to look at both those areas. The other one is to hang it 
in one of those positions and leave it there and collect 
contamination kind of data. It will only, it will work in the 
ratchet mode or it'll work straight up but it won't go in the 
plus X direction. The engineering people have looked at that and 
the customer believes that what the problem is with that is a 
microswitch that's not making, that microswitch is right on the 
end of the box and the crewman is going to try to adjust that 
thing just a little bit in the EVA. If so, we'll be able to run 
the other part of the experiments that that customer is 
interested in. That's pretty much it as far as the plans for 
today. The other activities for tomorrow, the activities other 
than the Palapa today were some cinema 360 work inside the cabin 
while the deploy was going on. Some additional work in the 
middeck with that wide angle camera and a heat pipe experiment 
was activated and another GAS can started its activation today. 
So it's just pretty much ops normal. The vehicle's behaving just 
beautifully* There's very little to talk about at all as far as 
the Orbiter system performance it's been exceptional. 

PAO Okay do we have questions* Jim Bollo. 

JIM BOLLO The gentlemen from Hughes and from McDonnell. Are 
you in the position now to exonerate NASA of any of these 
problems with the communications launches? 

BRANDES Could you repeat the question please? 

BOLLO Are you in a position now to exonerate NASA of any 

of the problems with the loss of the two satellites? 

BRANDES We have never felt that there was anything other 

than a normal deployment by NASA from the Shuttle so we have 
never been in a posture of suspecting any problem in that area. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 3 



To our knowledge from all the data* everything was perfectly 
normal. 

PAO Chris Peterson, KTRH. 

PETERSON (KTRH) Do PAMs come equipped with telemetry packages 
that would allow the ground to take a look at what's going on 
during deployment and if so, why didn't we get any on these 
flights? 

ORDAHL We did not have telemetry on either of these 

particular flights. In direct answer to your earlier part of the 
question, there is a telemetry system that can be employed, it 
was used on one of the earlier missions on STS and has been used 
on a number of the PAMs when flown on the deltas. It is actually 
a customer option as to whether he flies telemetry or not. The 
telemetry system is a, of course, is an item of weight and it's a 
tradeoff for him in terms of hydrazine or other payload weight 
budgets. 

PAO Okay, we'll take a concluding. 

PETERSON Follow up. Would this not be reasonable to assume 

that it might become standard equipment as a result of these two 
deployments. 

ORDAHL I think I'll have to leave that for the future and 

we'll see, but clearly it can be a desirable thing in a case like 
this clearly. 

PETERSON What would NASA's position be on that? Would it 

not be a lot more comfortable for NASA Management to know that 
you'll see what's going on in those spacecraft. 

LUNNEY Yes it would. I don't want to say it's our 

position but obviously it would be comfortable for us to know it 
was there. However, in addition to putting the package on you 
have to find a receiver to copy it. These injections, of course, 
all occur at the equator where we tend not to have much in the 
way of tracking stations as you know. So besides putting this 
transmitter on, arrangements would also have to be made for some 
coverage of some kind by a receiver so in addition to the 
performance penalty that Chuck Ordahl discussed there's also the 
question of some expense associated with accomplishing that. So 
I think it's, as Chuck said a little earlier, just see how that 
will turn out but that will certainly be a consideration I'm sure 
in this investigation. 



PAO 

Bergman. 



Okay, we'll take a concluding question from Jules 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4:30 pro PAGE 4 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC NEWS) Glynn, I'm afraid this one is for 
you. Although NASA's responsibli ty legally ends when the 
satellites are deployed from the payload bay, is it not a greater 
national responsibility in terms of the U.S. pride being at stake 
and along that line, should NASA not preinspect - going back to 
the factory if necessary - the cargo, even the motors it 
carries? And is that practical? 

LUNNEY Well, there are, it's probably inpractical, 

Jules* We considered long and hard when we got into this STS 
business as to whether we should become actively involved in the 
customers development of hardware. We find ourselves in the 
position, national pride or not, that it is not our money, 
okay* It is the other persons money, it's his hardware. It's 
the customers money, it's the customers' hardware, it's the 
customers' requirements, it's the customers' schedule, it's the 
customers' arrangements - whatever they all might be in his own 
country - for service etc, and all of these things are very 
difficult for us to have much insite into and therefore it is 
difficult for us to be very active in the decision making in his 
program. It is also very awkward to almost, but not completely 
impossible, for an outside noninvolved agency to productively 
assist and aid in the development of somebody else's hardware. 
That, by all of our experience, that does not work very well and 
I expect by most other people's experience it does not work very 
well, Free advice is generally not well received and it's also a 
problem of advising people to spend their money on something that 
they might not want to do. So, we went through all of that, we 
really did and consciously decided consistent with what has been 
done in ELV programs and very consistent with the desires of our 
customers that we structure the relationship that I tried to 
describe earlier and, so far, that has served everybody well. It 
is a moot question as to whether NASA having been involved this 
would have turned out any differently or not. One should not 
always make the assumption that we can make things right. We've 
actually been known once in a while for that not to happen that 
way as you know, Jules, So, that in itself is no guarantee that 
it's going to be perfect. So I think all in all the right kind 
of balance has been struck but again, as I tried to describe at 
the beginning, we're involved in a new activity. We're involved 
* in an activity where external people, in this case an external 
government, is putting a service in space with their own funds 
for their own purposes and we would provide any help that they 
ask for but as a general rule, they bring the hardware with the 
help of the contractors - American contractors in this case - to 
the flight and they make their decisions. We stand ready to 
assist all we can but in the final analysis, it's their call. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jf 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 

BERGMAN All eight. If I came to you tomorrow and said I 

have two PAM equipped communications satellites, would you launch 
them aboard a Shuttle at this point, 

LUNNEY Well/ that's an academic questions, Jules, because 

the manifest is booked with customers who have already been to 
see us a long time ago and they are lined up. I think what we 
are going to find is not that kind of question but we're going to 
find that the communication satellite industry, as it has done in 
the past with launch vehicles, will look into both individually 
here in the terms of each company and then as a group will look 
into what transpires and they're going to be satisfied with the 
outcome of it before they continue to fly. That has been our 
history and I expect that it will continue to be and there is no 
such imaginary person with 2 things ready to go tomorrow and we 
couldn't put them ahead of the others who have been in line up 
until now anyway. 

PAO I think that wrap it up. Thank you very much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja x 2/7/84 I; 30pm PAGE 1 



PAO Good afternoon, my name is Jim Kukowski, we have 

here at our Change-of-Shif t Briefing following the EVA period, 
Jon Cox who's the EVA Flight Director and Jon we'll move directly 
to you for your summation. 

COX Thank you very much. I think as you all saw today 

on TV, some pretty spectacular pictures, you could tell that our 
first EVA of this flight turned out be quite spectacular. We had 
a lot of new equipment. We had a new verison of the suits that 
the crew used and the Manipulator Foot Restraint that you saw 
manuevered around the cargo bay and the MMUs, those Manned 
Munuevering Units that were just absolutely fantastic today. All 
that equipment seemed to work especialy well. It was better I 
think than everybody had hoped for, it was a super day. The crew 
got off this morning to a nice, early, fresh start, I think as we 
began prep they were probably almost on the order of an hour or 
an hour and 1/2 early and they managed to stay ahead all day. As 
we got into the EVA itself, Bob had some problems with the foot 
restraint and so we readjusted some of the order of the tasks of 
the day, but by the time we finished the day, we'd worked all the 
items back in again that we'd reshuffled and I think if you mark 
off on the old checklist, we did all the things we had planned to 
do and we picked up those extra tasks that we added for the crew 
to do. We even thought that the camera delta had been left 
outside ■because we told them to leave it out there, and lo and 
behold it showed up in the airlock at repress time, and I don't 
know how it got in there, but the crew picked it up as they 
closed the door. So we're quite please, the EVA did run a little 
bit longer than the timeline, but about as long as we expected it 
to go. We had planned for about a 6 hour EVA, and 5 hours and 55 
minutes is what we ended up with. We had timelined, oh 45 
minutes to an hour less of activity in knowing that we were 
probably a little over-ambitious on that. I think all in all the 
day was quite a spectacular. We took a significant step today, I 
think, in demonstrating some more capability of the Shuttle 
program and its ability to be able to service satellites. And 
especialy to prepare for flight 13, which we'll be working on in 
flight April, in April. With that I'll take questions. 

PAO All right, we'll go to the questions here first at 

JSC. Walt for the mike please, if I don't identify you by name, 
please identify yourself. And let's start with Craig Covault of 
Av Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) Jon, I'm not entirely sure what 
kind of difficulty Bob ran into with the MFR initialy that forced 
the wave-off of his work on the MFR. 

COX The way we did the wave-off is he got behind having 

some difficulty with the foot restraints over at the FFS when he 
was servicing the manipulator getting it ready to fly. And also 
getting the tool boards out, he was having, again, some more 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 2 



trouble with the foot restraints. We did do, did ask the crew to 
do a check, which I have not heard the results of yet, about 
checking his boot sizes and all that. He felt his shoe was not 
fitting in the foot restraints properly, well by the time he 
worked on that for quite awhile, he got himself behind and what 
we tried to do for the MMU flights is time that so that it works 
properly with the sunlight, so we had him not do the MFR so he 
could get over and catch the MMU flight which was the primary 
part of the flight and priority task of that EVA. So we got him 
onto that and then Bruce picked up the MFR work. 

COVAULT Yes, but on the foot restraints though, I thought- 

he was having trouble with the SESA foot restraints, not the foot 
restraints over by the FSS. 

COX He reported trouble with the SESA once, we had the 

opinion that he was probably having trouble with all of them, 
because he began to report at the end, when we asked him about 
it, in .fact he didn't know if it was the toe clearance or the 
width of his feet or the heel, so we asked him to do a check on 
the foot restraints that's in the airlock and see if we could get 
a better idea of what that was. 

COVAULT Did you hear him make a call about the stantion not 

coming down on the MFR initially. 

COX I don't recall a comment to that effect. It seemed 

to work fine, if you watched it in use it did all the right 
things. Bruce was using it quite liberally, he was swinging it 
back and forth and using it as a work site like it's designed to 
be. 

PAO Lynn Sherr, ABC. 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Jon, was there any TV taken of the 300 or 320 
foot translation that Bruce made, and were there some tape 
problems or something? I couldn't quite figure out what was 
going on there when they were not on live. 

COX The reason we weren't live, there was TV taken of 

the whole thing, it'll be dumped, the parts we did not see live, 
will be dumped. 

SHERR When? 

COX Oh, probably thru the night and tomorrow. 

SHERR Nothing before then? 

COX We'd have to check the coverage, I don't know 

exactly when they'll all be in, but that's the plan, to get that 
all cleared off and returned. And then we have to have the crew 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 3 

up and cueing the tapes and all that sort of stuff so we can get 
it down, 

3HERR Ok, the other thing is was Bob cheated out of his 

MMU time at all? It seemed as if he had a shorter time in the 
MMU then Bruce did. 

COX It looked like we were headed that way, just 

because we were running a little bit late on the timeline, but I 
think by the time we got finished, Bruce was still over at the 
SPAS working, I think Bob ended up the same amount of propellant 
as Bruce did, so he flew for just about the same amount of 
time. I didn't take a mark on start to stop time, but he did as 
flying as Bruce did. 

PAO We may be dumping some of that TV tomorrow, we 

don't have a schedule right now, we'll let you know. Third row, 
here. 

LEE DIDED (Los Angeles Times) Did you see, 2 quick questions, 
did you see anything in the MMU activities today that would 
anyway affect your plans for the Solar Max Operation, anything 
that would inhibit you or change your planning or anything. 

COX Not a thing, it was as good or better than we ever 
hoped for. 

DIDED Ok, that's fine, thank you. 

PAO Question here from Carlos Byars. 

CARLOS BYARS (Houston Chronicle) Bob had problems with foot 
restraints and several different things out there, and apparently 
was really having to wrestle to get some tool, either get tools 
in the racks, get tools out of the racks, or I'm not sure, but 
may the rack had grabbed him by the angle by that time. What was 
the cause of all this, or do you simply know yet, what the, 
because Bruce -s activities seemed to go pretty s lie k. Maybe he 
was sweating those things a little bit more that we didn't know 
about, but Stewart was having some problems. 

COX I think we caught ourselves in further checking the 

way the timeline had been developed in preparation for this 
flight, one of the things that was done to save a little time was 
to change the way you mount the tool boards on the MPR. That *as 
one of the late changes here just before flight. Somebody asKed 
did Bob ever go thru that procedure in the water tank to try 
that, and the guess was maybe he had not, and what you had to do 
was install the tool bugs upside down from what you normally 
do. I think he was trying to install them the other way, and 
that added to the foot problems just got him further behind. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 4 



BYARS Yes, I know there was a comment in there about 

having him try them from the bottoms and his response was, well, 
its never worked that way before. 

COX But you notice it worked. 

BYARS But it did work, Ok, I'll let him explain that to 

you all when he gets back. 

PAO I have a question from Jules Bergman, ABC. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) Jon, the crew sounded noticably fatigued 
from about 1/2 way on thru the EVA and also is the fan noise so 
great inside the helmet that they had to shout that much? 

COX The shouting was primarily done by Bob, and that 

was a vox sensitivity problem that he was having. When he talked 
in a normal tone of voice, he couldn't trigger the vox, so he was 
having to yell. So that's why you heard the yelling, Bruce was 
talking in a normal tone that we're used to listening to. They 
did a little check at the end by swapping comm modes and found 
out that in the other comm mode the sensitivity appears to be 
better, and so we will probably have them operate, swap with EMU 
1 or Bruce on the B system and Bob on the A system for the 2nd 
EVA, or at least that's what we're thinking about right now. As 
far as the fatigue, they all sounded in my opinion, pretty 
chipper and happy. As a matter of fact I thought it was about 
1/2 way thru the EVA that Bob began picking up and sounded 
running full force. So I didn't perceive the same thing you may 
have. 

BERGMAN So its a faulty vox problem at best, or at worst. 

COX Right, I think that's all it was. 

PAO All right question from John Wilford, New York 

Times. 

WILFORD Two questions. I don't understand why Stewart 

would have troubles with the foot restraints and McCandless 
wouldn't. Those boots must be roughly the same size and they 
were using the same restraints weren't they? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1;30 pm PAGE 1 



COX Yes, and that's why we asked them to go ahead and 

check. They are differnt boots, we think they are all the same 
size, but we asked them to go ahead and check that, 

WILFORD And the other question is, could you talk about the 

RMS activities. Did you have any problems when they were 
working, hanging there from the RMS, did you accomplish all your 
objectives then? 

COX We did not take the force measurements at the MEB 

site, we Celt that we had enough data from all the work that 
Bruce did there, and if you saw. him,- he was sort of jumping and 
pushing against the arm, to give it a good evaluation, or a good 
shakedown, as a work site. The one site, that is most like the 
13 case, and the one that is better stress on the arm, was to 
take the force measurements out of the longeron, which has the 
arm almost fully extended. We did do those. And the numbers 
that we received, were almost, and not in all cases, they were + 
and - X, Y and Z numbers, but in most cases they were 1 1/2 to 2 
times larger, in other words you had to push harder to make the 
arm give, in other words, it worked as a more stable platform, 
then we had planned, 

PAO Gentlemen in the back. 

MCCONNELL (Readers Digest) Would you characterize the overall 
crew reaction to you when they were told this morning about the 
failure of the Palapa firing. 

COX I wasn't there when they were told that. So, I 

know they couldn't been happy about it. 

MCCONNELL You have no, you didn't -heat' anything further about 
it? 

COX No I wasn't there. 



MCCONNEL Thank you. 

PAO Young lady - - 

JONES (National Space Institute) Both Stewart and McCandless 
commented on a jutter, sensation when they we're flying. And I 
think Bruce at some point, gave his own diagnosis, but I didn't 
catch it. What was the diagnosis of that shutter. 

COX That was a little bit of a, some sort of a force 

isolation or something that he was getting when he made a + X 
translation and his guess was, that it was related to a CG 
affect, since every crewman's going to fit into this just a 
little bit differently, into his, little bit of a toggling 
affect. We went up with the recommendation to change the control 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 2 

mode and try it again. We did not get any feedback of whether 
that improved it or not, but I suspect that it may have. 

PAO Gentlemen in the back. 

SMITH (Channel 26-Houston) How would you appraise the morale in 
Mission Control and up on the Shuttle now, after the success of 
the spacewalk, compared to the difficulties you had earlier in 
the mission? 

cox I know today, everybody was very up, and very 

happy, and couldn't help but be. As far as compared to the 
others, I've only been in spottily, you know, when we had EVA 
related task, so I couldn't give you a total characterization but 
what I have seen has not been a real happy group but todav it was 
very up. J 

f A0 Have a question from Jerry Hannifan in the back 

from Time and after that question we'll go to KSC and then we'll 
come back here. Jerry? 

HANNIFAN (Time) Would it be correct to say that Bruce and Bob 
were working in an atmosphere of say that one would find 
equivalent of 12 to 14 thousand feet on a mountain top, where 
pressure is concern, psi? 

COX you know you have to work that or the 02 partial pressure 
game and they were running at 4.3 pure oxygen. That's pretty 
high. The cabin right now is running for example at a little 
over 3, just about 3 psi partial pressure, so, the actual oxygen 
concentration that they had - exposed to was higher than what the 
cabin is which is a high-altitude case. They were probably 
closer to sea level than a high mountain as far as the oxygen 
they had. J * 

PAO Okay. We're going to go to KSC, following that 

we'll go to Marshall, then we'll come back here, so let's have 
the questions now from Kennedy Space Center. 

REG TURNELL (BBC) Bruce McCandless was discussing at one time 
whether or not he should bring a trash bag back into the airlock, 
what was this trash? 

c0 * The reason he wanted to bring the trash bag back in 

was his cuff checklist had fallen off, a little screw had come 
loose, he saw it drifting off, caught it, stuffed it in the trash 
bag, that he was using at the worksite, when he did the main 
electronic box task, where he would stuff extra trash from that 
job. ' He wanted to keep his checklist so he brought the trash bag 
back. * 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 3 



SALESTEAD (Baltimore Sun) - A follow up to question a few moments 
ago on the shaking and rattleing of the MMU, I didn't fully 
understand your answer, and was this occurring when McCandless 
was in a particular attitude, or when he, when a particular set 
of thrusters were firing, or just when did he encounter this 
problem? 

COX Let me characterize this a little bit, Bruce is so 

familiar, he can probably, he is probably more sensitive to the 
way those thrusters perform than anybody else that will ever fly 
that. I don't think Bruce commented, I mean, Bob commented at 
all to that affect. But when Bruce did fly it, he felt some 
little jittering, when he made + X translations. We made a 
recommendation for Bob's translation, that if he felt something 
like that, to change his control mode, either go to attitude 
hold, or switch from one control system to another. But we did 
not get any more feedback from Bob, that he needed to do that, or 
that he had sensed it. I don't think we have an explanation for 
it, other than the fact that it just may be some extra pulsing on 
the jet. And that may have been the result of a CG offset, is 
what Bruce had speculated. 

SALESTEAD Which way is +X. 

COX That would be pushing you forward. 

LEWIS (Chicago Sun Times) - How far did Bob go out? Do you have 
a measurement of his farthest distance, and then I have one more 
question. 

COX They both went just slightly over 300 feet, I think 

Bruce went about 315 or so feet on his and Bob ended up about 
305, or so, something like that, 

LEWIS Could you summarize briefly what they did 

accomplish in rehearsal for Thursday's flight. 

COX Well in rehearsal for Thursday's flight, they give 

the MMU a good checkout. And the different tasks that we'll be 
doing on Thursday, we'll be docking with the rotating SP As, which 
is a simulation of the solar max, rotation which we'll be using 
on flight 13, so we made sure that the MMU performed like we 
expected it to perform so that when we go up now, and do the 
rotating docking exercise on the next EVA, we won't have any MMU 
questions in there. It will be how the (garble) aspects 
worked. Further looking down the road, towards the solar max 
repair flight, the checkout of the manipulator foot restraints, 
gave us a lot of confidence, in the fact that is a very good work 
site. Looks like the EVA task that we've hoped to perform from 
that worksite, will work out fine, in changing out the equipment 
on that satellite. That was kind of the bottom line of what we 
learned today. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1:30pm PAGE 4 



\ 



MEECHUM (Gannette News Service) Can you tell us what 
temperature extremes, the suits had to adjust to, when they were 
out there? Give us an idea what they were, 

COX I sure wouldn't have anything off the top of my 

head. They can't be any different than what the Orbiter is 
exposed to when you're looking at deep space, you see 
temperatures below 200 degrees, when you're looking at the sun, 
you see very hot temperatures. When you're facing the earth you 
see something reflecting back at you in the order of 0 degree 
fahrenheit. it's that kind of a spread, but I couldn't give you 
the an exact number. 

BOYLE {Timpton Conservative) - Do you have any times for undock 
to dock of each of the MMU's? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 1 

COX No, I didn't log this times. It would be hard to 

see because there is nothing in telemetry that will let you know 
when they are docked or not docked. That would be something the 
crew would have to log onboard since we didn't have continuous TV 
of those activites. And they don't do that, 

FRANK HUCENDA (Today) Two questions. One, how did the SPAS 
perform during all that, and the second is are there any timeline 
changes now in the next two days? 

COX The SPAS was basically off. The only experiment 

that was left on during the EVA, was the heat pipe, and then we 
did activate the mass spec while the troubleshooting activity was 
going on to see whether the fix had taken or not. So SPAS 
performed exactly what it was supposed to do today. It did 
appear that the fix on the SPAS was a very good fix. It wasn't 
exactly what we were looking for. We were looking to trip a 
microswitch or to reset the setting on it, maybe a tenth of a 
millimeter or 2 tenths of a millimeter, We probably got a little 
bit more than that so what they are doing now is they are going 
through an exercise of moving the mass spec pointing and 
watching, with each command, how much of a motion they get. It 
seems that they can position it where they want but they sort of 
have to calibrate the command sequences that they have to use to 
get there. We were doing that over the last TDRS pass. As far 
as activities the remainder of the flight, at least looking 
towards tomorrow, we'll be doing a water dump and recharge on the 
MMUs and we're going to probably, I mean on the EMUs and instead 
of filling the EMUs once, we'll go ahead and fill them twice to 
assure that we have cleared out any particulates or contamination 
that we, that I think has been briefed to you before on the 
bladders of the EMUs, I might mention along that line, we did 
have a little caution and warning system were it did show on 
Bob 1 s suit just right at the end of EVA, just as he was going 
into the airlock, a sublimator pressure enunciation. We went 
through the standard procedure we do. That is a message that you 
can typically get when you have an ice built up on the 
sublimator. He went through the exercise to go ahead and melt 
the ice and then return the water flow and that cleared it so 
that was about the only thing we did pick up out of the EMUs go 
as far as the alarms went. But anyhow, we are going to be doing 
that water dump thing, and the SPAS people, now that they're back 
with a functional warning capability on the mass spec will be 
updating their timeline to get back to a more nominal sequence of 
events for that activity, 

KSC There are no other questions from JSC, KSC, 



PAO All right, we are going to go to Marshall for 2 

questions and then we'll come back here. Marshall? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 2 



TOM KNIGHT (WAFF TV) John the, now that camera delta has ended 
up back inside the cabin, are there plans to go ahead and repair 
that and return it to its position. 

cox There was a message being reviewed in the room as I 

left, tells bhe crew about what the different steps are to go 
ahead and change out that camera with one of the in-cabin cameras 
and then perform a checkout on it. I suspect by the time we get 
finished this evening that message will probably be on board for 
the crew to work with tomorrow. Was there something else? 

KNIGHT Yes. I wanted to ask you also, I noticed Bob, once 

he reberthed with his MMU, there was a period of time there he 
seemed to be in position. Was he having some difficulty 
releasing himself. 

cox No/ I don't think it was a problem releasing, I 

think he was just having trouble finding the latches. You have 
to be flying backwards in the blind trying to make the latches 
behind you. We just noticed he took 2 or 3 approaches to get 
into there and as soon as the latches hit it locked up and he was 
home. 



JIM ADAMSON (Channel 31) I was just wondering if during the 
EVAs because they were out there with no umbilical, if 
technically then both Bob Stewart and Bruce McCandless would be 
considered temporary satellites then. 



Why not? 



CO* I wouldn't call them that, but - 

MARSHALL There are no further questions at Marshall, 

PAO All right, we'll come back here to JSC. Olive, 

UPI. 

TALLEY What about the cinema 360? Did they get the 

thermal blanket fixed and covering that up? 

cc * I never asked, We took one quick pan by it and it 

looked like they might have but the angle we were at you couldn't 
tell. Since they got everything else done, I suspect they 
probably got over there but there's some questions that we are 
going to either ask them tonight or put up on the teleprinter. 
We'll find out all those little things like that. We did go 
ahead, my comment to the cinema 360, since we got off the 
timeline, we got their photo coverage out of sequence a little 
bit and so we did not get the MMU free flight. We'll go ahead 
and pick that up on the second EVA. We did get all the MFR 
work. There was two tasks we were trying to get. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 3 



PAD This gentleman here in third row, 

DAVE JACKSON (Time Magazine) I noticed during McCandless's exit 
from the cargo bay, what looked to be shooting stars in the 
background followed by a flurry of dust. What was that we were 
seeing? I mean they were really going very fast in the distance 
past. 

COX I noticed at the same time Hoot commented that they 

had been seeing that at every sunrise so I don't know what it 
was, your guess is as good as mine. 

JACKSON Okay. Can I ask another question too. This ice in 

the suit you mentioned, is that, I don't understand where that 
is. Is that outside or inside the suit? And why - 

COX There is a cooling package right up on the top of 

that backpack that they have, the (garble), the sublimator. The 
way you keep cool in there is you circulate water, and the heat 
exchanger that you use is really a device where you expose water, 
to a vacuum. It freezes, makes a little ice layer and then as 
you pass water through that device it cools and then has an 
exchanger that cools with the air. So the airflow itself is what 
is getting cool and that's what makes you stay cool. 

JACKSON And was that ice built up then on the outside of 

the suit? 

COX No, no. It's underneath all that thermal. 

JACKSON Oh okay, thank you. 

PAO Gentleman. 

ANITOLEAS (German Radio) Once the astronauts attach to the SPAS 
satellite, are they meant to stop the rotation with help of the 
MMUs or are they just only going to attach themselves. 

COX They are just going to attach themselves. The RMS 

is intentionally spinning that satellite with a motor driving 
system and everything, and it doesn't prove anything to see if 
you can fight against the RMS and stop it's motors or what not. 
That seems to be of no purpose. We want to really see, the job 
that you have to do there is approach the satellite, time 
yourselves so that you catch the trunnion pin where you want it, 
and then rate match it and then go on in and dock. And that's 
the training task that we've been working with for each of these 
crewman, and then we want to see how well that has been done. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 4 



ANITOLEAS But it's the spin rate of the solar max, what they, 
they would stop the solar max and would they try to bring them 
into the space shuttle cargo bay only by help of the mmu or with 
the shuttle itself to send maneuvers to bring them closer to it? 

COX For the flight 13 case, the crewman will stop the 

satellite, hold it still and then the Orbiter will fly over and 
grapple it with the RMS. There is a grapple fixture on it. And 
then go ahead and put it down in the cargo bay with the RMS. 

ANITOLEAS Final question, once these extravehicular 
activities (garble), are you still planning to come down to 
Kennedy on time or do you still have any ideas of prolonging it 
one day? 

COX I think everything is looking perfectly nominal for 

end of mission. 

PAO We'll go to Chris Peterson in the back there. 

PETERSON Can you address camera delta. Are we going to get 

a good healthy camera back? 

COX Well, we're hoping the folks figured out the 

malfunction properly and that the camera swap will do the job. 
We'll know once they run through that procedure that we'll be 
uplinking to them, 

PAO Carlos Byars. 

CARLOS BYARS (Houston Chronicle) 

PAO Sbrry. 

BYARS Yes, I'm still Carlos Byars, I'm still with the 

Chronicle. 

PAO Sorry about that, 

BYARS On the, I think (garble) commented earlier that we 

were seeing some funny things on TV. The picture would break up, 
or it would get fuzzy and go away and then come back, and we know 
you were not using TORS during this for various reasons. Could 
you tell us what was going on, were you having some other camera 
problems or was it somewhere in the system between there and 
here? Or did you all simply not see what we were seeing? 



3TS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 5 

COX I think you probably just watched more steady TV 

then you probably normally are used to watching and normally 
signal strength goes up and down or look angles get a little bit 
different. We lose the picture and it comes back up again. You 
go through it. You were using the GSTDN sites to pick up the TV 
today and we have key holes across those sites and we have holes 
between sites and what not. I think you were just seeing some of 
that. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jd 2/7/84 1:30 pro PAGE 1 



B*ARS One other question, Bob had some problems, I got 

the feeling that he had a problem, when he was getting back into 
the airlock, or after he got back into the airlock, do you recall 
anything along that? 

cox That was that sublimator pressure. 

That was the sublimator thing? 

cox Yes, it was the only message that had been 

annunciated to anybody all day, and since he was all finished he 
just jumped in the airlock. 

BYARS Ok. 

PAO Lynn. 

SHERR (ABC) John, just 2 quick ones. First, why didn't we see 
more helmet camera pictures, and second what was the maximum 
speed either man reached in the MMU today, can you say? 

COX Maximum speed? 

Pft 0 They don't have odometers onboard, do they? 

COX No, the way it's estimated is with the radar and 

the radar did not work real well on Bruce' s flight, we had a 
rough time getting it to lock on. So the estimations there were 
kind of poor. I think we got on the order of a foot per 
second. On Bob's, I remember some 8 tenths and 7 tenths and 
those type numbers that came up. 

SHERR Ok, the other question was the helmet camera. Why 

didn't we see more from Bruce' s helmet camera? 

cox We did select it a few times earlier. That helmet 

camera is kind of a nice thing, which you'll notice we don't 
really expect it to have great pictures, it does a neat job when 
you are far away from the Orbiter, but it doesn't point the same 
direction you're always looking, so if you are looking here, the 
camera's probably looking over here. You can look down and be 
working and the camera's looking over here, so it doesn't always 
give you a very good field of view. I think we switched it a few 
times, but found that it wasn't worth staying with. 

PAO Jules Bergman, ABC. 

BERGMAN You have the whole thing, Jim. 

PAO Thank you. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jd 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 2 



BERGMAN Jon, what are the highlights left for Thursday's 

EVA and based on what you've seen so far do you have any doubts 
at all of any kind about the Solar Max rescue mission. 

cox NO/ I'll answer that last part first. I think that 

this was great confirmation that the plans that have been made 
foe the Solar Max flight, as far we can tell by everything that 
was reasonable to test and demonstrate, all worked beautifully, 
so that was super. I think the highlights for the 2nd EVA for 
Thursday, #1 you get almost continuous TV coverage of it because 
we will not be flying this v-bar attitude that we were in today, 
it will be a fixed attitude, so we'll have very good Ku-band 
comm. That will be refreshing to be able to watch an activity 
from beginning to end. The other thing is you will see a fairly 
dynamic activity rather than watching a crewman slowly fade off 
in the distance and then return, you'll be watching this approach 
to the rotating satellite, dock with it, go back again. Each 
crewman will be doing that on Thursday's EVA, And then towards 
the end, if you're an MMU-af f ectionato, you'll notice that 
towards the end there's about an hour of special tests that Bruce 
is going to fly in the MMU. Probably won't be highly dynamic, 
but you'll see a lot of manuevering around the bay with the MMU. 

PAO Criag Covault, Av Week. 

COVAULT A couple of quick ones on a couple of engineering 

topics, one of which you've already touched on with the radar. 
How did it compare with your expectations going into it? 

cox We don't still understand why we did not get a good 

lock on Bruce *s translation. It worked as we expected it to for 
Bob's. It acquired at about the right time, then we lost lock at 
about 70 feet as we came on in, and I think that was almost the 
exact number that we had when we did the work with the SPAS on 
flight 7. 

COVAULT Ok, and the 2nd one. Did Bob get his SCU umbilical 

problem cleared up there ok? 

COX At the end? 



COVAULT Yes . 

cox What he had done was got himself tangled, so he 

unhooked and hooked and then couldn't get an indication that he'd 
swaped power so, there Is a little procedure that you go thru to 
swap power, or kill power and wait so many seconds, turn it back 
on and see if everything works right. It's a display problem you 
have on the actual systems that you're kind of faked out. You 
don't know whether you've got the power back or not. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jd 2/7/84 1:30pm PAGE 3 

PAO There being no more questions, thank you Jon Cox, 

EVA Flight Director, thank you. 

END OF TAPE 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOha 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Good morning, I'm Jim McCoullogh, Deputy Director 

of Public Affairs for NASA and I'd like to welcome you here this 
morning. We've ask you to come here this morning because we have 
a significant announcement about economic development in space. 
Before we get into the substance of the press conference, 
however, I'd like to explain our format. This morning we've got 
speakers in two places, here and St Paul, Minn, and we have 
reporters in five places. They are here in this room, in St 
Paul, at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, at the Johnson 
Space Center in Te;:as, and at the Marshall Space Flight Center in 
Huntsville, Ala. and for some of you people here today, if this 
seems like a television show and unfamiliar format of a press 
conference, I should explain that. NASA does this regularly in 
connection with the Shuttle program - linking our Shuttle 
Centers. We've just begun this here, so, I guess the Washington 
Press Core will have to become accustomed to it as we go along. 
We will first hear from the two speakers here in Washington and 
then the speakers in St Paul. Then for the question period, we 
will begin here in Washington and move to St Paul, Kennedy, 
Johnson, and Marshall, in that order, I thought maybe we would 
perhaps take six questions in each place to ensure that each site 
has an opportunity to participate and if we have any more time 
and any more questions after that we will start the round-robin 
again. The two people with us here in Washington today are Mr. 
James Beggs the Administrator of NASA and Mr. Lewis W. Lehr, 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 3M. We would like to 
start now with Mr. Beggs. 

BEGGS Thank you, Jim, and good morning. We're delighted 

to be with you this morning, on this, what we consider to be a 
very important new initiative for both the agency and for 
industry as well, in the state of the union address a few weeks 
ago, the President directed NASA to develop a permanently manned 
U.S. Space Station within a decade and to work to encourage 
private sector initiatives in space. Today we are delighted to 
announce that 3M of St Paul, Minn., has decided to begin a long 
term research program aimed at producing commercial products in 
space and doing research in space. The company will invest time, 
resources, and talent, in what I believe, will turn out to be a 
very considerable, and we hope and trust, a very productive 
effort. We here at NASA are very impressed by 3M, being an R&D 
organization, we always admire those who are widely known and who 
have invested over the years in research and development programs 
in search of new products, and for the innovation and excellence 
in American industry* 3M is indeed a leader and we are pleased 
and proud that they have decided to become a leader in space 
initiatives. Moreover, I'm confident that the entry of one of 
the nation's largest nonaerospace companies into the economic 
development of space will hasten the day that American industry 
will be comfortable with their research and manufacturing 
facilities in space and just as reliant on them, and perhaps they 
will become just as productive as their R&D facilities on 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS COHERENCE plOha 2/3/84 9: 30 am PAGE 2 



Earth. NASA, of course, stands ready to assist these 
initiatives, just as we always have. In the memorandum of 
understanding with 3M, we have agreed to work together to develop 
a plan to explore the space frontier for potential commercial 
applications and materials processing. We anticipate this 
process will be completed in time to permit 3M's first 
experiments to fly aboard the Space Shuttle later this year. The 
company's experiments will deal with organic crystalline 
materials and the preparation of thin films that could have 
application with fields of electronics, imaging energy 
converging, and biology. We have entered in somewhat similar 
understandings in other areas of research with other companies in 
the past and they have turned out to be very fruitful. Our 
understanding with 3M will lead into new areas of research 
concerned with chemistry and processing materials and that is why 
we welcome 3M enthusiastically and we hope that we will have a 
long and profitable relationship. As a first step, we have 
agreed that 3M will send 10 of its top scientists to visit the 
five NASA centers conducting materials research to exchange 
scientific and technical information with NASA scientists and 
engineers. 3M scientists will visit Marshall, Johnson, Lewis, 
Langley, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We are very 
confident these visits will be mutually productive, 3M has 
proposed the establishment of a series of advanced research 
institutes to coordinate between the government and industry and 
the academic world to do basic long-term research experiments 
which could lead to viable commercial products and specific 
disciplines. The idea has a great deal of appeal to us and we 
will work with 3M in trying to bring that into being. In 
addition, we will seek the approvals necessary to create a 
special advisory group to advise NASA on how it may best promote 
commercial u^es of space. To be a leader in any area of high 
technology development a company must get in on the ground floor 
because it takes years of research to translate R&D into useful 
commercial products for the market place. 3M's decision to enter 
what is a new arena for the company indicates that it is serious 
about using space for this purpose and we wish it well* I 
congratulate 3M on its foresight and imagination. The President 
has given the signal that industry has been waiting for* He has 
indicated that government will support a space interest structure 
to enable industries both large and small to move into space 
quickly, decisively, and with confidence. I'm delighted that 3M 
has decided to join. As Shakespeare wrote in one of his many 
comedies which were directed towards almost every area of human 
endeaver, emulation has a thousand sons, and while 3M is the 
first, we expect that there will be many others who will follow 
them. We are confident that they will be equally fruitful and 
profitable for both NASA and the private sector. I f m confident 
that the partnership of government, acadeiaia, and private 
industry that has maintained our leadership in space for 25 years 
will continue to ensure that leadership in the years ahead. 
We 1 !! work together to make sure that we bring the benefits and 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOha 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 

the research back down here to Earth to benefit all mankind. And 

now it's my very great pleasure to introduce Mr. Lewis w. Lehr 

the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 3M. Thank you very 
much. Mr. Lehr. 7 

kEHR Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Beggs. rt really 

is a pleasure and an honor for me to be here with you today in 
helping to make this announcement of NASA's and 3M's joining 
forces in the exploration of space for scientific purposes, what 
NASA brings to this partnership is certainly well known. You've 
taken men to the Moon and back and only yesterday we witnessed 
the first untethered walks in space. You are highly recognized 
as an agency with a vision for the future, 3M, in turn, has been 
called a company with a bias for action, a broadly based comoany 
known for scientific innovation and the successful 
commercialization of its technologies. Most of the world, 
however, knows us best for our scotch-brand tapes. But, the 
scientific community also knows 3M for its expertise in specialty 
chemicals, surface chemistry, precision coating, and in materials 
research. 3M also brings to this joint endeaver a conviction 
that space science can be applied constructively for humanity 
through industry and commerce, 3M is a company where close to 25 
percent of its revenues each year come from products that have 
been introduced within the past 5 years. To maintain that kind 
of performance, we are constantly looking to the future. 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhb 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 1 



LEHR We recognize that now is always the proper time to 

start building for the future, and 3M is convinced that now is 
the time to make significant investment to basic research and 
industrial investment in the future of space. The time is right 
because the space program that has been mainly governmental is 
now entering a new phase, A phase that will bring a major 
increase in the utilization of space for industrial purposes. 
The success of this Space Shuttle Program and President Reagan's 
strong desire to open space to industrial activities have 
combined to stimulate a great deal of private sector interest. 
We look forward as do many others to the completion of a manned 
Space Station some time in the next decade. Meanwhile, we expect 
to have 3M experiments in space beginning this August, A team of 
scientist at 3M center in St, Paul, is already preparing for such 
experiments. There aim is to move rapidly toward the day when 
manufacturing processes in space can be harnessed for the good of 
people everywhere. This is one part of our involvement, Another 
part is the proposed establishment of advanced research 
institutes, 3M will be pleased to take a leadership role to 
coordinate future scientific experiments in space in cooperation 
with NASA, 3M's idea is to create new ways through which 
industry, government, and academia can be represented as 
decisions are made for space research in chemistry and materials, 
in engineering, in physics, and in biosciences. To work with 
NASA, in evaluating this proposal, I am naming as 3M liaison, Dr. 
Christopher J, Podsiadly, Director of 3M Science Research 
Laboratory. Dr. Podsiadly, is also the person in charge of 3M*s 
first .experiments in space. I am personnaly pleased with this 
program and consider it a tribute to our talented 3M scientific 
community that our company can help in this way, A number of our 
people have played a part in bringing about today's announcement, 
we expect that their innovative approach to the future will 
contribute to 3M's continuing flow of new and useful products and 
technologies for people everywhere. Thank you, 

PAO Before we switch to St. Paul, a message arrived 

here, this morning, and Mr, Beggs would like to'deliver, 

BEGGS I'd like to take just a couple of minutes to read a 

letter that came over this morning. It begins: Dear Jim, Both 
in my State of the Union address last month and my state on 
National Space Policy of July 4th of 1982, I made the expansion 
of private investment involvement in space a major objective of 
the United States Government. The Congress endorsed this thrust 
in 1983 committee reports from both houses. Recognizing the 
potential benefits offered by commercial space endeavors, this 
administration has taken steps to encourage private enterprise to 
take advantage of opportunities to create new industries and new 
jobs, lower product cost, and improve the balance of trade. We 
see the chance for technological progress which may dramatically 
enhance treatment of diseases, make major advances in electronics 
and computers, develop lighter and stronger metals, and enjoy 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhb 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 2 

important new advances in communications. Therefore, I was 
delighted to receive word of NASA's first major cooperative 
program of basic materials research in soace. Less than 2 weeks 
ago, I asked that we significantly step up our development 

the fi!ai n ma?25 e Ai2^i5 e beneCit ? f aU mankind. Now 3M becomes 
tne tirst major American corporation to respond to that 

iHi^JUi?®' F V 25 yea ^ S NASA has advanc ^ human experience on 
the frontier of space with its knowledge of science and 

^r^?i 0gy ; N ° W 1* ? iU be movin 9 into an unfamiliar role that 
of prime player of the economic scene as it enters in 

partnership with private firms, large and small, to develoo the 

economic potential of space. 3M's decision is the finest 

tradition of the object of real spirit that heloed this nation 

■?J2 W An!2?t.i! a ? h i the P innacle of technological leadership. But 
its commitment is not an easy one. it requires a substantial 
investment of human and financial resources and a great deal of 
faith because the outcome and benefits are uncertain. I extend 
my best wishes to all who gather in celebration of this new 
partnership and look forward to periodic reports on your 
K?? reS S; Sincerely, Ronald Reagan. We're very appreciative of 
that. The President has, of course, been a great supporter of 

anune continues to be vitally interested in it, and as 
you^can teirby his letter, he is pleased and I'm sure will 
S2?k nT w f?h f ?H U0W we P make in our'new^ndeavoJs 

s^icls^lhank ?ou! ate SeCt0r t0 d6VelOP neW Pr0dUCtS and 

e we are about to switch the origination of this ' 
press conference to St. Paul. When we go there we're qoina to 
hear from a Dr. Robert M. Adams who is 3M's Senior Vice Resident 
for technology services, for Mr. issac GilLm? w£> is ?he 
5 L S ant K? S K S0 S latea Administrator of NASA's office of space 
Sii2iS^i Ch '5*!' our '. c ? ntai ™ our division for commercial 

Dunh^ni V A ?k Spe °, lal treat this "°™i«9, Astronaut Bonnie 
Dunbar will be there also. Now we're ready to go to St. Paul. 

ADAMS Good morning and welcome. You have already been 

iHi£?2? ce 5i tomy l ellow P anel ist here, r want to extend a 
special welcome, however, to Ike Gillam, to Dr. Dunbar , and of 

SiS'li 1 2 T 0i:y Ple ?f ed to have Dr ' Podsiadly on thlJ'plStSjn 
with me. We're speaking to you from 3M Center which is not onlv 
headquarters for 3M world wide operations, but it is also the 
place where we do most of our research and many of our 
administrative activities. Most people don't associate 3M 
company with the space program. We?re no? an aer"ospJcl 

roS??!!!!; rt ^ Ut 2 e have a V pp 4 ed raan y Products in the past to NASA 
contractors, For example, 3M was there when the docking 

'?S!J£ la i $ wor ? nQeded fot the f i«t rendezvous in space! 3M was 

thf Lrm e V?Kl°? aUt8 8 ! t foot °V he Moon for th « ?*"t time in 
a2L f °v!™J he f i uc °a8tromers which we make and which tolerate 
some extremes in temperature tolerance. And 3M is in space 
today, we have a ceramic fiber which provide the heat shield 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhb 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 3 

material for the protection of the Shuttle during reentry. We 
have imaging processing equipment to read signals from outer 
space. Here at this 400-acre site that surrounds us here in St. 
Paul, we have about 11,000 employees. And approximately half of 
them are engaged in research development and engineering. Now as 
we look to the future we believe that all of us will have our 
horizons broadened by what we're announcing today. This is where 
3M*s first space experiments are being prepared by a team of 
research specialist. The experimentation scheduled for our first 
Shuttle participation, possibly as early as August of this year, 
will be of two types, as you've heard, relating to the growth of 
organic crystals and development of thin films. Particular areas 
of interest are the prospects of growing crystals from organic 
materials that cannot be crystalized on Earth. On Earth we have 
the pull of gravity, in space we have the advantage of 
microgravity and of course a perfect vacuum. We're also 
interested in the development of thin films, with nobble physical 
and chemical properties. Prom this work will come a base of 
information about the processing of organic materials in that low 
gravity, almost clean-room environment. We believe this type of 
research has protential applications in many fields. Memory and 
imaging media, electronic products, energy conversion, and 
biology. All areas in which 3M already has considerable 
expertise. 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhc 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



ADAMS This kind of space research is new to industry. It 

will ensure that we are poised and ready for operations in space 
when the space station is ready, and given the rapid pace of 
technological change today, we have to be ready. The 
possibilities are exciting, consider for example, the impact on 
our present living with the development of industrial plastics 
just in the last 40 or 45 years, or the impact of the transistor 
since 1947, or the impact, if you will, of 3M's own development 
of video tape in 1956, and of course, the impact of satellite 
communications since I960, Now working with Dr. Podsiadly, as 
Principal Ivestigators on our first team of space researchers are 
two scientist from the physical science section of that lab. 
They are Dr. Mark Debee and Dr. William Egbert. Members of their 
team are already designing appropriate apparatus for the various 
experiments that will be conducted- We look on space 
experimentation as an exciting new venture and I rather hope that 
all of our research, development, and engineering people are as 
excited about that prospect as I am. And now Ike Gilham can tell 
us more about what the future holds for us. Ike. 

GILLAM Thank you, Dr. Adams, It's a pleasure to be here 

in St. Paul to represent NASA on the occasion of this special 
anouncement by 3M. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
1958, NASA's Magna Carte, the National Space Policy announced by 
the President in July of 1982, and the space program initiatives 
announced by the President in his .recent State of the Union 
Message are derived from the basic premise that civil space 
activities of the United States are conducted to achieve 
scientific, political, and economic benefits for the nation. As 
the President indicated in his message, the first 25 years of our 
national space program has had a primary focus on exploration. 
The Space Shuttle provides us with the initial tool to increase 
substantially our level of exploitation of this new frontier. 
This tool in combination with the new initiatives for cooperative 
activities between government and industry and in the coming 
years a space station provides us with the intrestructure which 
will allow us to make significant steps in the explotation of 
space and keeping with that basic premise that I spoke of 
earlier. The 3M Company in announcing its intention to 
participate in the exploitation of this new frontier by working 
with NASA to explore jointly, areas of space research with 
potential commercial applications is a landmark in our efforts to 
begin that era of exploitation. Mr. Beggs has stated earlier 
that we at NASA welcome the initiative, we are please that 3M has 
agreed to work with NASA on this project. An old proverb states, 
that a journey of a thousand miles begins with only one step. We 
in NASA believe that this one step is the beginning of a journey 
that can result in substantial benefits to 3M, to the nation and 
to mankind. We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with 
3M in the development of a plan for basic research with potential 
commercial activities, commercial applications, to exploit the 
space frontier. One of the pleasures that I have in working with 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhc 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 



NASA, is that of meeting and working with interesting and 
outstanding people such as Dr. Fodsiadly, and our next speaker 
Dr. Bonnie Dunbar, Mission Specialist Astronaut with the Johnson 
Space Center. Dr. Dunbar. 

DUNBAR Thank you, Mr, Gillam. It's a pleasure to join the 

representatives of 3M and NASA in the announcement of this joint 
endeavor . I represent just one element of the NASA team, that 
part which will have the opportunity to operate materials 
processing experiments in space and Space Shuttle crews. Since 
1981 the Space Shuttle has served the commercial community in a 
number of uses, satellite deployment, Earth observations, and 
materials processing in space* The fleet will soon add Discovery 
and Atlantis to Columbia and Challenger. Basic research in the 
processing of materials using a micro-gravity environment began 
relatively early in our program. Several experiments were part 
of the Apollo-Soyuz Project and later the Skylab program. It was 
this early research work, utilizing some appropriately trained 
astronauts, which helped to lay the foundation for industrial use 
and for the potential of commercial products. Therefore, we are 
very pleased that 3M has decided to join with NASA in this joint 
endeavor and we can attribute to them the same farsighted, 
visionary characteristics that these other companies have. The 
Astronaut Office is composed of nearly 80 Pilot and Mission 
Specialist Astronauts. Astronauts who trained to operate a very 
unique transporat ion vehicle. Space Shuttle crews are also 
inter-disciplinary. Pilots and Mission Specialists are composed 
of scientists and engineers from a range of backgrounds. We also 
crosstrain. And materials processing is one of the areas that we 
become very familiar with. We are not mereley passive observers, 
but become involved in the evolution of a pay load, training for 
as long as a year for each particular flight. We sometimes 
participate in operational design, but we hope to provide the 
customer with insights gained from flight experience. Now in 
some cases, the project engineer or scientist representing the 
company may accompany the payload. These individuals are called 
Payload Specialist. Two flew in the European Spacelab last fall, 
and one will fly with a commercial payload in mid-1984. We look 
forward to the possibility of flying a 3M project and understand 
that someday a 3M Payload Specialist may join us. We in the 
Astronaut Office chose our occupation because of our belief in 
the forward destiny of mankind and because of a vision. That 
vision is also shared by 3M. From Shuttle to Space Station to 
our next goal, we from the Astronaut Office welcome you aboard. 
And I would like to hand the pofcium now back to Washington and 
Jim McCullogh. 

PAO We'd like to begin the question and answer portion 

of this right now. Two additional persons are joining us for 
this, in St. Paul, Dr. Podsiadly, who Mr. Lehr mentioned is 
available for questions and here in Washington Dr. Lester Krogh 
who is 3H r s Vice president for Research and Development. As I 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhc 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 



recognize you, please state your name and affiliation. We'll 
take questions here in Washington now. Bring the mike over here 
please. 

THERESA FOLEY (Satellite Week) Mr. Lehr, could you give us an 
idea of how much money 3M is planning to spend on this project. 
Perhaps if you're going to be increasing it year by year, how the 
levels will go up? And when do you think you will see a return 
on investment? 

LEHR Did you want to handle that, one Dr. Krogh? 

KROGH The best way to describe what we plan to spend in 

space is to give you some idea of what we've spent in the last 5 
years in research and development. We've spent one and a half 
billion dollars in that 5-year period. With that money we 
planned to build technologies for the future along with 
developing the products which those technologies give us access 
to. A small percentage of that will be spent now in space, the 
new frontier if you like, new experiments, new dimensions to 
experimentation, which are in the main stream of the programs to 
develop technologies that we have going on now. If they're 
successful, we'll increase our expenditure. And if they're 
really successful! , we may be manufacturing in space some time in 
the next decade. 

FOLEY Could I pin you down on that a little more closely, 

you said a small percentage of 1.5 billion over 5 years. What 
type of percentage are you talking about, 5 or 1 or 10? 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhd 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 

KROGH We normally spend about 10 percent of our research 

and development budget in long range and intermediate range 
research, 

PAO We seem to be having a microphone problem here and 

if the technicians will check it we'd appreciate it , Another 
question from Washington, please. Please state your name and 
affiliation when the microphone gees to you* 

LEONDARD DAVID (Spaceworld Magazine) I'd like to asked Mr, 
Beggs, in relationship to these research institutes, how do these 
differ from your proposed centers of excellence as far as micro- 
gravity research? 

BEGGS They don f t differ from what we have talked about 

over the last several years in established centers excellence 
throughout the NASA centers as well as the centers of excellence 
that we have typically operated with in the Universities* What 
3M has proposed, as I now understand it, is the setting up of a 
disciplinary approach to bringing together the industry, NASA and 
academia in looking at the areas that they are interested in, 
materials processing, the organic crystals and that kind of thing 
and it's a very interesting idea to us. What they are proposing 
is really an extension of what we've been doing for some time and 
I think it has merit in that it will assist us and bring into our 
picture in a closer way the industrial side of it. 

PAO Question in the back row and then we'll come up 

here next, 

(Voice of America) To any of the gentlemen from 3M, what are 
some of the commercial products you anticipate from the venture 
and when can we expect to see them on the market? 

PAO That f s addressed to anybody. Who would like to 

take that? 

3M It's really premature to say when we might have a 

commercial product but let me give you some ideas the kinds of 
things we're thinking about. Let me give you some ideas the 
kinds of things we're thinking about for the future. 3M is in 
memory media and is also in many kinds of imaging materials and 
those are based on inorganic materials today. We believe there's 
a strong possibility that organic materials in crystalline form 
could be the next generation of products and I would suspect that 
we're looking at something like 7 to 10 years, perhaps as long as 
15 years before those would become commercial* 



PAO 



Another question here. Right behind you 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhd 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 



BOB BURKHART (Journal of Commerce) Mr, Beggs, what is the 
ownership of the results of these experiments in space? Who owns 
them and who can use them and are they licensable? 

BEGGS The policy that we are following now and which 

follows closely the current thinking on Federal Policy is that if 
a company spends it own money in developing something it is their 
intellectual right, it's one of their rights and it belongs to 
them and is patentable by them. If there is government money 
spent in pursuit of that or in conjuction with or in partnership 
with the patent that results can be licensed to the company which 
is the partner of the government in the pursuit of that 
particular bit of technology. At the same time, in that case we 
reserve a royalty-free license for the products if they are used 
by the government, that is the purchase is made by the 
government. We are also, and I might add this gratuitously, you 
didn't ask this part of the question, with respect to the other 
patents that we, and intellectual property rights that we develop 
in the pursuit of our R&D program, we will also license that on 
an exclusive basis. If the company or the organization that 
licenses agrees to reduce that patent to practice or reduce the 
technology to practice and market the product and they can 
thereby benefit. Again, we reserve royalty-free rights to it for 
the government use of it. But that is in order to enable the 
development of our technology in the fastest possible way to 
commercial products in the market place and we believe that 
that's the best way to do it because certainly if a company is to 
spend the money in doing the research and to spend the additional 
money in reducing to practice and making commercial products, 
they deserve to make the profits for a period of time on an 
exclusive basis because we all know that if that's done the 
market place benefits and, in the long run, the whole industry 
will benefit by reason of the new technology developed. And I'm 
very pleased that the Federal Government if moving in this 
direction because I think it's the best way to make use of our 
technology and the fastest way so as to overcome the problem we 
have had visa vie some of our foreign competitors in getting 
technology moved in the fastest possible way into the market 
place, 

PAO Don Kirkland back there please and then we'll come 

back for Theresa, Oh, here. Right here. Here we go. Thank you* 

DON KIRKLAND (Scrips Newspapers) Dr, Beggs, I'm curious, are 
othctr commercial corporations negotiating with NASA for similar 
deals like 3M and if so, who are they? 

BEGGS We have active discussions with, where f s Ron 

Phillips, I think about 20, is that right, Ron, other companies 
in various areas, I'd just assume not disclose the names of them 
since those negotiations tend to be easier if they are not 
conducted quite completely in the public forum but we'll be 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhd 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 



announcing some more I am sure. As you know, Don, we have, oh I 
guess, a half a dozen agreements with various companies which 
have been signed up under the Joint Endeavor Policy and we're 
pursuing, we will pursue more activities of that type so that we 
can fly them free of charge on the Shuttle while they are in the 
experimental phase. What we are doing obviously with these 
things in one respect is to develop the market for space and 
we're very pleased by what has been accomplished to date. I 
mention all the time our agreement with McDonnell Douglas and 
Johnson & Johnson which is moving very well. In June of this 
year we will fly the first of what I hope will be a long series 
of astronauts, payload specialists as Bonnie Dunbar pointed out, 
who come from the private sector. That'll be Charlie Walker from 
McDonnel Douglas. 

P A0 I'm going to take 2 more here then move to St. Paul 

and then we'll come back. I think there'll be time. First 
Theresa Foley and then we'll switch back into the corner here. 

THERESA FOLEY (Satellite Week) How many free flights on the 
Shuttle are you getting under the MOU and can you tell us about 
the first experiment? What kind of carrier will it be on? Will 
it be in the middeck or in the payload bay? Will it have a lot 
of astronaut interaction with it? 



3M If I can answer that, there are 2 scheduled now. 

One will be in the middeck and one will be in the bay itself. 

FOLEY On the same flight? 

3M Hopefully, don't know for sure. 

FOLEY Okay, and then how many free flights under the MOU? 

3M Two . 

FOLEY That's all. 

3M Two so far. 

BEGGS We do this, if I can add to that, Theresa, we do 
this on a - as you know, on a space available basis so it's not 



totally predictable on which flight they will go. As we manifest 
thera in as the flight develops and as the space becomes 
available. But I'm sure that as this agreement progresses that 
we will be flying more than that in an experimental way. But 
that remains for the future and we look at each experiment and 
each proposal in it' own light. 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 1 



PAO I would like to remind people along the loop that 

our sequence here is, questions from Washington, and then we'll 
move to St. Paul, then we'll move to KSC and then we'll move to 
JSC and then down to Marshall. I had, I was going to allocate 6 
questions per place, to get started here, we've passed our 6 in 
Washington, but I see two more out there and, I guess I see three 
out there. I'm going to move on now to the other places, and 
then we'll come back and wrap it up here in Washington. If 
you're ready now in St. Paul, we'll switch there for questions. 

STEVE SMITH (St. Paul Dispatch) To Dr. Podsiadly here in St. 
Paul, can you describe in lay terms, more explicitly the nature 
of the experiments that you are preparing now for the initial 
Shuttle flights? * 

PODSIADLY well at this point in time as already been 
mentioned, we have experiments for the middeck which are in the 
area of organic crystalline material. And one that we would like 
to get into the payload which would be a thin film experiment, 
using one of their get-a-way specials. We haven't finally 
defined exactly what materials will go at this point in time, and 
so until we really decide, I can't really say anymore on those 
right now. 

LOU COLT (Minneapolis Star and Tribune) - For anyone that might 
be able to answer this. How soon might a 3M payload specialist 
go, and have any be identified as likely candidates to go up on a 
Shuttle mission. 

3M Well it's a little early to name specific people. 

I think we've got a lot of eager volunteers, they'll have to get 
in line, however, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Lehr has asked to be 
the very first. I don't, I think it's too early to answer that 
question. 

COLT What about from NASA's standpoint? How soon would 

they be ameanable to having a payload specialist from 3M to go up 
on a flight? 

BEGGS All right, I'll. We have the capacity in any 

flight to fly as many as eight astronauts, and generally speaking 
we, on most of our flights, we are putting 5, a crew of 5 in, so 
there is room on many, many flights to fly, an individual who can 
work on a specific experiment, during the course of that 
flight. Of course, we want to be assured that he will do useful 
work in space, or have a useful purpose while he is a member of 
the crew, and so we are going, we would look at a proposal from 
3M in that light. That is, that the indivdual flyee has a reason 
to go, and if Mr. Lehr wants to fly, we would want to know what 
he's going to do up there. But other than that, I would say that 
we can accommodate any number of individuals, and I might say in 
that regard, we expect some time next year, tnat is 1985, to be 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 2 

oi y nn 9 8 SI?i? C i Vft S? citi ? ens with us ' also have a reason to 
go up. We'll be discussing that in public here in the near 
future, as a matter of fact, we have a rule now pending to 
initiate tuat action. So there's no real restriction. We're 

ft°^L« 0 -w! y 3 l0t in , the next few years - We ' u flv Perhaps 7 or 
8 times this year, and maybe as many as 12 next year, so next 

^Iau,1a »i be J l Z ln< 3 once a month, so we can accomodate people, 
individuals who have, have that reason to fly on many, many 
flights, over the next 2 or 3 years. Plenty of room. 

C0LT So it could be as early as next year, (garble) 

BEGGS Sure, sure. 

JEFF HEARNS (WPCN Television) For Mr. Lehr, what's the long 
term revenue potential, for 3M? what's it going to mean in 
dollars and cents for the company over the long term? 

LEHR , 1 don,t thlnl < * could quantify that, when we beain 
a research program, we have all kinds of speculations about what 

ini,! n L CeSUUS . wU1 be ' usuall y s °™> are accurate, some are not 
? i£l,»?2 ff oucat !: In my opinion though, all this really is, and 
I shouldn't use the word all, but what this really is, is a new 
environment which can demonstrate different results as a result 
of research efforts that we have had ongoing for years and years 
SS? XJ a £!\ We re P utti "9 new materials*^ I new climate? And 
?wL f . t a we *W* at t0 3ee changes in the results from those 
that we have seen here on earth. We can't predict what will 
happen, but we certainly believe that there's such a difference 
in the environment, that new things will happen, and it's like 

ESS iS* ° U S ■ r ?!*i r 2 h ' *• really don,t kn °* ^at it will lead 
to, but if we don't take that step forward, we'll never find 
out* 



HEARNS 



To see some payback for what your doing. 



LEHR well you sound like the chairman of 3M asking that 

n»^i« n c f« th }2 k you ' ve heard Dr ' Kr °5 h ma ke statements of 
perhaps 5, 10, 15 years. But again, because we can't really 
define what will happen, we can't explain to our shareholders, 
when they will get an additional retSrn for this. But we 
certainly believe that it's a good investment for the people in 
?hrwo?ld n g4nerall?! shareholdera ' for Nft SA, and for people in 

HEARNS Thank you. 

DAVE ANDREWS (KSTP Television) This is for Mr. Beggs in 
^rUS 9 - 0, U the P riv « fc e Participations in space research 
should grow as you hope it will, and especially with the space 
station mission, is NASA considering looking at the possibility 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 3 



of private industry/ underwriting, the cost of our space 
operations at any point in the future. 

BEGGS We'll I think we are anticipating the day when the 

Shuttle will be a self sustaining program, that is, from the 3 
classes of customers that use the Shuttle, the military, the 
commercial sector, and the government itself, and foreign 
activities, using the Shuttle. I think the investment this 
country has made, however, in the Shuttle and in the Shuttle 
space station interface should be considered in the same way that 
we consider investments in the primary transportation 
intrastructure of the nation, as we all know, the highways, the 
airways, the air ports, to some extent, the railroads, and the 
inland waterways, are constructed and the capital cost covered by 
the Federal Government , in the anticipation, that once that 
intrastructure is in place, it will enhance, and improve the 
commerce and of course the standard of living, and the ability of 
our people to move freely around the country. And I think what 
we are doing in establish this same intrastructure in space, is 
to provide the same opportunity for both business and eventually, 
I believe, the public, to move freely in this new environment. 
What we have established here, I think is a very versatile 
system. It will be with us for, that is the present generation, 
will be with us for the next 25 years or so. And then we will 
probably go on to the next generation. But in the Space Shuttle, 
and Space Station combination, we expect from an operations point 
of view, eventually, the private sector will be contributing a 
significant percentage of it's cost. But the capital cost we 
will consider to be an investment by the country, in a very 
important activity, to facilitate commercial and other 
development. 

ANDREWS Just a quick followup, in the initial stages, 

especially with the 3M venture, are there any payments being made 
initially by 3M to NASA for participation. 

J-EHR No. No. we don't require that of anyone, who joins 

us in these kind of activities. 

PAO St. Paul, I'd like to take it back here to 

Washington, and switch it to KSC, we're running out of time, on 
the bird. Can you go to KSC now, please. 

KSC PAO Okay, we have several questions, Al Sealstead from 

the Baltimore Sun first. 

SEALSTEAD This question is for Mr. Lehr. . Sir, at the risk of 
be - I'd like to go back to Teresa Foley's original question, it 
is difficult to understand the extent of 3M's plans for this 
project without getting some idea of how much money you're going 
to invest in it. Now, perhaps you can't be percise, but are you 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 4 

talking about $10,000 or $100,000 or a million dollars, could you 
answer that? 1 

LEHR No ' I can't answer specifically, because as a 

matter of fact, our down payment is really part of the total 
research investments that we have made over years and years. All 
we are doing is taking now, some of those projects, or programs 
or experiments, and putting them in a new environment. Now 
obviously, there's a cost to that, and we have a number of people 
assigned in our laboratories to develop the mechanisms by which 
those programs can be transferred into soace. it is a peoole 
cost, and then there's some additional cost, but it's mostly a 
people cost. As wo move forward, because this is an unknown 
area, we really can't predict exactly what we will spend. As in 
most of our research programs we budget an amount of money each 
year for scientific research, out of that comes a defined need 
for additional investment. When that time comes, we then look at 
the investment, determine whether it will be cost efficient, what 
its chance of success will be. That is what we will do here. 
After these initial experiments, this year, we will then look at 
what it will take in order to continue these programs on these 
particular tests and determine what we may think the commercial 
value can be and how much of our research budget should go to 
that. Certainly, if it looks like it can be commercialized to 
the benefit of our company and of our country we will invest in 
it. We have a company with a very strong balance sheet, a good 
growth record, we can afford to invest. Certainly, up to the 
point that we think if will be a sound investment for our 
company. 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhf 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Go ahead KSC, 

MIKE MEECHUM (Gannette News Service) There have been previous 
crystal growth experiments on Space Shuttle missions. For anyone 
at 3M who can answer, does your research grow out of any other 
results that other people have obtained from such experiments? 

PAO Did you hear that? 

3M Yes, I heard that. We know that inorganic crystals 

have been grown in space successfully. We are not aware of any 
organic crystals that have been grown. We think that we are on 
the frontier of a new science perhaps. We're very excited about 
the possibilities that microgravity will make this possible. 

MEECHUM Do you anticipate that your research work here is 

as research that will help manufacturing on earth or do you 
anticipate that it will lead to manufacturing in space? 

3M Well that's an interesting question to think about 

because it may lead us to ways in which we can do it on earth. 
Perhaps it's as simple as making a seed crystal, which if you go 
back to the days of the first crystallization of enzymes, you had 
to put the new enzyme into the refrigerator where it has first 
been crystallized in order to get it to crystallize again. That 
may be a possibility. It may also be that it would be more 
economic to do it in space. We just can't decide that without 
doing the experiment first. 

BEGGS This is Jim Beggs, If I can add just a quick 

comment it's NASA's desire that both things will result, 

PAO KSC Reggie Turnell from BBC. 

REG TURNELL (BBC) May I ask Dr. Podsiadly whether he 
anticipates making any use of Spacelab facilities. It seems 
significant there's been no mention of that so far and may I ask 
Mr, Beggs on a different question whether his reference to 7 or 8 
flights this year implies that 2 or 3 of the 10 scheduled 
missions are likely to be cancelled? 

PODSIADLY Under the present guidelines and the policy for the 
Space Shuttle or the Space Station which should be up hopefully 
in a decade^ that's too far to see right now. We have to do the 
first set of experiments and after that do another set of 
experiments and hopefully we'll get that stage that we could 
utilize the Station if it's there. Right now it's just too early 
to tell on something like that. 

BEGGS There originally were, to my, to the year I'm 

referring to you which is the fiscal year, I go by fiscal years ~ 
I'm stuck here in Washington. We originally had scheduled 9 in 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhf 2/8/84 9s 30 am PAGE 2 



this fiscal year, I believe, and one of those is in jeopardy 
right now, that's a DOD flight so we're down to 8 and one of 
those 8 has always been a contingent mission based on filling it 
up so that's the reason I say 7 or 8. I expect we'll fly 8 as I 
sit here today but we have definitely one of the previous 
scheduled flights in jeopardy. 

PAO HDQ We can take another from Kennedy. 

PAO KSC Bob Holtz, did you have one? 

BOB HOLTZ (Aviation Week) I'd like to clarify on Reggie 
Turnell's question. He was talking about Spacelab, not the Space 
Station, that you'd be using term facilities on Spacelab. 

PAO HDQ That's for Dr. Podsiadly I believe. 

PODSIADLY Yes, my appologies on the confusion there. As far 
as using Spacelab in future missions in cooperation with some of 
the European Investigators, yes that's a strong possibility. 

PAO HDQ We'd like to switch it now to the Johnson Space 

Center. 

PAO JSC Jules Bergman, ABC News. Okay, Craig Covault, 

Aviation Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) For Dr. Podsiadly, I'm sorry on 
the pronunciation sir, in St. Paul, to the 3M representatives in 
St. Paul, can you describe a little more specifically when you 
bought your getaway special reservation or your first getaway 
special flight and also describe in a little more detail the type 
of middeck experiments that you would be looking to do. 

PODSIADLY Okay, I'll take some time to try to describe it 
without getting into too many details. As far as the getaway 
special, we are interested in one which is in the process of, new 
ones with opening lids so we can take advantage of the vacuum of 
space. We're following the normal lines of communication through 
NASA on getting on the scheduling for those new experiments. As 
far as those going in the middeck, let me give you a general 
outline of our plan. We hope to have one of the lockers on the 
middeck contain a number of samples of a single set of 
experiments. Our general approach is to say 50% of those will 
contain known materials where we have a baseline here on earth. 
The other 50% will be some of the more exciting materials we'd 
like to look at. Our plan is once NASA under its guidelines is 
ready to release, we would like to in the technical forum say at 
national conferences, technical conferences and in the technical 
press relay that information to other scientists. Those that are 
more of interest to 3M we'll take appropriate means to follow 
those through before we disclose them. 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhf 2/8/84 9s 30 am PAGE 3 

PAO JSC Let's go to Bob Bizell, NBC News. 

BOB BIZELL (NBC News) It's a question for Mr. Beggs. In 
reference to the possible number of Space Shuttle flights, how 
serious a difficulty is the Space Shuttle program in until the 
problem with the PAM rocket which obviously we saw on this 
mission is resolved? In other words, without communication 
satellites to launch what are you going to do with the Shuttle. 

BEGGS Well, the next PAM assist payload we have is in 

June. This is early February. I'm confident that we will have 
that PAM problem resolved by June. We have had, as you all know, 
we've had problems with solid rockets bedeviling us throughout 
this past year. We had a problem on the SRB which you're all 
familair with. We had a problem on the IUS which you're all 
familiar with. Now we've got a problem on PAM. All of these 
problems, I believe from a rasearch point of view are related, I 
think they are basically nozzle problems and I believe that we 
have, the program we have ongoing to resolve those problems will 
yield results in the very near future. We pretty much resolved 
our problem on the SRB already and I think the PAM problem will 
yield very quickly to a solution. But I should say currently 
that we don't have know the full dimensions of that problem. 
Fortunately, the lot from which the 2 that malfunctioned came 
with a lot of 5 so we have 3 to look at and work with to 
determine what went wrong and I think we will determine that 
within the next few months. 

PAO JSC I would like to remind the participants here at JSC 

that this is a NASA joint 3M conference. That's what it's all 
about and if you restrict your questions to that I would 
appreciate it. Right here, this gentlemen. 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhg 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



ANOLITEASSS (Voice of Germany) A question to Dr. Beggs. Dr, 
Beggs, the Communication Satellite Corporation, COMSAT, and MBB, 
and another company are setting up a new joint venture, a new 
company called SPARTH and they tried to do remote sensing on a 
strictly commercial basis, Do you foresee a chance for remote 
sensing going commercial, as satellite communications did a 
number of years ago? 

BEGGS Yes, I do. I think there^ an opening and an 

opportunity there. With respect to the specific proposal you've 
referred to, it has been submitted to the agency and we're 
studying it, in order to make that viable from our point of 
view, there is an ongoing negotiation that's got to be 
concluded, 

MALCOLM MCCONNELL (Readers Digest) This question is for Mr. 
Beggs and Mr. Lehr. About 80 years ago, the Wright Brothers had 
an aircraft and Professor Marconey had a wireless telegraph, and 
neither of them had commercial sponsors, and neither of those new 
technologies were exploited until the cataclysm of World War I. 
Do you see the exploitation of this new technology in a peaceful 
means as a fundamental shift, in the way that mankind is going to 
exploit its science and technology? 

LEHR' Mr, Beggs, I'll let you go ahead. 

BEGGS We'll obviously if events occur, and results occur, 

from those events, obviously many things have happened as a 
result of civil strife. However, I think at least from my 
background in health care, we have 3een a great many new products 
and new technologies for the benefit of mankind coming as' a 
result of initial phases of this space program. So this in my 
opinion is just another further step of the continuation of the 
spin off that comes from an important program like this. 

PAO Sylvan Rodriguez. 

RODRIGUEZ (KTRK-TV) For Mr. Lehr, have you an idea where these 
advance research institutes will be located, and what does this 
announcement this morning, mean to cities like Houston that 
already has a large 3M office here. Will jobs be here or is most 
of that research going to be done in St. Paul? 

LEHR If I may, I would like to refer that Dr. Podsiadly, 

because he's the one that's been working with that concept. 

PODSIADLY Representees from NASA and myself have been 
discussing various concepts here. The advance research 
institutes should be looked at as not a building filled with 
people, but as a concept of utilizing industry, academics, and 
the government on a national basis. There are a lot of details 
to be worked out. We have provided a lot of suggestions, based 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhg 2/8/84 9$ 30 am PAGE 2 



on some of our recent experiences working with Univerisity 
Professors, that have been very positive, and we will be working 
those details as soon as the next few days, we will begin with 
them. 

PAO Jules Bergman. 

BERGMAN (ABC News) I now have my question ready, David, thank 
you. This is kind of 3-part question, for either a 3M person, 
Mr. 3eggs possibly, or anybody. When is the earliest flight 3M 
hopes <o be aboard in the middeck area. 2, I thought Shuttle 
reservations and space we're backed up for 2 years. And 3, for 
Bonnie Dunbar, don't the astronauts who haven't been, who haven't 
flown yet, or even named to a flight, such as yourself, feel 
competitive with the payload specialist of any company? 

BEGGS Let me try, Jules. With respect to the middle part 

of your question. It is true that our flights are generally 
fully booked, in so far as the major payloads are concerned, but 
for things like get-away specials, and middeck experiments, and 
for experiments in the Shuttle bay itself, we generally have 
space available to fly those from time to time. And that's 
really what we're talking talking about here, we'll book those 
aboard, on space available basis. And I think we can accommodate 
that reasonably well. With 3M and a number of companies as well, 
if they care to join with us. I'm going to let Bonnie respond to 
that last zinger, Jules. 

DUNBAR Well, Jules, I think that we feel we are 

complimentary and not competitive. We are all in this business 
to see space beneiit mankind. We hope the commercial sector 
becomes involved, And we will be training and selecting 
astronauts' for a long time to come. I look forward to sharing a 
mission some day perhaps with a payload specialist, or a 
representative from another organization. Remember that the 
mission specialist on board is the vehicle expert. We operate 
the vehicle as well, so in that term we don't compete with the 
payload specialist. 

PAO Thank you, now we would like to go down to the 

Marshall Space Plight Center. And then after that, we've got a 
little more time on the bird I understand, I'd like to bring it 
back to Washington, we've got a couple of residual questions to 
take care of up here. So now to Marshall and then we'll come 
back to Washington. 

DOOLING (Huntsville Times) This is for Jim Beggs, exactly what 
does the MOU provide for 3M in terms of flights actually planned 
and options for future flights. You left us a little bit 
nebulous on that, and secondly, what role will Marshall have on 
all of this? 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhg 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 



BEGGS While it was mentioned, there are two payloads 

experiments that we are currently talking about, but we will 
proceed from the MOU to a joint endeavor agreement which will 
encompass all of the things we've talked about here today, that 
is, further flushing out the idea of the institutes and the idea 
of an advisory council. Advisory councils, I find require 
approvals all over town, so we'll have to work that problem 
perhaps a little longer, but we will now go to a joint endeavor 
agreement, which will be in the nature of the same thing we've 
signed with other people. As you all know the joint endeavor 
agreements we have in being, really do not specify specific 
number of flights. What they specify is the' area of activity, 
and we agree to continue to work with them as long as we are 
doing useful R&D . Once the program or the project proceeds to 
the point where it has commerical, it is a commerical activity 
producing useful products of, products which have a value then we 
put them on a paying bas<s. And this will work in the same way. 

DOOLING And Marshall's role? Mr. Beggs, what role will 

Marshall have in all this, this has been NASA's lead center in 
MPS. 

BEGGS Marshall, as you all know, has a very active 

program in materials research and material processing and I 
suspect they will be one of the several centers, in fact they 
will be one of the several centers that 3M will visit, and they 
will be one of the several centers, I'm sure that will be working 
closely with 3M in the conduct of their experimentation. 

MSFC PAO Next question is from Jim Adamson, Channel 31. 

ADAMSON I'd just basically, in layman's terms would like to 

know what the possible advantages of organic crystals would be 
over crystals we're using today? 

JM Perhaps I can answer that, there' re limitations to 

inorganic crystals and we know from other experiences that 
organic crystals can have, and perhaps enhance properties over 
inorganic crystals. That's what we're looking for. We don't 
know whether we will find them, we suspect that we will, and we 
certainly hope that we will. 

GENTRY (Decatuer Daily) Mr. Krogh, we've discussed the 
inorganic crystals, but you haven't gone in much detail about the 
thin film aspects of your experiment. What do you hope to 
accomplish in these experiment? What possible commercial aspects 
do you get into with research like that? 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhh 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



KROGH Well, I think Mr, Lehr stated in his opening 

remarks that one of our areas of expertise is surface chemistry 
and presicion coating* We continue to develop products in which 
the layers of which we are coating are thinner and thinner. We 
need to know from a scientific point of view what happens to 
those under various conditions. And the micro-gravity and very 
high vacuum of space gives us an opportunity to study those in a 
scientific manner which you would have difficutly doing on 
Earth, Now what we hope to learn out of that is ways of making 
our products better, and also to develop products with new 
applications. Whether we manuf actor those in space or not is a 
good question, I can't tell you right now, but I think what 
we're after here is just more just plain scientific information 
which will help us develop better products for the future, 

PAO Do we have any more questions from Huntsville? 

MSFC PAO Yes we do, a question from Tom Knight, WAFF-TV, 

KNIGHT Mr. Lehr, the initial money, whether it be 10 

percent of 10 billion or whatever the amount may be, can you 
specify a bit more where this money will be directed toward the 
initial development process? 

PAO Marshall, would you repeat that question, please. 

KNIGHT Yes, can you specify a little more where the 

initial money, whatever amount it maybe, I guess that will be 
determined some time in the future, but where this money will be 
initially applied? 

LEHR Initially applied? Well certainly we've stated 

before that we've been spending a lot of money developing new 
technologies on which we hope to develop new and improved 
products in the future. So some of that money has already been 
spent in our laboratories in St. Paul and elsewhere around the 
world. What we plan to do now is take advantage of what I'll 
call a new frontier of science, if you like, wherein you can have 
conditions for your experiment* which you cannot duplicate on 
Earth except at tremendous expense. And for the generosity and 
foresight of NASA, you now, we now have available as industry and 
academic people a laboratory with conditions which haven't 
existed before. And that information should be of value to us in 
developing products. How much we'll spend in the future depends 
very much on the results of the initial experiments and I should 
say experiments because we do have, in our minds, a number of 
those beyond the two we've mentioned. 

PAO Do you have any more question in Huntsville? 



MSFC PAO No further questions. 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhh 2/8/84 9j30 am PAGE 2 



PAO I would like to bring it back to Headquarters 

then. I believe Seth Pane, did you have a question, Seth? He 

does, take the mike back there, and then we'll come back up 

here. Seth doesn't have a question. In the back of the room, 

MIKE RICHARDS {National Public Video) How long do you think it 
will be till the programs actually break even? When will NASA 
start being able to be self-supporting on these Shuttle 
flights? And the other question, posed to some of the gentlemen 
from 3M, will any of these products have any use just for people 
in their homes and things like that? what will be the actual 
practical purpose that a person on the street can have from these 
kind of developments? 

PAO Do you want to go first Mr. Beggs? 

BEGGS July 4, 1988. That's not a fair estimate. My 

view is that the Shuttle Program has a chance of breaking even by 
the end of the decade, that is '88 - '89 time period. Now as I 
said earlier, that's on an operating basis. That is taking into 
account the three customer classes that we serve. That is the 
military, the commercial, and the government itself, as you know 
we fly satellites for NOAA, we fly satellites for ourselves, we 
fly satellites for foreign countries that are scientific or 
otherwise involved in activities that relate to their 
government. So I think we have a good chance of doing that. If 
we continue to work hard at what we have been working at, at 
driving the cost down. 

PAO It looks like we're running out of time in the 

bird. Can I get one more in, two more? We're running out of 
satellite folks, I'm sorry. You folks here, why don't you come 
on up and ask your questions here. Thank you very much, ladies 
and gentlemen, and thanks for your patience as we experiment with 
this new format here in Washington. 



END OF TAPE 



STS 41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pllja 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 

PAC Good afternoon, or evening, or whatever it is and 

welcome to our change-of-shif t press conference with off-going 
Flight Director Harold Draughon. Harold. 

DRAUGHON Okay, I'll briefly go through the activities we 

had today. Just as a virginal overview, today's activity was 
almost totally dedicated to SPAS activity, that was the main 
theme for today. This morning the SPAS was running a little bit 
warmer than it had been, It has been gradually increasing in 
temperature over the last couple of days, and it has, in fact, 
been on for a lot longer than it was flown for the entire flight 
last - powered up for the entire flight last time* There were a 
couple of experiments that were not responding to on-off type 
controls, discrete input to those experiments. Right at shift 
handover, mid crew day today wo put the vehicle in a cold soak 
attitude to let the SPAS experiments and packages are trying to 
cool off some. That was effective, we accomplished about a 9 
degree temperature drop ?.nd the solar cell experiments which is 
one of the ones that wasn't responding did begin to work and they 
were able to command that particular package. There was a 
problem also with one of the MOMS which is an Earth observing 
experiment that has selected data takes over North America and 
Central America, I believe, generally. That had a skewed timing 
that - the time delays between an activation sequence and when it 
was going to take data had been noted on some of the previous 
data takes. We ran one pass ahead of a particular data take they 
wanted to get and the customer figured out exactly how the data 
skewing and compensated that for his data take on the next rev. 
So we finished up all of the SPAS activities that are planned for 
this flight about mid-day today and that's been powered off 
now. The GOAS instrument which is an optical device that's used 
by the Orbiter much like a startracker, in fact, it's a backup 
alinement device for the star trackers. We've been doing some 
calibration measurements with it, we had done one previously in 
the flight when it was up at the nominal cabin pressure and we 
did another one after the depress to see if there was any change 
to the performance on that instrument because of the depress. 
Indeed there was, both an offset and a scatter in the data, we* re 
not sure why the scatter should have been caused in the change in 
cabin pressure. And we intend to repeat that calibration after 
we go back to a nominal pressure in the cabin after the EVA. But 
that is just something that's worthy of noting and you will hear 
those activities getting scheduled. We've done a software dump 
of GPC number 1, the motivation for that was that some of the 
error message traffic that is routine when you power off some 
hardware, in this particular case it was a CRT, was being handled 
and catalogued erronously, there's nothing at all wrong with the 
computer. We did that to gain some insight to the way this 
traffic is being handled and it had to do with this error log 
data handling when we power cycled the CRT's. Nothing to be 
concerned about and we have no concerns whatsoever for the GPC 
but we did do a software dump to gain some insight to that 




STS 41-B CHANGE~OF~SHIFT BRIEFING pllja 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 



data. I believe Randy Stone talked to you this morning after his 
shift on the attempts that had been made to do a potable water 
dump using the supply vents and the inability to perform that. 
We f ve probably exhausted every way there is to try to manipulate 
those heaters and valves in the last two shifts and have still 
been unable to accomplish a dump of the potable water system. 
We've got two other ways of - at least two other ways of managing 
that water. The easiest one is to change the mode that the water 
controller is in - in effect the radiator outlet. Change the 
radiator outlet temp, set the controller so that it lets the 
radiators get a little hotter on the freon on the outlet and that 
causes the water boilers to boil more water and it's just another 
way to get rid of the water. The fuel cells routinely 
manufacture more water than you need, so you've got to get rid of 
it somehow. If you are having some troubles dumping one other 
way to get rid of it is to boil it. So we elevated the freon 
outlet temps and boiled water during the day, late in the evening 
we went back to normal temperature on freon loops and have 
secured the water, put it back in its normal mode. That will not 
be a problem I don't believe. If we do have any further trouble 
with that system we will just continue to handle it in that 
fashion. This evening we decided to go ahead and try a waste 
water dump, there's another water tank that's isolated from the 
potable system but it has a lot of things in common with it. One 
of the things it has in common with it is the way you dump it. 
Routinely you will, on a flight of this duration, depending on 
how much is in the waste tank when you launch, you'll have to 
dump that tank once or twice. We knew we had at least one more 
dump to do and so we scheduled it today, it was only about 50 
percent full. When we turned on the heaters that precondition 
the dump valve 1 s nozzles, the heater rise rate and the general 
signature of how fast it came up, where they leveled off at and 
then how they broke on above that. And the next rise above that 
was extremely similar to the cycles we had seen or the profile 
that we had seen on the potable system and because of that we 
elected not to do that dump. So, a concern for that dump system 
and that dump valve caused us to terminate that dump on a potable 
system, I feel sure that after this team that's on the console 
now, looks at all the data and all the considerations, that I 
strongly suspect that tomorrow morning they will go ahead and 
turn those heaters back on and attempt a dump on that system. It 
is conceivable that they will find that that nozzle is also 
frozen and we'll have to go into some alternate procedures for 
managing that water system also. There are some other ways of 
getting rid of that water that involves those two systems and 
they will deal with that if we get down to that. Okay. The 
reason I was late getting here, just as I was getting ready to 
unplug, we had two anomi nail ies. We had just put the crew to bed 
and said our good nights to them for the evening and we had two 
anorainallies right there. The first one was that the RPC or the 
power input to the vernier jets, these are the small thrusters 
that we use most of the time in just routine attitude control and 



STS 41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pllja 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 

attitude maneuvers on orbit, they are the little bitty guys that 
are terribly efficient, two of those jets all of a sudden failed 
off-line or indicated that they were unpowered. The crew was in 
the process at that time of turning off a lot of the normal 
thrusters and going to what is a nominal configuration for sleep, 
when we keep most of that hardware secured, Vance perceived what 
was going on and started repowering those systems as we looked at 
the data and tried to - the main intent was to get whatever data 
we might need to work on this problem during the night and as 
quickly as possible get them back into a safe configuration and a 
stable configuration for the sleep period. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING plljb 2/8/84 4:30 pm Page 1 



DRAUGHON We got that data and what we did was secured those 

thrusters, went over to a control mode that has the aft normal 
jets, or the larger thrusters, but only in the aft end, working 
to control the vehicle's attitude. The main reason for that is, 
that those larger thrusters in the front of the vehicle makes so 
much fuss that it's a concern or bothersome for the crew when 
they're trying to sleep with those big thrusters up front going 
off when they're asleep. So we just go to an aft only control 
mode* The vehicle wobbles around a little bit, and it's not 
terribly precise, but when we're just asleep at night, it's 
adequa e enough* So that happened, as I say, just as I was going 
off the console* The imediate look at the data indicates that 
there is an intermittent interuption of power going on to the 
electronics that's controlling R5R and R5D, that is the right 
firing jet and the down firing jet, in the aft po<? on the vernier 
system, The thing almost always had power to it, but it was 
intermittently dropping out. When it dropped out, if you tried 
to fire a jet it would not have worked, it would not have 
fired. There was not a loss of control, but it was an absence of 
control, if you perceive the difference. You might not be able 
to do what you wanted to do, but it wasn't doing strange things 
to the vehicle. So we went over and established the normal 
system. That's as far was they had chased it, when I left there, 
is to see that what the problem was, was to the control 
electronics to the jet, there was the power going away, in some 
intermittent fashion. For the EVA tomorrow, the first thing you 
think about is what are the potential ramifications there. John 
Cox, pre-flight worked on this aspect quite a bit and we have 
another control mode called low Z, and 2 axis as you will 
remember is the straight up the top or down to the bottom. Low z 
means that no thrusters that are, whose throat is oriented upward 
are allowed to fire. If you want to fire something that normally 
you would do that with, you use another set of jets, or another 
pair of jets that are less efficient. And if you'll think about 
that for a while, although it doesn't seem all that obvious, 
there are other combinations with which you can do any kind of 
attitude manuever you choose to with out firing and up firing 
jet. So tomorrow unles they rather quickly in the morning find 
out what's wrong with the verniers, I would suspect to find John 
doing the EVA tomorrow in a low Z control mode. It shouldn't be 
any problem all, the thruster envelopes during the EVA have been 
carefully looked at, the size of the plumes have been looked at, 
the relative locations of the traverses on the MMUs have all been 
looked at and preplanned for just this case, They are all go 
pretty much right out the -z axis of the vehicle and all the 
approaches are made down the -z axix. So that will not perturb 
his plans at all tomorrow* The other problem was a problem with 
the potty. The Waste Management System got blocked* Hoot got 
the short straw and then got something and freed whatever it was 
that was, if you know a little about that system, when there's 
some matter in there, it's open to vacuum, and whatever you put 
in there gets pretty freeze dried rather quickly and gets very, 



V 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljb 2/8/84 4:30 pm Page 2 

he describes it as adobe, but it's very hard, and it is indeed 
freeze dried, it's open to a vacuum when the lid's down and the 
slide valve shut. So something got in the wrong place in there 
in the slinger and just froze it up. The circuit breaker on the 
slinger motor kicked out. He was in the process of chipping away 
the adobe that was causing the problem and after that we looked 
at the size of the circuit breakers and the things that were 
involved and gave him a go to reset that breaker. He did that 
and all the systems are bacK on line. So they got that back to 
working. There is a continuing, you all will surely recall we've 
had some difficulties with that on some of the other flights, and 
that system is ongoing some continual mods, we are flying a 
slightly different configuration than was flown on flight 9. On 
flight 9 the tines, some of the rotating equipment that's in 
there, the upper tines were removed on flight 9, didn't work a 
whole lot better, both the upper and lower tines are off on this 
particular flight and this is the first complaint that we've had 
and they're reset. Hopefully, we'll clear that up. I've got 
some, for later, well I can give you the times now. You ought to 
Know, I knew you were going to be interested in the mission stuff 
and there are 3 options still being evaluated with regard to 
orbital mechanics and when we're going to land and when we're 
going to do deorbit, but the general data is about the same in 
that it's only affected by a couple of minutes, but ignition is 
cm the order of day 7, 22 hours, 18 minutes and from what I'm 
looking at here, that can vary as much as 3 minutes, so for 
general ballpark, that's what you ought to think about for <x 
landing at KSC on rev 127. I've got the numbers for other 
opportunities. Tomorrow when I come over I'll bring a gcod set 
of, what I think will be the final plan with the uncertainty out 
here, there is a DTO, a test burn, that we are considering that 
we are going to schedule in and there are some options on how you 
target that particular burn. What attitude you put the vehicle 
in, how much retrograde or radial or posigrade you let that 
manueyer be. And what that does for you, it lets you trade off 
lighting and sunrise on other opportunities versus the nominal. 
And we're continuing to evaluate those particular data and 
playing that as we get a little more and more refined on the 
weather. I wasn't at the meeting that was held today, but they 
talked to the local weather experts and the truth is that it's 
too early to tell. Anybody who thinks they know what the 
weather's going to be at the Cape Saturday must be psychic. It 
ooks promising, but it's not a sure thing. We are continuig to 
follow that, as we get in a little closer, we may play this 
particular burn more toward one of those options than another 
one. It doesn't have a significant effect, quite frankly, but it 
does improve the wave-off capability or the lighting capability 
on a given rev, or a 1-day extention, if we should come to 
that. And when we get down a little closer and think we know the 
weather a little better, we'll let that enter into the decis on 
making on exactly how the target is burned. But we intend to 
keep all of our options opened. No matter what we do with these 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljb 2/8/84 4:30 pm Page 3 



burns we're going to have a full EVA* The intent is to have a 
full EVA tomorrow, and to go forward for the landing at KSC on 
Saturday and to preserve the option for a 1-day extention to KSC 
on the next day if it's needed. That's what I have, 

PAO Ok, we'll go to q estion now here, Lynn. 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Harold, could you explain just one more time 
about the vernier jets and tomorrow's EVA, Normally the jets are 
working to hold the ship in a certain attitude, and if these jets 
aren't working, which jets will be working? 

DRAUGHON Ok, normally we have, there are a set of large 

thrusters and then there are some small ones. The verniers are 
very efficient for doing small tasks, like attitude control or 
very slow attitude manuevers, and as you would expect, their 
plumes, or what they put out is also small. That's what they're 
normally used for, just housekeeping kind of tasks onorbit. We 
would generally do things like deploys or EVAs, those kinds of 
things that are, you want things fairly stable, with the vernier 
jets on line. Tomorrow we will not use that system at all. If 
you've, the vernier system by design is not redundant like most 
other things on the Orbiter, its redundancy is in the fact that 
we have the other system, the normal, what we call the normal 
jets, or the primary jets. And these primary jets are terribly 
redundant within their own right* There are 4 yaw jets out- 
firing on each side, there are 3 pitch jets on the tail on each 
side, that kind of thing, so it's terribly redundant within its 
own right, and then the vernier jets just another thing to give 
you control, real precise control when you need it. So we're 
just going to go to the normal system. Within that normal 
system, you can work with full control authority allowing all the 
jets to fire in their most efficient manner, which means they 
generally fire opposite to where you want to go and push you that 
way. But in an EVA case, or in a deploy case, like had we gotten 
to rendezvous with the balloon, or if you were going to go pick 
up SPAS or something like that, you'd go to this low z mode which 
disables upfiring jets, and you'd do it with canted jets, jets 
that aren't exactly perpendicular to where you want to go and it 
keeps plume from ever establishing a big high pressure pattern 
above the payload bay when you are approaching something 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljc 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 



SHERR In terms of the EVA, is there anything, where are 

these jets, that's different from the venier jets that you are 
not going to be using? Is there anyway that Bruce and Bob will 
not be able to go, because you're going to switch system? 

DRAUGHON No, no, there's not, not on this particular 

flight. On some other flight, doing someother task, that could 
be a consideration. On this particular EVA, what they are 
planning to do, that will not be a problem. You would have to be 
going on top of the OMS pods, back beside the tail, or out in 
front of the nose for that to be a concern to you. They hadn't 
planned to go there. 

PAO John Wilford. 

WILFORD (New York Times) is any thought being given to a 
rendezvous attempt on Friday with the balloon, with the fragment 
of the balloon? 

DRAUGHON None whats ever. 

PAO Mort Dean. 

DEAN (CBS) - Harold, when you said all options were open, is 
there still an option or a possibility of coming back a day 
earlier or has that definitely been ruled out, I know it was 
discussed today. 

DRAUGHON That option exist3, there's no intention to do that 

at this time. 

DEAN And would you wait two extra days to get in t*iac 

Kennedy landing, or if the weather looks bad on Sunday, at the 
Cape but looks good out on the coast, would you go to the Edwards 
on Sunday. 

DRAUGHON I got to get my days right. I don't think in 

Saturdays and Sundays anymore. If nominal end of mission day is 
bad, we will plan to go to KSC on a one day extension. If that's 
bad, we'll land, probably land at Edwards in the dark. 

DEAN Thank you. 

Or the next day after? 

DRAUGHON It depends on the how soon you know that the 

weather is bad, on that one extension day. If you know it's, 
going to be bad, on that one, there happens to be a Edwards 
opportunity and a KSC opportunity when we have that - on the one 
day extension on Sunday, that same rev has a KSC opportunity and 
an Edwards opportunity. If we know Edwards is bad and if Gary 
Coen knows that three hours prior to deorbit, that's enough lead 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljc 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 



time for him to reorder his thinking and go into Edwards in the 
dark, on a one day extension. If he doesn't find that out. or if 
they keep flirting with the decision until after 3 hours prior to 
deorbit, there's not enough time for him to reclammer what's 
going on and get ready for Edwards. He's committed to KSC at 
about 3 hours prior to deorbit. And so any decision, any 
decision to not land at KSC after that time, would mean, 
automatically mean a one day extension, or a second day 
extension, 

PAO Jules. 

BERGMAN (ABC) We had heard, Harold, that the weather looked bad 
at the Cape Saturday and looked bad at Edwards Sunday. 

DRAUGHON Not true. 

BERGMAN Not true. 

DRAUGHON No that's not what our weather people are telling 

us, let's put it that way, I don't know what's true, but that's 
not what our folks are saying. 

BERGMAN We'll see where everything goes tomorrow. 

DRAUGHON The report I got was like a 60/40 split, for, as a 

best guess on Saturday against KSC, and on Sunday about a 60/40 
favor of it. And Edwards is good on both of those days. 

PAO Okay, 

BERGMAN And to repeat, exactly those things you can land 

Saturday at KSC only, and then Sunday have you an opportunity at 
KSC, at Edwards and then KSC. 

DRAUGHON You can land at Edwards or KSC on any of those 

days. The differentiation comes in where you can land in 
sunlight and how late after you decide you can't land in 
sunlight, can you still revert back to Edwards. You can land at 
-if you start going towards a lighted KSC landing at the Cape, 
if you start going towards that, on - 

BERGMAN You mean night landing? 

DRAUGHON No, a lighted. If you go towards a lighted landing 

at the Cape, you lose your opportunity to retarget and go to 
Edwards at about 3 hours before ignition. 

BERGMAN What about, say three hours before tig time 

Saturday morning, if Gary Coen sees both the Cape and Edwards 
look bad for both days. Would you then extent automatically to 
Monday? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljc 2/8/84 4:30 pro PAGE 3 

DRAUGHON We've got the, without the rendezvous, we've got so 

much gas on board that it's, we're spending a fair amount of time 
figuring out what to do with it, to get rid of it, because we 
don't want to land with all of it, and that's a manageable 
task. We've got enough consumables to fly another four days. 

BERGMAN So Monday is a very real possibility, it's a 

possible possibility if you have too. 

DRAUGHON If we had to, we wouldn't, we will not press the 

weather issue because of life time, we've got plenty of life 
time, 

BERGMAN Let me ask you this also, If the Cape becomes a 

night landing or before dawn landing in darkness, Saturday or 
Sunday morning, would you accept that rather then extending an 
extra day. 

DRAUGHON No we would wait and go to Edwards or if you had 

knew it early enough - - 

BERGMAN I'm assuming Edwards is out. 

DRAUGHON You have no opportunity to land, you have no, 

there's no decision there. If I can't land at Edwards, I got to 
land someplace and the Cape is the - - 

BERGMAN What I am saying is, would you accept a night 

landing at the Cape? Assuming Edwards is out, and you don't want 
to extend, or you do extend to Monday? I don't know the landing 
times are for Monday, I haven't checked. 

DRAUGHON I don't know whether you, I think you fly past your 

Edwards opportunity, Jules, before you can make that decision, I 
believe, if I understand your question correctly, 

PAO Gentlemen right here, 

ANITOLEAS (German Radio) Did you tell the astronauts that the 
Soviets sent some cosmonats up, and if they had some personal 
command on that. 

DRAUGHON Just what you - we did tell them, and it was more 

or less a kind of response that you would expect. They were 
pleased to hear that. 

PAO Okay, we'll take one more here, Jerry Hanson in the 

back, and then we 1 11 go to KSC and come back, 

HANSON Hal, you drive airplanes, what are the landing, the 

weather landing minimums at KSC? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljc 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 4 

DRAUGHON 15,000 scattered, 7 miles viz, 10, I believe it's 

10 knots and, no it's 15 knots of wind with not more than 5 knots 
gust. 

HANSON And visual cues included in this? 

DRAUGHON When you specify the visibility limit of 7 olus 

miles, you've got that, 

PAO Okay, we'll go to KSC now for questions. 

SEALSTEAD (Baltimore Sun) In your discussion of those landing 
options, I inferred, and I may be incorrect, that you were also 
considering delaying, rather than to come into KSC, well after 
sunrise, is that correct? 

DRAUGHON That's not an option, when you hook to that a 

requirement to come to KSC lighted, there is only one opportunity 
per day, to land at KSC when it's in sunrise, and within our 
crossrange constraints. 

USENDER (Today) Two questions, Harold, first is on your winds, 
what is the crosswind limit, and the second one is if for any 
reason you decided you were going to try a Friday landing, when 
was the latest you'd be able to decide that. 

DRAUGHON I was asked that yesterday, and I told them noon 

today. I don't know how much weight that would hold. That's 
when I would have liked to have known it. It's possible to do 
that as late as mid-evening tomorrow, but it would be a lot more 
prudent to make that decision earlier. 

PAO KSC One more question. 

USENDER And the crosswinds, what's the max on that at 

Kennedy? 

DRAUGHON I think, yes it is. Craig Covault from Av Week is 

helping me. It was 12 knots. It was, that's correct, 12 
knots. Thanks, Craig. 

PAO KSC KSC has no further questions. 

PAO Okay, we'll come back here to wrap up, any further 

questions at JSC. Craig? 

COVAULT (Aviation Week) Has the appropriate members of the 
entry team been. running the weather decision process using actual 
KSC weather this week? 

DRAUGHON They haven't been going through, Craig, through all 

the gymnastics that they normally go through. But they have been 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljc 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 5 

looking at it each day, and seeing what the trends are doing, and 
what the conditions are. Gary is coming in tomorrow, and they 
are going tomorrow they will for the first time go through a full 
blown rehearsal, shipping, of weather data through all the same 
places, and handling it in that fashion. Tomorrow is the first 
blown rehearsal of the weather. 

PAO Okay, Paul Recer? 

RECER How much weight does the surplus propellant you 

have now add to the weight of the vehicle and how do you, in 
fact, plan to get rid of some of that? 

DRAUGHON Paul, we've got, it's in the neighborhood of 2,000 

lbs, extra, and there's a particular test objective that we're 
trying to achieve this flight, that has to do with YCG or a 
lateral off-set in the CG of the vehicle for aerodynamic control 
derivitive assessment. Those folks have wanted to get a maximum 
YCG for quite some time, they generally think, they talk in terms 
of about an inch and half. It looks like we're going to be able 
to achieve about 1.25, maybe 1.3 inch YCG. And to do that there 
ace constraints on the propellant tanks as to how much - the 
maximum amounts you can have left in the tanks and land with 
them. Because of the extra stress you put on the tanks when you 
land with a lot of fuel in them, the extra weight. So our 
propulsion people looked at that and figured out if this tank has 
gotten up to that limit in it as much as you can have and not 
exceed the loads limits, the structural limits and then on the 
other tank they looked at - what's the least I can have in and 
when I do the deorbit burn make sure I don't get an inapropriate 
cut off, gaging error and have an engine cut off during the 
deorbit burn that they didn't plan to have. And that's how you 
size that YCG, we are doing this DTO burn and we are doing our 
interconnect plan while on orbit to get there with that maximum 
imbalance. And it's a system's design - that's the biggest 
imbalance we can achieve. And we are doing that to get this DTO 
for handling qualities and flight control evaluation. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljd 2/8/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 



COVALT So you're not going to have burn off or do any 

self-counseling propulsions or - - 

DRAUGHON You want to establish this imbalance between left 

and right and then once you establish the imbalance that you 
desire based on those two things I just discussed, then you go 
back to essentially, to a straight feed and use it equally out of 
each side and just get the weight down to what you want or as 
light as you can. There's no sense in landing with more than, 
extra, 

PAO Okay. Let's take a couple more right here. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (Readers Digest) I would like to go back to 
the PAM firing and the Palapa, briefly. I'm not sure, did the 
crew eyeball that firing or were they just observing it with the 
video camera? 

DRAUGHON Just the video camera. 

McCONNELL So in other words they were not, afterwards were 
they part of the troubleshooting process? Did you, you didn't? 

DRAUGHON We talked to them about it, about what they saw and 

what they observed but we could see as well as they could what 
was on the video and they weren't a part of that process, no. 

McCONNELL And were they indeed very disappointed when they 
were informed of the second failure? 

DRAUGHON Yes, yes, they were. They worked a long time to 

get ready for this flight and that was a big part of it and they 
were disappointed the next morning when they found out. 

McCONNELL Thank you. 

PAO Terry, you had a question. 

TERRY Harold, can you just tell us what orbits if it 

lands on Friday or ends up landing at Edwards, what orbits and 
the exact times that would be, give or take a few minutes if you 
don't have the exact time? 

DRAUGHON On Friday? 

TERRY If there were to be a KSC Friday landing and also 

the times for Sunday or Monday. 

DRAUGHON I can get you that after this is over with. Friday 

is the least likely one. I'd rather, I've got all that data in 
here. I do have it with me and I'll get that for you. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING plljd 2/5/84 4:30 pro PAGE 2 



PAO Okay. Craig. 

COVAULT A quickie on the OMS again. If you have to wave 

off on Saturday morning due to weather, at the normal OMS 
ignition time for reentry will you still do an OMS burn anyway to 
set the Orbiter up in the right orbit for a Sunday Kennedy 
landing? 

DRAUGHON Craig, it depends on what they do with that DTO 

burn. If they put it strictly out of plane which means it will 
not effect sunrise or crossrange at all in the normal sense, then 
they will have to do a perigee adjust on the order of 65 feet Der 
second, if they elect one of the other two options which is a* 
posigrade or radio component or retrograde rather not radio to 
that DTO burn, one of those says you don't need to do anything at 
the deorbit time. Either of those is acceptable, it's pretty 
straight forward to go in and just do an external delta V 
maneuver of so many feet per second when you're not trying to hit 
a particular target. 

PA0 Okay and we'll take this final one and then we'll 

close off here. 

QUERY Just to make sure, a Sunday landing at the Cape is 

not ruled out? • 



DRAUGHON No it is not and, in fact, it is the current plan. 

PAO Sunday, you mean Saturday. 

DRAUGHON Saturday, Saturday I'm sorry. You keep talking to 

me about Saturdays and Sundays, Flight Day 9, that's Flight Day 



QUERY Sunday's not ruled out. 

DRAUGHON No, no. That's the, the first backoff is a 1 day 
extension which would be Sunday. 

QUERY At the Cape? 

DRAUGHON At the Cape. 

PA0 Okay, let's wrap that up. Thank you very much. 
END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2ja 2/9/84 11:30 am PAGE 1 

PAO - - questions from all media that will be recog- 

nized by the moderator here. There are a few ground rules that 
will apply. As I mentioned, participating media must be in place 
10 minutes before the start of the conference, Single questions 
for all five crewmembers will not be allowed. One question may 
be directed to two crewmembers with common assignments, such as 
commander and pilot or the two EVA astronauts. Media participants 
will be allowed only one follow-up question with each question 
asked. Questions should be brief, to the point, and we trust, 
there will be no editorial-type questions. This afternoon, John 
Cox, our EVA Flight Director, and Ed Whitsett, the MMU subsystem 
manager are here. John, could you please summarize today's 
EVA, And after that we will go to questions and answers. 

COX Thank you, Well, it's a pleasure to summarize 

today's activities. As everyone saw, we had another beautiful 
EVA today. We had a minoc disapointment in the fact that we 
couldn't do the rotating grapple activity due to the RMS problem 
we had but I think we compenstated for that with the extra shake 
down of the TPAO MMU interface that Bruce gave. I thought he put 
as much load on that system as you could possibly ever imagine in 
some of his work. Then we picked up the bonus, of rehearsal for 
an MMU rescue which we had worked in the procedures and trained 
for and Vance took right off and chased down that foot restraint 
that got astray. Did a super job on that, so that helped quite a 
bit. That was not in the plans but it was nice to see that all 
that work paid off. He did use those same procedures that we 
would have flown. The crew started the EVA about 35 minutes 
early. Tried to give them a little bit of a, at their option, a 
hedge if they wanted to install camera D at the beginning there 
so they wouldn't get behind. It appears that timeline-wise we've 
had a little problem getting out of the airlock and a little 
problem getting in. Not a problem, but the fact that we guessed 
the times a little bit wrong, preflight, so we tried to get a 
little hedge on the timeline. That seemed to work real well. 
They stayed just about on the timeline all day. We substituted 
just a series of their choice, TPAD dockings in place of the 
rotating SPAS TPAD docking knowing that your total limitation is 
generally based upon the MMU propellant that you have any how. 
So as that worked out, the time turned out to be just about the 
same. Bruce also was picking up several different checks on his 
own, we did call up some extra translations with and without 
automatic attitude control to check for bhat chattering and found 
out that Bruce had already worked off most of that anyhow. So I 
don't think we'll really know everything that was accomplished on 
the EVA even though we participated in so much of it, until after 
we hear a debriefing from the crew on it. They did dump a couple 
hours of debrief from the first EVA and we found out that they 
picked up a couple extra tasks on that one. For example, they 
did a SPAS TPAD docking on that one which we thought they had 
never gotten to* They did do the Cinema 360 velcro job which we 
thought they had done by the camera but couldn't verify it. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH IFT BRIEFING pl2ja 2/9/84 11:30 am PAGE 2 



Down towards the end today the orew picked up the hydrazine tool 
evaluation and that all seemed to go well. All the tool instal- 
lation seemed to work fine. The minor problem that they did have 
was they couldn't make a quick disconnect that would have given 
us a verification of leak check but we can do that on the ground 
once back. So, looked like all that activity went well. All in 
all, I just think as far as the EVA itself went that Presidential 
call at the end of the timeline was kind of the icing on the cake 
for those guys that had trained and worked so hard all this time 
preparing for that activity. Tonight we are doing a couple of 
revs of port sun to try to warm up the dump lines for the supply 
water system. We are going to try and do a supply water dump 
that worked for the waste system this morning, trying to free up 
some of the ice that's in the lines there and other than that I 
think everything else has been pretty nominal. You are open for 
questions . 

PAO Please identify yourself when we point you out, 

name and organization. Start here with Carlos Byars. 

CARLOS BYARS (Houston Chronicle) What's the physical condition 
of the crew at the end of this second EVA? They, of course, seem 
to be steaming along in great shape but you should have a better 
feel for that. And were they really in good shape or were they 
pretty well worn out at the end of their 6 hours and umpteen 
minutes? 

COX Well, I think we'll just have to ask them to really 

get the right answer. But just my impression of the whole thing, 
I think it went very well. This EVA, task-wise, was probably not 
as strenuous as the first one, there was just a lot of logistics 
and tools activities that are a little tough to work with but the 
thing that is tough to evaluate for anybody that hasn't performed 
this activity is how much work you're doing just to keep moving 
in the suits. I did not get any opinion that they were over 
taxed or anything, seemed like a 6-hour EVA is a fairly 
comfortable thing to do. 

PAO Bob Ezell, NBC news. 

EZELL Bruce McCandless was complaining a couple of times 

about being very cold. What was that about? That's one 
question. The second is that Steve Nesbitt said you might have 
some weather information for us and what is it? 

COX I was just trying to get the latest weather 

update, that's the reason I was a little bit late getting over 
here. I'll answer that one first. It looks like KSC weather 
would probably be a little bit marginal if we try to come in 
tomorrow but it looks like it's going to be clearing up nicely 
for Saturday. That seems to be the current trends which was kind 
of news, it looked like Saturday was marginal up till now but 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2ja 2/9/84 11:30 am PAGE 3 



there's a clearing trend heading that way, probably Saturday and 
Sunday is looking good. The first question was? 

EZELL A couple of times right before the call from 

President Reagan he was talking about being very cold, that he 
was even shivering he said a few times. 

COX There's been a modification made to these block 2 

suits, they increase the sublimator capability to allow you to 
receive more cooling based upon some chamber runs that we have 
performed. Probably we don't need quite as much of that cooling. 
So you have to keep setting your temperature control valve to 
warmer and warmer positions and the positions he kept having it 
in - it turned out that when he was in the shade he got pretty 
cold in them. There was a comment down towards the end, I've 
already got the sublimator pressure warning light which was a 
result of the fact that he had built up too much ice on there, 
wasn't using, wasn't pumping as much heat through the system. We 
said go ahead and do the normal procedure and he said, well, I 
don't think I can stand that. I'm already cool, I don't need 
anymore cooling, I'll be happy to warm up for a while. I think 
the suits worked fine. They are designed for more of the 
extremes. We may want to look and see whether we want to bypass 
some more of those sublimator plates or something. I think all 
in all they showed that they worked very well. 

PAO Question here. 

ANATOLEAS (German Radio) Do you think you really lost much 
since the astronauts docked to a satellite which did not 
rotate? You wanted a rotating satellite. Is it that much of a 
difference for the upcoming solar max mission? 

COX It would have been nice to do, I mean, obviously 

we lost that feature but I think with the work that we did with 
the docking with the TPAD interface, I think we're pretty 
confident that all works real well. We tried nice slow easy 
dockings, we did hard dockings, we tried the loads that we could 
get on the them and those are the questions most of us feel that 
from the training we're going to know how to do the rate 
matching, that's what they do the training for. A lot of the 
question was, how is that interface really going to work and we 
were questioning it, you know, how was that interface going to 
work if you were misaligned and came in from a different angle. 
Well, with all the banging and the different alignments that they 
did do, I think we probably picked up all the engineering worth 
that we possibly could out of that. 

PAO Paul Recer, AP. 



RECER Two questions. Do you have any more information as 

to what was wrong with the wrint joint on the RMS? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p!2ja 2/9/84 11:30 am PAGE 4 



COX Don't have it nailed down. We won't know until we 

take the arm apart and look at it after the flight. We had an 
arm base electronics warning light for the wrist yaw and some of 
the folks were speculating that it's probably related to the 
computator there that feeds the logic circuit that would drive 
the motor so once we had it narrowed down to that small area we 
know that we weren't going to be able to have redundancy in the 
way we move that motor and since the arm was in the right 
position for stowing, that joint was, was in acquisition for 
stowing, we knew we had backup control of that joint but we chose 
- since we wouldn't be able to be GO with that configuration just 
to go ahead and stow the arm at that point. 

RECER Second one. Can you without qualification now say 

that the MMU and all the hardware are ready for the solar max 
rescue mission? 

COX My opinion, I think it worked great. You might ask 

the man that designed the machine. 

WHITSETT I was certainly happy with the MMU. I think it 

really worked great and Bruce and Bob were tremendous pilots in 
flying the thing and really showed its capability. The hardware 
worked great, so I feel we are ready. 

RECER So you would recommend that we proceed with solar 

max without qualification? 

WHITSETT You bet. 

PAO We'll go to Jules Bergman, ABC, now and then we'll 

move over to Lynn and (garble). 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC News) John, this is for you, for you and Ed 
I guess. Are there any changes you are going to recommend in the 
way this MMU performed? I know you are the father of it. It 
worked beautifully and you are to be commended, I suppose, for 
both your imagination and your persuasion going back 20 years. 
Are there any changes at all you are going to recommend? 

COX From an operational point of view, we didn't see 

anything during the flight. I was chatting with some of the 41-C 
crew who happen to be there for part of the time and they were 
quite pleased with the way it performed and nobody saw anything 
that needed to be changed. I noticed listening to some of the 
debriefing, Bruce had a couple of ideas on it but I think his are 
more for a space station type of an application and that's what 
he was intending the comments. He's been in the design business 
for a long time on that topic also. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jb 2/9/34 12:00 pm PAGE I 



WHITSETT And I would agree with John. The hardware worked 

fine and can't think of a single problem that would cause us to 
make any changes at all, I think it's go just like it is. We'll 
check it over at the Cape and make sure it took the landing and 
flight okay and put them back onboard and we'll be ready to go 
for Solar Max Repair, 

BERGMAN You say at the Cape, 

WHITSETT Yes, 

BERGMAN You 1 re pretty confident, landing at the Cape, 

WHITSETT Well, I'm assuming it's going to land at the Cape, 

that's not my area but, wherever it is, when it gets back to the 
C&pe we will do our work on it there, 

PAO Lynn Sherr, ABC. 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) John, can you elaborate on the gear that Bruce 
saw that he was a little startled by that he tucked back together 
because he said the pay load bay doors wouldn't close. I wasn't 
clear what that was all about. 

COX There is a little bracket that holds the, that 

pushes the slide wire into the right position. The slide wire, 
which we have one running up and down the longeron on each side, 
they're attached and then there's a little bracket that holds 
them in a position relative to the doors. That bracket had come 
loose. It's held by pip pins where you just pull on two little 
(garble), release and you can pull the pin out. We were all 
speculating when that must have happened because it was working 
during the first EVA. We were out of ground contact when they 
picked up camera D and brought it in. We were quite surprised at 
the end of the first EVA that they had done that. That's right 
in that same area and somebody must have caught themselves on 
that pin and pulled it out so, and they weren't aware of it 
because they went straight on in afterwards. So when we went out 
there this time Bruce saw it because the first thing he did was 
take camera D back out again and he install the pin before he 
installed the camera. 

SHERR Is it accurate that had he not done that you would 

not have been able to close the doors? 

COX No, it's just you don't want to take a chance of 

getting anything loose that might get into the door mechanism, 
it's close you know with a misaligned or the appropriate amount 
of bad luck you might get it into a place where it could jam but 
more than likely it wouldn't have. 

PAO Tom O'Toole, Washington Post. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jb 2/9/84 12:00 pm PAGE 2 



TOM 0 1 TOOLE (Washington Post) For Ed Whitsett, Is there any 
reason, seeing how the MMU worked so well, for staying with this 
300 foot safety limit on the next, on the Solar Max Mission? Any 
reason why one of the crew, why Nelson couldn't go out to 400 or 
500 feet? 



WHITSETT I don't think there's a nagic number. You could 

prooably stretch that to 400, 500 feet. I think the basic issue, 
though, is that you like the crewman to be able to have the 
capability to come home should you have a radar problem or 
something like that and from what we know right now, 3 or 400 
feet is about as far as he has good visual references. So, I 
think we'll stay with that ground rule. 

0 ' TOOLE on the Solar Max you'll stay with it. 

WHITSETT Right. 

cox * might elaborate a little bit on that. We 

selected that distance based upon how well the Orbiter can see 
them and if you had to rely on payload bay lights, for example, 
you begin to lose resolution out beyond say 3 to 400 feet. We 
learned that from the STS-7 flight working with the SPAS so as a 
recommendation we tried to keep in closer in case, for some 
reason, the Orbiter had to do a rescue you didn't have to start 
from aplace where you couldn't see them. That was just kind of 
an arbitrary number and we thought that, that gave us plenty of 
redundancy with his locator lights and our distance measurinq 
equipment that we could do that. As far as the Orbital effects 
that you might get from a Kepler point of view, you can go well 
beyond that 2 to 300 feet. We looked at distances out 5, 6, 700 
reet and they don't seem to be anything you would significantly 
be aware of as a pilot. You would normally make your small 
corrections and probably not notice them. You get out much 
beyond that you'll have to probably train to a slightly different 
technique. This crew hasn't worried about that type of a 
training^ so we're very comfortable with that type of range and it 
works well for the Solar Max case also. 

PA0 . We'll go to Craig Covault from Av Week, then we'll 

go to the Kennedy Space Center for questions. Craig. 

CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) A couple questions. The first 
one is did viewing the tapes that perhaps got dumped after the 
first EVA hear anything that you could share that would be 
especially interesting and then the second question is, I can 
recall as today's activity had been planned really for the last 
couple of years around here, there had been some discussion if 
you couldn't do a SPAS type rotating track and dock that perhaps 
you would do an attitude change on the Orbiter. I think I heard 
Bruce bring that up half in jest and maybe not half so in jest. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p!2jb 2/9/84 12:00 pm PAGE 3 



Did you ever give any serious consideration on Orbiter attitude 
change? 

COX Well, he would have wanted a 1 degree per second 

rotation of the Orbiter and we didn't seriously consider that at 
all. You can imagine what that does for an MMU rescue scenario 
or anything like that so we always like to be in a posture for 
that. So, no we did not consider anything like that. 

COVAULT And the tapes, anything? 

COX As far as the tapes, I'm trying to think. There 

was the fact that they did get the TPAD docking on the SPAS that 
was a surprise to us. Bob had several comments on transporting 
tools to the MFR. Probably is better to put that on the arm 
without the tools and bring it over to that station to load it 
up. I think the gist of most everything that we picked up on the 
tape was almost what you were picking up in real time. Very 
pleased with the RMS as a working platform. Felt that it 
performed a whole lot better than they originally had expected. 
I think you picked that up probably Uve also. They had some 
trouble getting the MFR extension dc h \ but listening to the tapes 
we also think that was due to the fact that the way they put the 
tools on and the order in which they did it probably made it 
difficult to get to the release mechanism to get the arm down so 
probably it's not a fundamental design problem or anything but 
just something the folks have to look at. They had some other 
comments about how easy the extension was to rotate and maneuver 
and whatnot that don't require design changes or anything, just 
general comments. Don't remember anything else that was 
significant in there. 

COVAULT Okay, thank you. 

PAO All right. We'll go to the Kennedy Space Center 

now. We understand we also have questions from Marshall. Then 
we'll come back here so Kennedy we're ready for your questions. 

DICK LEWIS (Chicago Sun Times) I guess this should be for Ed 
Whitsett. How much flying time do we have on the MMUs now? 

WHITSETT Well, the last numbers I saw were about 2 and 1/2 

hours during the first EVA and if I can steal some of John's 
under here we got about 5 hours on the second EVA, 5 hours and 10 
minutes. 

COX 5 hours total. That's a 5 hour and 10 minute 

total. 

WHITSETT For both EVAs? 



COX 



For both EVAs. 



\ 



STS-41-B Cf*ANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jb 2/9/84 12:00 pm PAGE 4 
WHITSETT Okay. 

cox So we got about the same on both of them. 

REG TURNELL (BBC) Do you have any feeling that the RMS failure 
might be related to the fact that it was hauling Bruce McCandless 
around just before it was stowed on Tuesday and related to that, 
if it should fail during the Solar Max in this way is that the 
end of the mission or is there any alternative way of 
accomplishing it? 

cox Okay, on the first question about the RMS failure 

related to Bruce, we all asked ourselves that question but then 
it was quickly discounted in the fact that we would have seen the 
failure yesterday. There was quite a bit of arm motion after 
Bruce was off of it and we felt that most of the stress was 
probably put on when he was bouncing at the, on it at the MEB 
site so we felt pretty much that we would have seen something 
there so we're quite puzzled. We don't think it ;iad anything, 
that that particularly had anything to do with it. As far as the 
Solar Max Repair, we do rely entirely on that arm working. We do 
not yet have a backup technique to get the satellite onboard, 
however, there are several proposals that our people have been 
working on over the last several months and if one of those comes 
to a fruition then we may have a backup but at this point we 
don't. So that would be a tough one on the way the current plans 



LEWIS I wasn't clear about the total number of hours. 

Was that 5 hours and 10 minutes on each or on both? 

Cox Total time, let's see the port had a total of 4 

hours and 3 minutes, the starboard 1 hour and 7 minutes. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jc 2/9/84 12,00 p.m. Page 1 



DENBARK (Los Angeles Times) John how far did the Orbiter have 
to go to pick up that foot restraint? 

COX Never did see the final distance, we probably ought 

to ask Vance about that. It went out of field of view of the 
camera, and I would estimate, when it was out of field of view, 
it was probably in the order of 30 feet, maybe a little further, 
by the time that Vance took off after it. But it seemed like he 
got with it in a hurry, and chased it down rapidly. So I doubt 
if it, I think he killed off the separation rate, just shortly 
after it went out of field of view, 

FRANK ESCINDA (Today) John, I think I may have misunderstood 
this before, but were you saying that on that wrist that was 
inoperative this morning that there is a duplicate system, that 
you didn't want to risk using, or there is no backup system on 
that? 

COX We could still drive the motor, but we would have 

had to use the back up method of driving it, which is basically 
applying a direct voltage to the motor, without the normal sort 
of loops and whatnot and the data display, that comes along with 
the primary system that, the RMS has a primary way of operating 
that gives you quite a bit o£ flexibility, quite a bit of data, 
all the alarm anunciation that you need, makes it very easy to 
operate that way. As a backup if that primary system ever 
completely fails on you, there's still a way to 90 out and apply 
voltage to each one of the motors and drive the arm that way. We 
still had that capability on that joint, but did not feel that 
was a proper way to operate and the rules wouldn't let us operate 
that way even if we wanted to. So we could have moved the joint, 
but chose not to because there was no backup to the condition 
that we were in, 

SALESTEAD (Baltimore Sun) I gather from what you said earlier, 
about the wrist that it was today, a fundamental electrical 
problem and that it's not a generic problem of any kind, the 
design, and that you feel you can, you will be able to fix it 
satisfactorily when you get back to earth, is that correct? 

COX I think as a general assessment, we all believe 

that to be true. 

MEECHUM (Ganette News Service) I think when they lost that foot 
restraint, that Stewart was in the MMU, isn 1 1 that correct? 

COX No, he was at the FFS, 1 don't know whether ha was 

latched in *>r just held with the foot restraints, but he was at 
the FFS, had fi-^ shed his flight. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl21 0 2/9/84 12.00 p.m. Page 2 

himself J5 d f e K n ^° have ohased the «oot restraint 

' g^out after u? ° £ h3Vlng ' inStaad ot ^nueverin, th. OroUer to 

flying mmu out there. 0 had a free 

MEECHUM why would that be? 

S? X , Just adds to the complication, we like th^ 

crewman's attention on the pilot and the WTO. 

WILLIAMS (WMAL Radio) John, what exactly did you qet 
accomplished in the EVA today that allows you to believe vour 
okay for solar max, despite the problems with the arm? * 

r ! s Sri? : - aS «. 

COBAL (Space Age Times) Question probably for Ed Have vou 
WHITTSET HMU Is really driven by the suit system, the EMU 

«e 2£>t & iMt-SJsftfK tiff E°s "»'r"it23p3Ki, 

tK^si?: th, is^u/ei^., ^SHoT^is."- 1 *- * 

LEDMA^.Detroit^ew,, rd ilk. to get .„ ingress tin,, into th. 



STS-41-B CHAHGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jc 2/9/84 12.00 p.m. Page 3 



COX I think they were outside 6 hours 17 minutes, now 

if you want to back that into an ingress time, let me see if I 
wrote that down, no I just have the total phase last time of 6 
17, and we went out at 5 days, 21 hours, 24 minutes, so, 41, 
6:03:41, I would quess. 

LEDMAN What we heard earlier was the 6:17 was time on the 

EMU, is why I'm asking for ingress time. 

COX Ingress time would probably be 10 minutes prior to 

that. 

PAO KSC That's all from Kennedy Space Center. 

PAO All right, let's go to the Marshall Space Flight 

Center, I understand they have questions. We'll come back here 
to the Johnson Center, and then we'll go back to Marshall, we 
have a little communication problem. We'll go here to Mr. Petty, 
at the Chronicle. 

PETTY (Houston Post) That's Houston Post please. 
PAO I'm sorry, pardon me. 

PETTY Do you know how the foot rstraint got loose and why 

it wasn't tethered? 

COX There's two portable toot restraints, one is on the 

CESA, and ones on the CBSA. They have a big (garble) knob, that 
you turn and set them in place. Why the (garble) knob, came 
loose, I don't know. Possibly it wasn't put on tight enough at 
the Cape, or possibly all the difficulty Bob was having the day 
before getting his feet in the foot restraints, had been enough 
to jar it loose, I don't know, in explanation for the thing, but 
it worked it's way loose. After it did come loose, and we did 
reoapture it, we also recommended that they tether both of the 
portables. 

PAO You have a question back here, all right. 

Gentlemen here. 

ANATOLEAS (German Radio) How many of these remote 
manipulator systems have you, do you have any in store, I 
understand that some day the Air Force is going to fly with 2 
arms for very heavy payloada. 

COX The Orbiter basically could handle two of them, you 

know very shortly, all the software, and the electronics is 
pretty much set up to do that, you just switch from one to the 
other, the way the system is built, so we just never had, a 
reason, we felt, to have to carry two of them, I think there's — 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jc 2/9/84 12.00 p.m. Page 4 

ANALOTEAS You've got more then one, do you? 

cox We definitely have more then one, I'm trying to 

think, this is the second one that we have flown. I think there 
is two more that may have already been received or somethinq on 
that order. 

PAO Carlos Byars, Chronicle. 

BYARS A plug for Mr. Petty, John, do you know whether or 

not you had any leaks on the hydrazine freon dye leak test. Do 
you know whether or not you had any leak on that? 

cox Didn't appear to, Bob didn't think he did have, and 

the only way we're going to know now is when we get to the Cape, 
that will be the real proof of the pudding. So if the whole 
thing held together from Bob's installation, through the landing 
and everything, we'll know we have a super tool, so that will be 
the real test. 

BYARS I would assume that if this thing really had 

something serious, it would have shown up on his gloves, or 
something - - 

cox , would have seen dye or something someplace, and 

we didn't see anything. 

BYARS What was the, he was having some sort of a 

difficulty with this connection. 

COX It was just a normal quick disconnect that you 

would expect to work, and just didn't want to work. 

BY *RS Just like at a service station, and they don't 

usually work there either. 

COX Right. 

BYARS Thank you. 

cox There was a lot of speculation of what the problem 

might be, but nobody had any really good idea. 

PAO Greg Covault, Av Week. 

COVAULT John, were you watching heart rates on them from a 

work level activity, what kind of a heart rates. were you seeing? 

COX I wasn't, the surgeon was and I forgot to ask* I 

did talk to the surgeon but one break in the day, and I said it 
appears that they are not working near as hard as they did on the 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p!2jc 2/9/84 12.00- p.m. Page 5 



first EVA, and the response was, yes the medibio rates seem to 
support that, but I didn't ask what the heart rates were. 

COVAULT Kind of looking down stream, if you can look down 

solar max, and that's probably difficult. But now that you've 
demonstrated, what do you have in the back of your mind, in terms 
of flying an MMU missions a bit .no re regularly on space available 
flights, we discussed in here, with Abrahamson yesterday maybe 
the possibility of working up an external tank umbilical door, 
type repair? 

COX Well, I don't personally have any, I know that 

there are a lot of folks that can come up with a lot of good 
ideas, and good productive things that we can do. As far as 
near-term, solar max, and there is possibly some landsat repair 
that may or maynot involve them. What it really does is give us 
another option and another tool we can use, so those tasks that 
we evaluate as a RMS task or whatnot as they come in, we now have 
another tool that we can now talk with. We'll just have to look 
and see, and maybe some payloads that are more minimal to MMU 
service and type of operation. 

PAO Question in the back of the room, please. 

MILLER (KTRH) Did either of you or did either of the crew 
members notice any difference in the performance between the two 
MMUs, 

COX I didn't detect anything, I suspect we will get any 

comments on the debrief on that. 

WHITTSET I wouldn't expect that they would, you know the 

systems have been tested, we've measured pressures and all that 
sort of stuff and they were very close together, I think, well 
below the level that the crew could preceive a difference between 
the two units. In terms of their flying, I didn't get any 
comments back, it will be interesting to see if they noticed some 
subtlies though. 

MILLER It seems like it took a heck of a long time, 

setting up the exactly the right shot for the President, How 
much time did that add to the timeline I'm wondering. How much 
was cut out for that. I was wondering just how much time it 
took, because the President wanted to talk to them, 

COX It may have seemed like, but I don't think it 

probably took more than about 5 minutes or so. Probably had we 
not even told them, we gave them a teleprinter message, that said 
you may get a call, so it's obvious that they spent some time 
figuring out where they wanted to be. Because we didn't propose 
that to them. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jc 2/9/84 12.00 p.m. Page 6 



PA0 I understand that our technical difficulties have 

been cleared at Marshall, so Marshall go ahead with your 
questions please, 

KNIGHT (WAFF TV) John, I may have misunderstood Bruce, but once 
he reentered the airlock, he said something about bringing the 
pressure up or changing the pressure more slowly, something about 
an ear block, is that correct? 

COX I romember some call to that affect, I think it was 

respect to Bob though, I don't recall, it didn't pick up any 
complaints so, it must have worked out all right, he must have 
just had some trouble clearing his ears. 

KNIGHT And secondly, I'm not sure if you might have seen 

it or not, but sometime, while they were approaching the coast of 
Africa, there was an object soemewhere directly down below them, 
that caused some discussion. Do you have any idea what that was? 

COX no I don' t. 

KNIGHT And finally for Ed, now that we've had a chance to 

try out the helmet cameras a bit, are there any ideas about 
possibly any modifications to the helmet cameras where they could 
be directed by the operator more. 

WHITTSET You talking about the helmet-mounted TV? 

KNIGHT Correct. 

WHITTSET In terms of pointing, it obviously points to the 

direction that the crewman is looking. I'm not sure what you 
meant by having more operator capability? 

KNIGHT Yesterday, John mentioned, actually on Tuesday, 

after the EVA that there was some problem on which way he was 
looking, the camera would sometimes be higher than he was looking 
so it gave some degree of a problem of actually getting a good 
picture of what he was doing, With that in mind, do you think it 
would be helpful to have it where they could be manipulated. 

WHITTSET I don't think we would make a change at this point 

in time. Obviously you've got a compromise between viewing an 
area of where he's working, where his hand is, versus an area, 
straight ahead. So we picked something kind of inbetween. so, 
you give up a little bit in terms of a long view straight ahead, 
but it's really optimized for close in activity where the crewman 
is working. So I don't believe that we will be changing that. 

PAO No further questions from Marshall. 



/ 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl2jc 2/9/84 12.00 p.m. Page 7 

PAO Any more questions here, at Johnson, if not I'd 

like to remind you again of the press conference tomorrow morning 
at 5:51 a.nw central time, media here at the Johnson Space 
Center, must be here in this briefing room, no later than 5s 40 
a.m. John, Ed, ladies and gentlemen thank you very much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p!3ja 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Good morning, everybody and welcome back, Gary 

Coen will be Flight Director for entry tomorrow and just came off 
of console on the most recent shift* We'll let him begin be 
briefing on that shift and then we'll invite your questions, 

COEN Okay, Working the shift today, most of the shift 

is really in preparation for tomorrow's entry. There are quite a 
few checkouts that are done on the vehicle and stowage before 
entry and turning down some of the experiments. To capsule 
today's activities we did an FCS checkout which is a checkout of 
the flight control system. We also checked out the landing, the 
instruments that are used for landing to feed information into 
the avionics systems* We power up an APU and actually move the 
error surfaces, in fact, we used APU 1 today to do that 
activity* All those checkouts went real well. We checked out 
the crew's displays, the HUD, altimeters, tape meters, and 
whatnot. Those checkouts all went well. Looks like the vehicle 
is in good shape for entry tomorrow, we have plenty of 
consummables. We have the capability to come into KSC either 
tomorrow or Sunday, We shut down the SPAS today, we won't be 
working with that any more* We retracted the hardware umbilical 
that goes to the SPAS* Of course, we had the press conference 
with you all, I thought that went real nicely. Entry planning 
has about crystalized. We have quite a bit of information to 
give you on the entry facts as they apply tomorrow, in fact, I 
thought I would leave a handout here with you so if you have any 
detailed questions you can pick up the numbers as I leave* I 
also brought over some ground track maps because the ground track 
is a little different that the pref light ground track that you 
were given. If you would like, I can take questions on the 
activities today or any type of questions ana then maybe launch 
into a discussion of what the numerical facts of the entry are 
tomorrow* 

PAO Why don't we give them the numerical facts and then 

see if that stimulates any questions too. 

COEN When landing - is deorbit burn on rev 127 with a 

landing on rev 128. The time of ignition is at - all these times 
will be in central standard -the time of ignition is at 5*15:45 
in the morning* Lat/longs - latitude 24.2 south, longitude 95*1 
east. That's in the Indian Ocean, quite a ways, in fact, off the 
east coast of Africa. The altitude at that time is 149.2 
nautical miles* The velocity for the deorbit burn is 317 feet 
per second. The duration of the burn, 2 minutes 54 seconds. The 
crossrange to come into KSC on that rev is 524 miles, in other 
words, you fly that far sideways off the ground track to land at 
KSC* Site coverage, we have both a Guam and Hawaii pass tomorrow 
morning. Acquisition time for the Guam pass is 5:30 in the 
morning. Acquisition time for the Hawaii pass is 5 j 42, again, 
central standard. The pass at Guam is 3 minutes aid 6 seconds. 
The pass at Hawaii is 4 minutes 26 seconds. We expect - we'll 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl3ja 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 2 



have TDRS AOS, the problem with TDRS AOS is that it will be 
during communications blackout. So, the TDRS is able to look at 
the vehicle at that time, It f s a little bit of a question as to 
exactly when we will get the TDRS data because it depends on how 
well the signal is able to burn through the blackout period, the 
plasma that builds up around the vehicle. If it's close to what 
we saw at Edwards on last flight, we will get a little bit of 
TDRS data before picking up the signal at Kennedy, Entry 
interface is at 5:45 a.m. Lat/long for that is 24.57 north, 
158.44 west, altitude is 403,000 feet, and velocity is 24,390, 
range at that time to the Cape is 4137 miles* We intercept the 
heading alignment cone at 6:12 in the morning. We plan to use a 
landing at KSC 15, we'll be doing a left-hand overhead turn. The 
landing is always dictated by the surface winds and sometimes the 
winds that are 2000 feet up the glideslope of the Orbiter. The 
way the winds look right now, the predicted winds show that we'll 
be landing on runway 15. Manual control, the crew will take over 
manual control just as the intercept the heading alignmnet cone 
and that will be at an altitude of 44,056 feet. Velocity at that 
time is 827 feet per second. Projected landing, 6:16 a.m., again 
that's central. That's 13 minutes and 24 seconds after 
sunrise. During the entry there are going to be three roll 
reversals. The initial roll command is to the left, we will then 
reverse to the right, left, and back to the right again. The 
velocities for those three reversals are 12,960, 6665, and 
3410. Altitudes, respectively, 179,578 for the first reversal, 
139,319 for the second, and 97,500 feet altitude for the third 
reversal. KSC weather - weather predictions for KSC, when I came 
on shift this morning, they are predicting 25,000-foot scattered 
deck another layer of clouds at 3500 feet. Predicted winds were 
10 knots, predicted winds on the surface were 10 knots and 130 
degrees which is almost straight up the runway. The runway's at 
150 degrees* Visibility, 7 miles plus. So the prediction looks 
good for tomorrow at KSC. The weather predictions for KSC* 
Northrup, and Edwards all look good through Sunday. Ground 
track, as I said the ground track is a little bit different that 
what you were shown prelaunch, that's because we did a slightly 
different maneuver profile in the flight, than we had planned 
prelaunch* That resulted in a different crossranye. We still 
come across Baja California although a little more north than 
what you saw on your original handouts* Across Mexico, across 
south Texas looks like we enter the Gulf somewhere south of 
Houston* Xf I were to estimate on this map it would be maybe in 
the Port O 1 Connor area, proceed on across the Gulf in kind of an 
east northeast direction. We do cross land again at the Delta of 
the Mississippi, south of New Orleans, it's only a little piece 
of land there at the Delta where it projects into the Gulf* Come 
back out into the Gulf and then go southerly a little bit then on 
across the Florida coast to KSC. Like I say, I'll leave these 
maps with you so if you - - 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl3ja 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 3 

PAO Yes, We'll Xerox these and get them available to 

you here and we'll data fax them to the other Centers as well, 

COEN I also have the times and the opportunities for the 

other sites besides KSC. If we come in a day late at KSC the 
nominal plan would be to come in on - the Orbiter on rev 143 with 
a landing on rev 144* That is a day-lit opportunity and that is 
6 and a half minutes after sunrise, Crossrange for that 
opportunity is 667 miles. The rest of our opportunities to both 
KSC and Edwards are all at night time. So, the opportunity 
Saturday and the opportunity Sunday to KSC are day lit. As you 
can see both are just after sunrise in the morning. The rest of 
our chances to the various sites are at night. Any questions. 



** * 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p!3jb 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Any one have a - Carlos 3yars, 

BYARS Good morning, Gary, how confident are you that 

you're going to be coming in tomorrow at KSC? 

COEN I am fairly confident that we are going to come in 



there tomorrow. The weatherman, we're going to live with, of 
course, with, we 1 re going to go to the site that the weather 
allows us to go to. From a weather standpoint we're looking 
forward to landing at KSC tomorrow. I would hate to put a 
percentage on it because it is a landing field that is close to 
water, there are some dynamic actvities as you know, from being 
in Houston, things are fairly dynamic when you're trying to 
predict semi-tropical weather and you have a lot of affects that 
you have to contend with, I think we're going to come there 
tomorrow, I wouldn't tell you probabilities because I don't 
know, 

PAO Paul Recer. 

RECER Can the folks in south Texas look forward to any 

visual or auditory interaction with the Shuttle shall we say? 

COHEM I doubt it, I think over South Texas is pretty 

high, I have not had a pressure profile run to see where the 
sonic boom might be in to relation to town, cities, or pieces of 
the map, so I don't really know, but I think it's pretty high 
over south Texas, I can tell you that the first roll reversal to 
illustrate altitude. The first roll reversal, we're still at 
179,000 feet, and that happened to have been at 90 degrees west, 
that's 5 degrees east of the, east of Houston, that f s maybe 300 
miles east of Houston, So if it's at 179,000 feet, 300 miles 
east of Houston, it's very high over south Texas. 

RECER (grable) delta be, 

COEN Right, 

PAO Tom 0' Toole, 

0 1 TOOLE I missed the rolls, I thought I got them, was it 

left, right, left, or roll right, left, right. 

COEN The order is when we start out with initial bank 

command, it will be on the left* So we will be banking left, and 
that's to go towards the north* Then the order then is right, 
left, right. 

PAO Tom . 



0 1 TOOLE One other question. Besides all the checklist they 

have to do today, and stowage, etc, etc* Are they going to be 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl3jb 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 2 

doing anything else? And, I notice this is not pertinent, 
terribly pertinent to landing, but will *hey told the news of the 
death of Andropaux on the teleprinter or over the air-to-ground? 

C0EN I read the teleprinter before it went up today, and 

I do not recall that being on there. 

PA0 .No, it wasn't on there. It hasn't been uplinked. 

C0E N I know they weren't told air-to-ground. And I'm 

uncertain about what was in the teleprinter. 

P A0 No, it wasn't in the teleprinter message. We'll 

take one more question here, go ahe^d (garble). 

QUERY what else are they doing today besides checklist 

and getting ready for entry? Is khpze anything else they are 
doing? Any experiments they are clpsing out? 

COEN They did close out tviy SPAS. The SPAS activities 

are finished. All the experiment Activities are complete. So 
it's mostly stowage, putting all tine gear away, doing systems 
checks, which most of those are completed. This afternoon, we 
intend, before the crew goes to sleep, to uplink some messages, 
some work that we have done on thtj ground in preparation for 
entry, so that the crew will be ajle to read those messages, and 
study them a little bit before (garble) today. And they are 
mostly facts, like I'm giving ypy here. 

PA0 We'll take one more question here, and then go to 

the other centers, then come back for the remainer here. Susan 
Starnes? 

STARNES Do you have any coordinates on whether the folks in 

Houston are going to be to see the Shuttle before dawn tomorrow. 

COEN no, I don't. 

STARNES Could we get - 

COEN No, sorry, I don't,,. 

STARNES Could we get thos^ possibly? 

COEN You probably cou^J. 

STARNES Degrees above th ; ;. horizon, that kind of thing? 

COEN I think we could. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING pl3jb 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 3 



PAO Now to Kennedy Space Center, Florida, and then 

we'll come back here to Houston for remaining questions. 
Kennedy? 

KSC Reg Turnell, BBC. 

TURNELL A couple of questions, please, do you have first a 
landing weight for the Orbiter? 

COEN I do, I just don' t 

PAO And if you do, what is it? 

COEN 201,600 pounds is the estimated landing weight. 

TURNELL Say again, please. 

COEN 201,600. 

TURNELL Thank you. And we weren't hearing you too well at 



the beginning, you said the HUD had been checked out, and that 
manual control would be taken over at, I think, 44,056 feet, 
could you please just run down what the Commander will be 
actually be doing for the last 2 or 3 minutes of landing, will 
he retain manual control from that point to touchdown? 

COEN That's correct, he takes over manual control as he 

intersects the heading alignment cone. And this cone, as he is 
heading into the Cape, he makes a turn over the field, and lands 
at the appropriate runway. It is when he first starts making 
this turn, is when he takes over manual, and he flies it manual 
the rest of the way, on through the landing, and of course, on 
through the rollout. That geometrical, the intersection of that 
hack is at an altitude of 44,056 feet, like we said. The 
velocity of the vehicle at that point is 827 feet per second, so 
it's subsonic by then. I don't know whether I gave you the turn 
angle. The total turn angle to get into runway 15, with the 
heading that he is coming in on, over the Gulf is 302 degrees. 

KSC One more question. 

BOYLE Timpton Conservative) Could you hold up your ground track 
chart for a minute to the camera, as it comes over the Gulf 
please. 

PAO Hold it up, we'll also do better than that, I don't 

know if that will register on the tube, but we'll send you that 
dataf ax as soon the pr&as conference is over, and you should have 
it in your hands in about 20 minutes. 



KSC 



No further questions here. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING pl3jb 2/10/84 8:30am PAGE 4 

PA0 . Okay, questions back in Houston, your name and 

affiliation, please. 

JUNES (National Space Institute) You were talking about the HUD 
being checked out, I see it's not required for landing at KSC, 
but I've heard some commanders comment that they wouldn't like to 
land there without one. How important do you think it is to this 
landing? 

C0EN The crews consider and the Commanders consider the 

HUD to be quite important. Sometimes what you would like to do 
and what you are willing to do are two different things, and I 
think that is the distinction you are hearing. The desire and 
the need for the HUD has not so far extended to the point where 
we would absolutely not land at KSC without a HUD. Although 
there are different opinions within the community. The way our 
rules are written, there is not a definite requirement for HUD 
for that landing. 

PA0 Vour name and affiliation, please. 

JACKSON (Time Magazine) The last we were told, there was about 
2000 lbs of excess fuel, is this weight that you gave us, assume 
that that will be dumped, and if so, when are you planning on 
dumping that fuel and where? 

C0EN The way we handle the fuel in the OMS pods is that 

we simply target that the Orbiter burn inefficiently. So there's 
an optimum time to target the deorbit burn. We have two options, 
depending on how much propellant we h?ve in excess. It turns out 
on this mission, with the excess propellant, all we have to do is 
target the burn a little bit early, so it will be inefficient, 
thus costing you more propellant that you really needed to use to 
get out of orbit. On occasion we have so much propellant that we 
actually take the vehicle out of plane, and put an out of plane 
component in the deorbit burn, and that affectively wastes 
propellant for us. This flight, the plans for this flight don't 
include an out of plane component. 

PAO Yes, your name and affiliate? 



*** 



I 



STS 41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p!3jc 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 1 



BETTY NOLLY (Countdown Magazine) What happened to the SRBs? 
Were they both recovered? 

COEN I don't know. Sorry. 

PAO See if somebody in the loop from Kennedy can tell 

me over the headset and I'll relay it to you. Sherry Armet, 

SHERRY ARMET (ABC News) Gary, can you tell me if there's any 
change in the convoy for the landing since the runway's a lot 
narrower and there's water on both sides. 

COEN There is still a convoy operation. I don't know 

that, I don't know the details of how they get where they're 
going to go to work on the Orbiter. The basic, the basic job 
that convoy folks has is the same but I can't tell you where they 
park their vehicles in preparation for going out and servicing, 

ARMET I was wondering more is whether or not there would 

be any boats in the water as a contingency or anything in the 
water? 

COEN No, we're going to land on the runway. 

ARMET Thanks. 

PAO Carlos Byars again, please. 

BYARS I was going to ask you about the alligator 

patrol, Gary, what's the last, when are you going to get a go/no 
go for the landing tomorrow? Could you give us any idea about 
that or what the status would be for a decision to land Sunday? 
I would presume that if you're going, that a Sunday landing at 
KSC automatically eliminates a chance for a Sunday landing at 
Edwards, 

COEN Let me see if I can work that backwards because my 

memory can't keep up with the first question. No, we have the 
capability to land at either KSC or Edwards, Sunday, We have a 
little logic flow that we use to make those decisions. What it 
amounts to though Sunday is that we have two opportunities at 
Edwards, one is on the same rev as the prime KSC rev on Sunday 
and one is a rev later. So we have an option to land at Edwards 
on either one of those 2 revs depending on the weather situation 
at KSC, If we came down during the count and understood that KSC 
was definitely no go in time for us to make an Edwards 1 43 
landing we would do see. If there is any question as to the 
chances of making it to KSC, in other words, there was some 
chance that we thought the weather would allow us to go into KSC 
we'd go ahead and try that and then make the waveoff decision 
just prior to deorbit and waveoff to the next rev at Edwards, So 



STS 41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH IFT BRIEFING pl3jc 2/10/84 8:30 am PAGE 2 



we really have 2 decision points and the way our logic path is 
set up we would give KSC every opportunity to be prime. 

PA0 Okay, Doug Miller. Kennedy advises that the 

boosters have been recovered and returned to KSC and they're in 
good shape. Also the MOCR is sending over some digitals on the 
visibility of the Orbiter when it flies by and it'll be in the 
newsroom in about 20 minutes, it's a rather complex set of 
numbers so they're going to hand carry them over rather than read 
them over. Doug. 

DOUG MILLER (KTRH) There was some talk this morning that there 
was a^discrepancy between I suppose you call it the altimeter of 
the Pilot and the Commander and that didn't seem to be of anv 
concern. Can you explain that for us? 

C0EN They have some altitude tapes that they use and 

what they are is a little meter with a tape behind it and the 
tape moves. Part of the FCS checkout is also a checkout of the 
instrumentation that the crew has. The flight computer systems 
provide stimuli, known stimuli to these instruments for purposes 

?!L C A««4 ng out the instruments. Both instruments should read 
300,000 feet. I believe one of them was reading 305,000 feet and 
the other was reading 307,000 feet. We are not concerned mainly 
for two reasons. We had had this same experience on flight 8, 
exactly the same 2 numbers. We also knew that the differences 
were insignificant and we also knew, more importantly, that this 
was not a fixed bias that would have low altitude show this size 
of an error but it was a function of thfl signal going into the 
meters themselves. In other words, down at 2,000 feet altitude 
we knew we were not going to have a 2,000 foot error, with all 
that information and with the experience we had on flight 8 we're 
able to say that it doesn't matter, it's not a concern. 

PA0 Anyone have anything else? if not, thank you for 

your time and attention and we'll see you later in the day. 

END OF TAPE 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING pl4ka 2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 1 



PAO Good morning. I'm Maurice Parker , Public Affairs 

Office Langley Research Center and this briefing is on the Long 
Duration Exposure Facility, a payload for the next Shuttle flight 
41~C scheduled for launch April 4. Roll tape, please. This is 
the last time that the payload will be seen before it goes 
undercover for its final launch preparations* I'll introduce all 
the speakers at once so that we can speed things along. The 
first speaker will be Leo Daspit from your left. He is Project 
Manager for LDEF from the Langley Research Center, He 1 11 be 
followed by William Kinard, also from Langley, LDEF Chief 
Scientist, Dean Zimmerman from Kennedy Space Center, LDEF Launch 
Site support Manager and then Commander of the 41-C Mission, 
Astronaut Robert Crippen and Mission Specialist Astronaut Terry 
Hart, both from the Johnson Center, Leo. 

LEO DASPIT Good morning. I'll give you a brief overview this 
morning of the LDEF payload. Long duration exposure facility is 
a 21,400 pound payload to be deployed in orbit by the Shuttle 
remote manipulator system at an altitude of approximately 260 
nautical miles and an inclination of 28 and 1/2 degrees. The 
spacecraft itself is more or less passive in nature and that is 
that it is gravity gradient sabilized, it has no attitude control 
systems, no inertial reference units, no communication systems* 
The primary objective is to collect scientific data with the data 
either being retrieved in the laboratories back once the facility 
is retieved or also laboratory (garble) and associated data 
recorded on tape during the flight. We have a very simple 
interface with the shuttle. There are only 2 interfaces between 
our vehicle and the shuttle. We have 4 trunnion pins and a keel 
fitting that mechanically restrain us during the launch 
operations activities as well as the launch and we have a grapple 
fixture interface which is used for deployment once we're in 
flight. The LDEF payload is approximately 30 feet long and 14 
feet in diameter. The weights associated with that that I told 
you before are broken down into approximately 8,900 pounds of 
primary structure, 12,200 pounds of experiments and 3,000 pounds 
of ballast. And the reason for the ballast, 300 pounds of 
ballast, excuse me. the reason for the ballast is that we 
precisely locate our center of gravity of the vehicle during the 
launch operation cycle so that we put it at the center of 
pressure of the vehicle for stabilization reasons, Of course, 
the LDEF is an inhouse NASA project and the primary structure 
that is on the screen now was designed, fabricated and tested at 
NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. This 
facility can accommodate 86 experiment trays. 72 on the 
peripheral surfaces, 8 on the space end and 6 on the earth end. 
There are approximately 60 experiments on LDEF, It is basically 
an international type payload. We have several experiments from 
Europe, one from Canada. However, the majority of the 
experiments come from NASA Centers, Universities and industry 
within the United States, The status of LDEF is that we arrived 
here, the launch operations team arrived here on October the 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING 



pl4ka 2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 2 



31st, The facility experiments were received, inspected, checked 
out, installed and last Friday we finished installing the last 
experiment on LDEF, The viewgraph that you're looking at now 
shows all experiments installed on LDEF. We plan to go online 
operations with the STS system on March 1 of this year when we 
are transported in our transportation cannister over to O&C for 
integration into the KSC cannister. As far as the mission plans 
are concerned, it's planned to launch LDEF on April 4th at 10:05 
am eastern standard time. On the second day or the first day 
depending on how you look at it, April 5th, of the mission, we 
will deploy LDEF in the gravity gradient mode at approximately 
13:27 hours eastern standard time. We will he in orbit for 
approximately 10 and 1/2 months and mission 51~D is our planned 
retrieval launch and that is for mid-February of 1985. Thank 
you. 

WILLIAM KINARD Okay, I'd like to very briefly tell you a little 
bit about the experiments that are on LDEF. There are, in fact, 
57 experiments on tue facility right now. Some of these 
experiments use, actually are groups of experiments so there are 
sub-experiments within them. Rather than take you through a 
detailed description of all 57 let me suffice to say that we do 
have a handout that does have information one each individual 
experiment. These 57 experiments involve approximately 200 
principal investigators. We also have a handout that identifies 
each principal investigator and gives you some idea of their 
background and their affiliation. From the research 
investigator's viewpoint, LDEF provides a unique opportunity for 
space experiments. It is a general purpose facility. As Leo 
just mentioned, it is free-flying so it provides researchers an 
opportunity to expose experiments in space for an extended period 
of time and very important to most of them an opportunity to 
bring the experiment hardware back. This ability to bring the 
hardware back is a key to most of the LDEF experiments. Many of 
these experiments are completely passive because of the ability 
to bring it back and let me talk about just a few of them to 
illustrate this. A large number of the experiments are 
technology type experiments and this is another unique thing 
about LDEF is that many of the technologists were forced to do 
their development activities in the laboratory and didn't have 
flight opportunities. With LDEF, testing can be done in space 
and this is extremely important in things such as materials to 
ensure that a material can survive long periods of time in 
space. And to illustrate the kind of experiments that we do, we 
have some composite material experiments on LDEF. And these 
experiments involve nothing more than flying sheets of composite 
material, in fact we have a material that's identical to the 
composites that the shuttle cargo bay is fabricated from. And by 
exposing this material in space for a year, bringing it back and 
then in the laboratory doing detailed testing with laboratory 
equipment, they can establish what will happen to the material 
over long periods of time - effects of the space radiations, 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING 



pl4ka 



2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 3 



effects of the sun's radiation, effects of vacuum - and the idea 
being to establish what kind of synergistic deterioration that 
composite materials might have. The experiment hardware is 
extremely simple. You don't have to fly the test equipment in 
space, you simply fly the test specimen. Coatings are another 
example of the kinds of experiments that we fly and, again, they 
are passive, many of them, in that the materials are 
characterized prior to being taken into space, they're exposed to 
the space environment, then they 1 re returned and then on return 
there are detailed laboratory analysis. We also have science 
investigations that utilize the same principle. So it's this 
ability to bring the hardware back into the laboratory that makes 
a great deal of difference in the cost of the experiments. 
Another point that's of interest to the investigators is the fact 
LDEF is a rather simple facility for them to use. We can 
accommodate experiments from people who haven't had experience 
with flying space hardware in the past. As was also mentioned, 
the experiments are housed in a tray. We furnish this tray to an 
investigator and he builds his experiment completely within that 
tray so he can completely check it out. He doesn't have to be 
concerned with the interface into power systems and data systems 
into more complex spacecraft* He has a unit all by himself and 
this is certainly, the advantage of this has certainly been 
demonstrated, I think, in the ease of intergrating all 57 
experiments on the facility here at the Cape, the fact that each 
experiment could be checked out as a unit by itself. And all of 
the experiments are not passive. Some of the experiments are 
active. If the experiment does require power and data, then the 
investigator provides that within his own tray and there have 
been developed some standard power and data systems that are 
furnished to investigators If he uses power, if it is battery 
powered then battery is also a part of his tray. 



*** 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING pl4kb 2/10/34 9:10 am PAGE 1 

KINARD To illustrate just a few of the experiments that 

we've got on there, the experiments that you see on the slide 
right now, is a active, is a passive, optical elements 
experiment. It was actually intergrated by Georgia Tech, and 
this experiment is a tray which has approximately 200 individual 
optical elements. These are lenses, lazers, fiberoptic elements, 
filters, that type of material. Actually in looking at this, you 
can't see the individual elements, unfortunately you* re looking 
at a solar screen that has the holes perferated on it, out over 
the top. But all of these individual elements, were furnished to 
Georgia Tech by manufactures of developments of the elements. 
These people characterize the elements prior to flight, and then 
when tray is brought back, the elements will be returned to the 
individuals and then they will recharacterize the individual 
pieces, and establish what affect the space environment had on 
the elements. This is another experiment. This particular 
experiment happens to be an active experiment. So that it will 
record some data while it's in space. And it uses a standard 
experiment power and data system that's developed for use by 
(garble) investigators. This is a fiber optics experiment. What 
you're looking at, the three colored rings, that sort of resemble 
records, are actually coils of fiber optics. And they are being 
exposed to the space environment, while they are exposed in 
space, there is a data system that will actually transmit data 
through these fibers, and it will record, noise bits, that might 
be generated in the data stream, and it will also record 
characteristics of the ability of the fiber to transmit data. 
Again, when the experiment's returned then the fiber and the 
optical elements on each end of the fiber can be examined in 
detail in the laboratory. The next experiment that you are 
seeing here, is an experiment from the Lewis Research Center. 
This is an experiment to test solar cells. And again there are 
abut 200 individual solar cells supplied by a large number of 
solar cell manufactures and solar cell test people. And actually 
looking at the tray, you, the cells themselves are mounted in 
slips that are down just below the surface, but approximately 
once per day, the output characteristics of these cells, the 
voltage output, the current output of each cell, is monitored. 
So that it establishes a function of time, how these cells 
perform in space. And again the key factor is from, when the 
experiment's returned the investigator can then look and 
establish any detail chemical characteristics that might have 
taken place as a result to exposure in space. This is a science 
experiment, not technology this time. This particular experiment 
is a micrometeroid experiment that was manufactured by the 
Johnson Spacecraft Center. And it involves the exposure of some 
gold plates. Looking at the, see the right hand side of the 
screen, you see two gold plates that are actually fully opened. 
In the launch configuration these plates are housed in a 
clamshell-type housing. On the left hand side, you see the 
housing partically closed, But again, this is a passive 
experiment. The investigators simply exposes the gold plates in 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING pl4kb 2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 2 

space, after he gets them back in his laboratory, he then goes in 
looks for micrometeroid crators, by studying the crators, by 
study the composition of material in there, can learn a great 
deal about the meteroid environment. Might also add, that we've 
got experiments on LOEF, to look at the man-made debris 
environment in space also. This is another science experiment, 
this particular experiment is a cosmic ray experiment, and again, 
this one is totally passive. They are plastic track-type 
detectors that are exposed in space. They are looking at very, 
very heavy nuclei. And because of the area, and the exposure 
time, that LDEF provides this experiment, it will actually 
increase the world's data sample of very heavy cosmic rays by 
about an order of magnitude. So that, in summary, is a brief 
idea of the kinds of experiments. As I say, the real key to LDEF 
from an experimenters standpoint, is the fact that it is very 
simple to use, the integration of the hardware is very simple, 
it's cost effective, but most important he brings the experiment 
hardware, back in the laboratory, and can enhance the data that 
he gets through detail, laboratory examinations. 

ZIMMERMAN Thank you, (garble). I'd like to take a minute to 
explain a little bit about the processing of LDEF here at RFC. 
We brought the LDEF down here by ship, last summer, it surprised 
a few people that we could bring a sf-ructure that large down here 
that cheap. And kind of wiped out the use for the guppy there. 
We brought it down the intercoastal waterway, and off-loaded it 
out here by the VAB, took it to safe 2, where we have the 
structure right now. It will be moved from safe 2, over to the 
O&C building, probably around March 1st, And we will then 
install the LDEF into the payload canister. And we will also 
pick up the rest of the cargo that will be flying with LDEF which 
is the flight support structure for the solar max repair 
mission. There's a picture of the canister, it's in vertical 
position right there, it's a little tough to get a picture of 
that canister with it horizontal. It's 60 foot long, and 15 foot 
diameter, just like the cargo bay of the Orbiter. As I said, 
we'll bring the LDEF over to the O&C building, and install it in 
the canister, with the hardware for the solar max repair, that 
picture that you see now, of course is the Spacelab, I believe 
going in our canister, in the O&C building. We will leave the 
O&C building and go to the VAB, where we will rotate that 
canister vertical, take it out to the launch pad, and install it 
into the payload changeout room, at the launch pad, in a vertical 
configuration. And that's something different from what wo have 
been doing on most of our payloads, if you remember the 
deployable payloads, the commercial satellites are processed in 
the vertical processing facility, they go direct to the launch 
pad, and are installed. We have kind of a mixture here, we start 
out horizontal and we wind up being veritical, when we are 
installed. There's a view of the canister in the horizontal 
position, going to the VAB, for rotation. And this next picture 
is inside the VAB, of the canister being rotated to the vertical 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING p!4kb 2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 3 



position, preparation to transport it to the launch pad. And now 
it's heading out toward the launch pad , where we will install the 
cargo in the payload changeout room. We're at the launch pad 
now/ and preparing to lift the canister up, to the payload 
changeout room and install it in there. And there it is, almost 
in place. I have to say this is probably one of the simplist 
pay loads from my standpoint. My job is to make sure they have 
the support they need, to process at KSC. And as I told you, 
they've got 4 trunions and a keel interface, and that's 
unbelievably simple, to go integrate. We bypass out Orbiter, 
integrated testing that we normally do in the O&C building. 
There's no reason to check any interfaces there, we go direct to 
the Orbiter with this payload. Thank you. 

CRIPPEN Good morning, we're looking forward to delivering 

the LDEF to orbit, aboard our mission, it is the largest 
satellite payload delivered yet, with the Space Shuttle. Terry 
Hart is the Mission crewman that is in charge of the LDEF 
deployment, so I'll let him run down the operations that we 
perform with it. 

HART Crip, I'll just briefly go through the senareo for 

the first 2 days of the mission, which involve LDEF. After 
launch and we get settled down a little bit, the first thing that 
is going to happen, is Crip is going to show us how to set up 
housekeeping in the Challenger, and once we're squared away 
there, we will begin the checkout of the RMS. After checking out 
the RMS, we'll use it to inspect the LDEF slightly as we move it 
forward to the grapple fixture, one of the grapple fixtures has 
the experiment initiation system on it. It turns on about half 
of the experiments on the LDEF, through a series of timers that 
go off during the year that LDEF is on orbit. We' 11 check some 
(garble) to verify that the system hasn't been activated 
inadvertantly during launch. That will conclude the day 1 
activities with exception of the reboost, or the boost of the 
Challenger up to the proper orbit, which as Leo mentioned, about 
260 nautical miles. On day 2, we'll begin the activation of LDEF 
about 2 hours before the deploy by using the RMS to grapple, 
number one grapple fixture which will activate the timers 
involved for all the experiments. Having verified that that 
worked properly, we'll raise the LDEF about 4 feet up out of it's 
birthing guides, and then lower it back down again just as a 
verification that the RMS can do all that properly for the 
retrieval. And then, in keeping with the series of experiments, 
or engineering tests that we've done on previous flights, we'll 
be taking the LDEF through auto trajectory with the RMS, which 
will take about an hour, and LDEF being the heaviest payload that 
the RMS has moved thus far will give us a chance to verify that 
the RMS capabilities to move heavy payload are what we expect 
they are. And we'll position the LDEF in the proper attitude for 
deployment and toward the end of day 2, we'll deploy and separate 
from the LDEF. *** 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING p!4kc 2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 1 



PA0 Thank you. Okay, before we start the questions and 

answers, I think we have a short tape on the LDEF, the structure 
itself which is now in the spacecraft assembly encapsulation 
building number 2, safe 2. For those of you here at Kennedy who 
want to see the structure we have a bus that will be outside 
after the news conference that will take us, I believe Dean 
Zimmerman will go with us, to safe 2 to out on suits and go in 
and photograph or look at the structure Itself. Okay, thank you, 
and I guess we're ready for questions and answers here at 
Kennedy. Yes. 

REG TURNELL (BBC) A couple of questions if I may. First, this 
does seem to overtake this facility, the European Spacelab. 
Could you tell me how much, how often it will" be used and how 
long you think it will be used and whether there would, is likely 
to be any use for Spacelab as a free-flying laboratory with a 
facility like this available? 

ZIMMERMAN As far as the use of, the reuse of LDEF is 
concerned, of course that depends upon projects getting approved 
through the approval cycle. There is one in the process now for 
an LDEF 2 out of OSS and NASA Headquarters, it's primarily a 
cosmxc ray mission. Future missions would have to be approved as 
they come along. As far as Spacelab is concerned, I am not that 
familiar with it. However, my understanding is, is that Spacelab 
is a mission that stays with the Orbiter and so it's limited in 
duration to the extent that the Orbiter stays up 5 to 10 days 
where LDEF is deployed and remains in orbit for long periods of 
time. And in fact, the LDEF 2 mission is planned right now, or 
invisioned right now as a 2 year mission rather than a 1 year 
mission. 

TURNELL Do you envisage that LDEF is perhaps a prototype 

for the free-flying platform that will accompany the Space 

ZIMMERMAN No, I don't envision it as a prototype. I am not 
that familiar with Space Station so I can't really say. It will, 
I would assume Space Station may be in a synchronous orbit where 
LDEF is not. It's at a very much lower altitude. There may be 
some spinning of Space Station to create an artificial gravity. 
LDEF is gravity gradient stabilized. I'm not familiar, that 
familiar with the 2 projects to be able to make the comparison. 

TURNELL And one for Bob Crippen if I may. I was interested 

to hear how much deployment there's going to be with the RMS with 
this very large payload. Are you, after what happened yesterday 
to the RMS, are you beginning to think you might like to carry a 
second arm to make sure you're able to do the Solar Max 
afterwards? 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING pl4kc 2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 2 

CRIPPEN Yes, we did have a malfunction on the arm as you 

are well aware of. You may not be aware that we did not go 
through and check out some of the secondary capabilities of the 
RMS on the mission that's currently up. We did not go through 
its backup mode which would be available probably depending on 
the nature of the failure that we'll have to determine on the 
ground. People are looking right now as to whether flv'ing a 
second arm would be a viable type of thing, but personally, I 
thxnk that may be a little bit tough to do with the time period 
that we're talking about and we do have some backup capabilities 
available to us in case we do run into problems with the RMS so 
it s a concern to us but not one that will prevent us from 
deploying the satellite. 

TURNELL Do you mean that you have alternative ways of doing 

the Solar Max Mission without the use of the arm? 

CRIPPEN with respect to the LDEF, we have the capability, 

we^have backup capabilities in the arm that we have not checked 
out, okay. So it's got different power systems and so we may 
have been able to use those depending on the nature of the 
failure. That's the kind of things that I am talking about. In 
addition to that with regard to deployment of the LDEF, if it 
should get down to it, we have the capability to open up the 
latches that hold it to the bay and back the Orbiter away, 

TURNELL And a final quick one if I may. Do you have any 

concern about the possibility of collision immediately after 
deploying? 1 

CRIPPEN If we had concerns about collision we wouldn't do 

it that way. No, we have looked at it extensively in simulators 
that we have available to us and believe that's a viable mode 
that's completely safe without any concern about collision. 

PAO Question over there. 

JIM SLADE (Mutual Broadcasting) Couple of points of 
clarification* On what mission would ldef up after the year's 
exposure and are there provisions for interim visits in the 
meantime/ Just would like to have that run down. 

ZIMMERMAN Tho retrieval mission is 51-D, dog, in mid-February 
of 85 and the only provisions that could be made are in some 
other shuttle flight but there are no plans for that activity at 
the present time. 

PAO Another question, here. 



LARRY BERNARD (Ft. Lauderdale News) I have a couple of 
questions also. First of all, how were the experiments chosen? 
Was there a competition or NASA solicitation throughout the 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING pl4kc 2/10/84 9:10 am PAGE 3 

scientific and technological industry? Also, is the facility 
reuseable and what's the projected life of the facility, it's 
cost? And for Commander Crippen, you'll be flying at a higher 
altitude I believe than you've flown before. That may be for 
Solar Max but does that present any concerns or difficult 
maneuvers that you haven't done in the shuttle yet. 

CRIPPEN Yes, lot of questions. 

PA0 Want to start with that one? 

CRIPPEN Okay, I'll take that one. We are flying in the 

highest altitude yet flown with the Space Shuttle. It probably 
outers us the better view of the Earth from the perspective of 
crewmen. We are using a little bit of a different technique to 
get to orbit. We're using a technique that we call direct 
insertion which will mean that we will burn the main engines of 
the Oroiter to a higher velocity, a little over 26,000 feet per 
second as opposed to about 25,600. At cutoff we will have an 
apogee of somewhere around 250 nautical miles and we will not be 
doing a nominal burning of our orbital maneuvering engines right 
aftei the main engine cutoff. We'll only have to do one burn 
when we get to apogee. However, from a standpoint of problems 
that s probably an easier way to get to orbit than the way we 
have been doing it in the past. 



PAO 
that? 



Okay on experiments. Bill, do you want to take 
BERNARD How they were chosen. 

KI 5 A 5°,_ Right, okay 2 things I think. How they were chosen 

and I believe then is there a capability for a revisit to 
experiments. The experiments were selected in a number of 
different ways. There was an standard announcement of 
opportunity issued on LDEF and a number of experiments were 
selected through that. A number of the experiments were selected 
because, they represent critical test programs that are necessary 
on ongoing NASA and military development programs and so that's 
the 2 primary ways, with regard to revisit, there is no intent 
to, no plan to revisit on the first LDEP mission. There have 
been considerations of employing revisits on later LDEP missions 
but those are simply very preliminary plans. I would like to, I 
would like to add a couple of comments on an earlier question 
that was raised as far as LDEP being a prototype for platform 
type activities. I think very definitely LDEP is. It is the 
first platform to incorporate a large group of experiments and I 
think one of the things that we have shown to be very, very 
operational and economical is the fact that if you fly a large 
group of experiments together you should keep them as much 
separated with a concept to minimize the integration. And the 
concept that we've used in the tray here has worked out extremely 



KSC/IiANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING pl4kc 2/10/84 9: 10 am PAGE 4 

well and I would expect that later platforms and even Space 
Station experiments will tend to go in that type of direction 
As far as LDEF being in competition with Spacelab, they're really 
2 entirely different types of test capabilities. I think the key 
factor is that Spacelab is involving man so you can have manned 
interaction with experiments that's extremely important in a lot 
of activities. And LDEFs simply then are free-flying exoosure 
type experiments that do not require manned interaction/ 



*** 



KSC/LANGLEY PRESS BRIEFING p!4kd 2/19/84 9:10 am PAGE 1 



DASPIT Well as far as the reuse is concerned, we do plan to 
reuse the LDEF primary structure as basically the bus for 
carrying additional experiments into space at future dates. How 
many times that occurs, will depend upon ~ it was designed and 
tested as a reusable vehicle. However, it will received 
inspections upon return, and so the life of that vehicle will be 
determined by that. 

PAO Another question. Here, 

BOYLE (Tempton Conservative) Do you only have one primary 
structure, or are you considering building more? 

DASPIT We are not considering at the present time building 

another primary structure. We have a reusable primary structure 
that we plan to utilize. Now if activity picks up and NASA 
Headquarters elects to approve multiple missions of LDEF type 
mission, I'm sure that activity could be persude, 

PAO Question there, 

PIERCE (Satellite Communications) What is the approximate turn- 
around time with the LDEF, from, by the time you get it back on 
the ground until you can put it up again? 

DASPIT That would depend upon the types of experiment that 

you have for the second flight, in my opinion. Right now, we 
will retrieve LDEF in February, and the next flight is not* 
planned until the end of calendar year of 86 for the LDEF 2 
flight, which gives you plenty of time. There's no plan to turn 
around LDEF like the Shuttle turns around on a continuous basis 
at this time, 

PAO Okay, another question. Okay, I think I understand 

we have question or two from the Langley Research Center, go 
ahead, 

PAO Okay, let's move on. Do we have any questions from 

Marshall? And no questions from Johnson I understand. Okay. 
There are some handouts, a fact sheet, and description of 
experiments, and a timeline for preparation and some photographs 
that are here and we'll get to the other centers. One thing I 
want to mention before we break up is an experiment that involves 
NASA's Educational Programs office, out of NASA Headquarters and 
the Langley Research Center, it involves the seeds that are part 
of or are the, one of the experiments, they will be made 
available to approximately 4 million students and about 150 
classrooms, grade 5 through University level during the 1985, 
1986 academic year. If any of you are interested in talking to 
someone on that experiment, we have Dr. Mary Lewis here, if you'd 
stand Mary, whose from the Langley Research Center Educational 
Program office, thank you. END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING p!5ka 2/11/84 7:30 am PAGE 1 



KSC PAO Good morning and welcome to the very first 

postlanding briefing from the Kennedy Space Center and here with 
me is Lieutenant General James A, Abrahamson who appears at oar 
landing ceremonies wherever we have them. 

GENERAL ABRAHAMSON Most of the time, Hugh, that's not entirely 
accurate. If many of you recall, we were stuck here in the rsin 
after STS-7 and the great news is that we had a lot of people 
that were promising and guaranteeing good weather here and that 
goes from Congressman Fuqua and Nelson and Dick Smith here at the 
Center, from a lot of people, and they came through on their 
promise. And it is a beautiful day and obviously the machine is 
back and it's in great shape anc. from our viewpoint and I don't 
know how many really kind of watched Vance through his touchdown 
and everything, that was a dream of a touchdown and really a fine 
landing. In fact, some of the vertical looks at it, he was on 
the centerline just all the way. Let me just give you a couple 
of statistics about the touchdown since we always kind of 
exchange that here at the end of the press conference, or at the 
postlanding one. The main gears, he got them down at about 2,000 
feet and that's just a couple hundred feet off from what was 
calculated and that calculation is depending on when, and it's 
made quite early, so actually I think it's just a touchdown right 
on the spot. He stopped at 12,700 feet, so he rolled out about 
10,700 feet. It was very clear that he just flew the nose gear 
down very nicely. The planned touchdown speed was about 195 
knots and the thing that I'd like to get across is that landing 
at Edwards at about 2300 feet above sea level and a touchdown 
here means that we're really going to be landing much slower and 
we get just better air dynamic characteristics so it does mean 
that we'll just be more gentle on the brakes and on the rest of 
the machine. Now, what is the real meaning though, of landing 
back here. The real meaning is that we have cut about 6 to 8 
days off of our flow and that's important for our next turnaround 
but it's also important as a standard operating procedure for the 
future. Normally when we land at Edwards it takes obviously a 
little time to get the machine safed. Then we have to install 
the large tail cone which smooths out the flow in the back of the 
747. Of course, then we mate the machine, put it on top of the 
747, fly it back here. As you all know, every once in a while we 
get stuck with some bad weather half way across the country or 
something like that, because we fly it and take care of it very 
carefully on the 747 just as we do in landing operations. Then 
we get here, demate it, take off that tail cone and get it over 
and the total is about 6 to 8 days and I put that variation in 
because of the weather. This time, we expect to have it in the 
orbital processing facility by this afternoon and they 1 11 be a 
few days of working just right from the start in terms of some 
safing operations in the OPF but we will be able to move right 
out on the next processsing flow. Now, that means some other 
changes which are rather subtle. In the past when we've landing 
at Edwards, of course, we have a team of people that are working 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5ka 2/11/84 7:30 am PAGE 2 



on what we know are problems in orbit. But we do have a little 
extra time to be working out exactly planning what that 
maintenance flow will be for the next flight. In this kind of an 
operation we don f t have that extra 6 or 8 days and so we are now 
exercising our maintenance-planning procedure in an improved way 
for the first time and the people here at Kennedy working with 
people at Johnson with the telemetry and the crew reports back 
down have been exercising that. And again, this is just another 
step towards operations. So there are some very subtle, but very 
important, differences that it makes to come back here, I guess 
perhaps the last comment is that the Shuttle portion of the 
system, we suffered as of about 2 a.m. this morning. We had a 
total of some 25 problem areas, Now that's a very small 
number. Most of them are indeed minor kinds of problems that we 
have to deal with. We had one major one for the Shuttle itself, 
and that was the failure of the wrist on the Canada arm to 
operate properly and, of course you know, we then had a very 
conservative call that we wouldn't operate the Canada arm and 
that meant we did not get to use the SPAS in the rotation 
training mode that we wanted to for the next mission. That's 
really for the Shuttle itself and the Shuttle portion of the 
system, the only major failure that we had. Now that doesn 1 t 
mean that we weren't very badly disappointed, obviously when the 
balloon blew up so that we couldn't go through the rendezvous 
procedure but, of course, the major disappointment was another 
part of the system which is not the Shuttle system but one we all 
depend on and that's, of course, the PAM or the problems we had 
when the satellites did not get in the final orbit. But if you 
go back and think of the Shuttle as a system and is it ready for 
the next flight and the flight after that and the flight after 
that. We really see that there are some very minor problems, 
Now the PAM, and how we satisfy ourselves that we're ready for 
the next set of communication satellite launchings, that there's 
just, we're going to put all the resources of the nation on that 
to ensure that that'll be ready just as soon as it possibly 
can, I'm an optimist, I think I mentioned this before, I think 
we can move out on it and solve it, 

KSC PAO Okay. I guess we're ready for questions then and 

please wait for a mike and if I don't call on you by name please 
give your name and affiliation. Start with Craig Covault from 
Aviation Week who's closest to the mike. 

ABRAHAMSON I don't think the mike's on, Craig. 

KSC PAO Push the button Joe, if that's not pushed. 

CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) Two questions Abe, 
I don't know what's happening. 

ABRAHAMSON Go ahead and I'll repeat the question Craig. 



STS-41-B PQSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5ka 2/11/84 7:30 am PAGE 3 



COVAULT Okay, first question is (garble) 

ABRAHAMSON The question was would we have had to delay the 
Solar Max launch if we had not been able to come in here to 
Kennedy. We would have had to replan for the very end of the 
window, as we now see the window Craig, and let me just 
comment, it's rather complex. Our planned date that we had been 
talking about and that we could now meet, we have a flow that we 
think has a proper margin in it so we could meet the 4th of April 
date. That is the opening of a window which has a great number 
of constraints in this particular launch window for the Solar Max 
mission. That window depends a great deal on the solar cycle 
believe it or not just so you can get some feel for the 
complexity here. Depending on the solar cycle, our atmosphere 
expands, or doesn't expand, and we'll change Our rendezvous time 
and right now, based on what's happened and what we are 
projecting with our model of the atmosphere, about the 6th of 
April is the ideal time in which we'll get that rendezvous .... 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5kb 2/11/84 7:30 am PAGE 1 



A3RAMHAMS0N ...the 6th of April is the ideal time in which 
we'll get that rendezvous, as well as to satisfy many of our 
other constraints. We hope that it doesn't slip much past 
that. But it does change, and it does depend on the 
atmosphere. So we will be planning about the 4th to the 6th of 
April, so all of you who are always are worried about motel 
rooms, that's the time to think about it. 

Ben Acreage, I'm sorry, over here, Mitch, up 
several sections, right there. 

(garble) (WCPX, Orlando) Other than the safe 
landing here, what aspect of the mission has pleased you the 
most? 

ABRAHAMSON Well, I think the overall performance of the crew, 
and the system as a whole, in particular in our first new 
challenge, and that, of course, was the man maneuvering unit, and 
the operation of the man maneuvering unit, but I don't want to 
say, only focus on that. I think the overall performance was 
really superb, and that included the big new unknown, which was 
the man maneuvering unit. I can be scientific about that, or 
engineering about it, and say that yeah, it really performed 
well, it showed that it can do all the things that it's supposed 
to do, but I also has to say that for myself, and for some of the 
people that Nasa has been around ever since Gemini and watched 
these things for 20 years, they thought it was just one of these 
wonderful experiences, and when they saw this picture of Bruce 
and Bob out there floating and controlling this thing so much, I 
could see tears in some people's eyes, it was just mystical, it 
was wonderful. 

AL SALESTEAD (Baltimore Sun) Was, General would you mind 
repeating, can you hear me? Would you mind repeating again just 
briefing the distinction you made at the outset between the 
landing speeds here and at Edwards, I didn't follow that. 

ABRAHAMSON Alright, At Edwards because it's much higher, the 
atmosphere is thinner. Because it's thinner, the actual speed of 
the Orbiter as it's landing is faster. Now the Orbiter doesn't 
know that as it flies through the air, it feels the way the air 
is pushing up against it, and it makes sure it flies in such a 
way that it always has exactly the right speed for landing. But 
the touchdown speed and the actual speed of the Orbiter i3 
faster. Down here in the thicker atmosphere it slows down, makes 
our breaking profile less responsive. 

SALESTEAD By about how much? 

ABRAHAMSON It depends on temperatures, and several things, but 
about an average of 25 knots. 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5kb 2/11/84 11:00am PAGE 2 

Tom 0' Toole, right beside Al. 
TOM 0' TOOLE Quick one on the CPU's and the APC's sino* wo 

0 » TOOLE 




satellite. ™«„r? , !i' V. . b ^ a " 0l "9 the rendezvous time for the 



down to the 10- m ^ u 1 ?e nO : r a i 5 1 ^ 1 h : u S ? e P o « a ^^ n ite th !a:„ S ch hO „ W 1 „ W ^? t 

!^rL" S f N °! 1 ? <J oda V> - ^netal Abrahamson, I think we all 
fllur* ?^„' he beautiful this wtn ng, bit in terms of 

th^weathe"? "and how" I KoinVt'o" 9 , f '° ?V« y ^Pendent°on 
tighter procesSln? schedSJeS 99 * affe0t how you plan 



future operations, when we really have to turnaroiii fZJ 1 ? f ? r 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING plSkb 2/11/84 11:00 am PAGE 3 

O'TOOLE Second question, on the solar max mission, 

considering the theory on the Canada arm on this mission, are you 
considering flying 2 arms as a backup. 

ABRAHAMSON Yes, we've already looked into that, I asked a 
special review of that, and got the first answer. And the first 
answer is that there's just too much modification that we would 
have to do to get that other shoulder joint fully ready, and we 
can't do it in time, So we'll fly it with one. I'm not 
concerned about that, because had this been a priority mission, a 
important mission that we could have operated the arm, we could 
have. There was a backup modes available. However, we would 
have been across one of our flight rules, which is a one failure 
away from having to jettison the arm, in order to be able to 
land, and land safely. And for the particular training objective 
that we had on this mission, we just didn't think that that was 
worthwhile taking that kind of a chance. Now I'd really hate to 
see a punch of headlines that says we were one failure away from 
being, having to throw away this expensive arm. Because that is 
not the case, and since I've gotten a little bit of what I would 
consider inaccurate reporting, I'm going to go back to this, this 
time. We weren't one failure away. We decided we were not going 
to put ourselves one failure away. And that's just good 
conservative flight planning. However, had there really been an 
important objective, we still have enough confidence in the arm 
and in the system, and the people and in their training, that we 
clearly could have done that, and done it well. But there just 
was no reason on this flight. 

BOB BAZELLE (NBC) There seems to be more of a plume than usual 
from the APU's, you said the telemetry was fine. Was that just 
because of the Florida humidity that there seemed to be more, or 
was there something else going on there? That's the first 
question. And the second one, is there an end to the window for 
the Solar Max? You said it was ideal for a rendenzvous around 
April 6, but is there a time when it runs out. 

ABRAHAMSON Let me answer the second question first, since it's 
more definite. Yes, the end, there's about a period from the 4th 
to about the 12th, and I'm not, I don't remember the exact 
number, but about the 12th, where we can operate. If, for some 
reason, we miss that, we would have to recycle, and I believe 
it's about 24 days, or something later than that. So, yeah, it's 
very important that we begin to get in that overall launch, it's 
not the daily window, but a series of daily windows. The second, 
the first question, I'm not aware of anything that was 
significantly enough difference that you could lay it on anything 
different than the atmosphere at this point. 



REGGIE TURNELL (BBC) Now you've had time to have a good look at 
the position of the two lost satellites, are you thinking of 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING plSkb 2/11/84 11:00 am PAGE 4 
geu^^her^c.r 6 Pr ° dUCtive work to do by going oat and 



conside? it y ™: ^ nn ^^ealt with that is the right way to 
that £hs o«; o ,? e f^f fcl ? l ? g we have to do is wait and ensure 
that the owners, whether it's the government of Indonesia and 
Western Union, or whether it's an insurance company would Hke 



*** 



STS-4I-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING p!5kc 2/11/84 7:30 am Page 1 



ABRAHAMSON - - would like us to do that and we expect that at 
some point they'll come and talk to us and if they ask us then to 
be able to look into it very seriously, then we'll really begin 
to do some serious planning. 

KSC PAO Right here, 

(German Radio) General, how would you split up landings in the 
future between the Cape and Edwards and will you go with heavy 
payloads all the time to Edwards or is it possible to come down 
with heavy payloads here and second question would be f do you 
ever foresee a handsoff landing at the Cape in cloudy weather? 

ABRAHAMSON In cloudy weather. The criteria is not how heavy 
the Orbiter is. The reason that we landed last time at Edwards 
with the Spacelab, although it was a heavy payload, is because 
the Columbia does not have a heads up display and several of the 
aids to the pilots that we think are very important to these 
landings. So in the future, until we get Columbia modified ~ 
which is still some time away, we would plan that Columbia would 
land quite consistently at Edwards and the other Orbiters, since 
they do have all this equipment, will come in here. And I can't 
give you the proportion of the number of those as we go ahead. 

KSC PAO Morton Dean, CBS right here. 

MORTON DEAN (CBS) General, 2 questions, one about the weather 
and the future. How far away are you from developing an Orbiter 
skin that would withstand a rain storm on the way in and were any 
tiny loveable little alligators, foxes, or bobcats shot on the 
runway this morning? 

ABRAHAMSON Morton, my last weather check was, at the shuttle 
landing facility was about 5 minutes to 7 and then I came down 
and joined all of you who were at the mound and the last thing 
that went on at that point was the alligator check. And, of 
course, we did have at several times during the night and the 
last thing here was a car that ran down the runway and looked up 
the other side and made sure that we didn't have any of our 
friends out there* Had there been one, we wouldn't shoot him 
off, I think we prefer not to shoot them of course. No we 
didn't. I wasn't trying to avoid that. No we did not shoot any 
of our friends. 

DEAN Plying through the rain was the other question. 

ABRAHAMSON Oh, I'm sorry, the flying through the rain. It'll 
probably be a long time, maybe even another generation of thermal 
protection unit that we're really willing to fly through the 
rain. The test that we have done and we've flown with tiles on 
the front end of the speed break on the T-38, it's not a very 
good simulation but it's surely shown us that we should avoid 



S'TS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING p!5kc 2/11/84 7: 30 am Page 2 



flying in the rain because of errosion on the tile. Now, this is 
not a safety question* We could, if for some reason, you know, 
and a rain storm just suddenly appeared here, we could come 
through it, we could land automatically although we haven f t done 
that yet, and we could land safely. You are not going to disrupt 
the aerodyamics on the vehicle. However, it's going to be a real 
maintenace problem then before the next flight so it's a 
maintenance problem, not, and an expense obviously an operating 
expense that we want to avoid and that's why we're doing it. 
It's not that it's a safety problem, 

KSC PAO We're going to have 2 more questions before we go 

to other centers and the people have already had their hands 
up, George Diller from National Public Radio. 

GEORGE DILLER (National Public Radio) Wonder if you can tell me 
in view of the fact that we've had a successful landing today and 
consequently will save both time and money, whether you would be 
willing to attempt the further testing which is necessary such as 
the autoland and the crosswind landings here as opposed to the 
west coast, 

ABRAHAMSON I think the answer, we are planning our first 
automatic landing all the way to touchdown at Edwards and we'll 
continue to do that and I think that's just the prudent way to 
proceed with the program. We're hoping to be in the position to 
do that by this summer. Just so that you do understand, it isn't 
that we need an automatic landing all the way to touchdown in 
order to be able to land in the weather. Pilots have flown 
instrument landing approaches for a very long time and the 
systems that we have in the Orbiter are equally capable, 
particularly with the heads up display so that the Commander will 
be able to fly and fly in confidence and come down. Now, we 
still want to develop the automatic landing capability just in 
case of any kind of an emergency that we might look ahead to. 
But we do not need that in order to fly in lower and lower 
ceilings. What we do need, however, is just confidence in the 
program as we go ahead so we have been accepting other than clear 
and 10 mile visibility and we've been making those judgements 
primarily oil the basis of the astronauts who are up and flying 
and they say yes. Even though there might be a ceiling up there 
and if you recall, we had one at Edwards, Everybody felt 
comfortable that we had enough viewpoints that the pilot can use 
a double system. He can use the automatic system and fly in, but 
he can also check it with his eyes and satisfy himself that he's 
on course and operating. And that's the philosophy of manned 
space flight and why we've been successful. Always use 2 
systems, 



KSG PAO 



Yes, ycu 1 11 have to talk into the mike. 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING p!5kc 2/11/84 7:30 am Page 3 



ABRAHAMSON The crosswind. For this flight, because we have 
not been able to get the crosswind landing that we wanted at 
Edwards previously, we set a 12 knot crosswind limit. And of 
course, we had just a beautiful situation. The Orbiter is 
designed to eventually be able to land with up to 25 knots of 
crosswind and we'll be looking for opportunities to, again, just 
slowly come up and build our confidence and see that we don't 
have some unknown when we are landing in those kinds of 
situations. So eventually, I think we'll be able to be much more 
flexible in terms of landing here. The one thing that we just 
want to avoid is landing in a thunderstorm where there, 
electrical, the potential of an electric or lightening strike on 
the vehicle, and clearly where we have moisture that will damage 
the tile. 

KSC PAO Doug Detter . 

DOUG DETTER Question on KSC turnaround, will you be using the 
Lockheed or the, referring back to the Rockwell crews for the 
rapid turnaround here. 

ABRAHAMSON The transition was complete with our successful 
launch and it's Lockheed that's now taking over. 

DETTER Second thing is on the arm, Canadian arm. Will you 

do the repair work or will that be shipped back to Canada? 

ABRAHAMSON I just don't know the answer to that. 

DETTER And the last one then is on the Indonesia. They 

had an option after the failure of Westar whether it's GO/NO 
GO. Was that talked over with you people? They could have 
brought that satellite back and then after they troubleshoot it 
back here on Earth they could have flown again in shuttle I 
presume. Was that considered? 

ABRAHAMSON Vou know, we consider that our communications with 
the customers under those kinds of conditions to be very private 
and I'd ask you to talk to the Indonesian representatives about 
that please. 

KSC PAO Okay Mike. We'll get to you when we come back. 

We're going to JSC next for Jules Bergman I believe. 

ABRAHAMSON Before we go there, since we do have this fine 
weather in Congressman Nelson's district, Congressman Nelson 
would you like to come down here and perhaps tell us just how it 
is that you control the weather. 

KSC PAO For those of you who weren't watching on TV, he 

saluted and acknowledged that he was doing a good job. JSC. 



STS-41-B POSTLANDINC BRIEFING pl5kc 2/11/84 7:30 am Page 4 
PAO Jules Bergman, ABC News, 

JUI-SS BERGMAN (ABC News) Abe, it's very cloudy here. It's a 
good thing you didn't try to land the Shuttle here. My question 
is, in view of the Solar Max Repair mission flying where the 
Shuttle has to fly to a record direct altitude of roughly 260 
miles, I believe, and in view of the rendezvous balloon's 
failure, does that hamper the rescue mission? 

** * 




STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5kd 2/11/84 7:30 am PAGE 1 

ABRAHAMSON No Jules. The balloon failure was really a 
practice rendezvous here, and of course, we had an opportunity 
with the SPAS on the 7th flight to do many of those things. It 
was just, it was a nice to have kind of thing, It didn't work 
out, but it does, it's going to have absolutely no affect on the 
Solar Max mission, 

BERGMAN Your confident that the radar aboard the Shuttle 

will see the Solar Max Satellite from a great distance, far 
enough off to a, so the final phasing and other maneuvers will 
bring it in, for the rendezvous, 

ABRAHAMSON Yes, the one thing that we did get out of this 
Jules, even though the balloon itself failed, in terms which then 
put pieces out there, that we just didn't want to get close to 
with the Shuttle, we did get a good engineering test of the 
radar, and in fact found that the sensitivity of the radar 
exceeded what we thought could happen, So we were very delighted 
with that. So even though the balloon failed, we got a good 
engineering test. So, we're very confident about the radar, 

PAO That's all the questions from JSC, 

PAO Okay, we'll go to the Marshall Space Flight Center 

next. 

PAO We have questions from Tom Knight WAFF TV, 

TOM KNIGHT (WAFF TV) Abe, based on the fact that so far we have 
been in a situation where we could be unable to test the cross- 
wind component. Has any thought been given to possibly, since 
the Columbia is out here, putting the Columbia on the 747, taking 
up and dropping it and doing a test based on that? 

ABRAHAMSON Not really. We think that just moving up a few 
knots at a time, putting a limit at 12 knots, and then maybe 
going up to 18 knots or so, is as affective a way to do that. We 
would prefer not to, even though it's not a high risk, we prefer 
not use the Or biters for those kinds of tests. And subject them 
to whatever risk, even though it is small, to do that kind, to 
get that kind of an outcome. Eventually we'll get that cross- 
wind landing, 

KNIGHT And secondly Abe, what would you say at this time, 

possibly what might be the earliest flight that we might shoot 
for a night landing there at the Cape, 

ABRAHAMSON I just don't know. It would be a time when, 13 
we're planning it to come in and land here. And it's just the 
number of opportunities that work out. You try to plan it in and 
so that you maximize that opportunity, for example we had one 
daylight opportunity here at the Cape. Had there been, had we 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5kd 2/11/84 7s 30 am PAGE 2 

been ready to make a night landing/ we could have had a single 
night landing opportunity today as well* 

PAO That's all the questions from Marshall, 

PAO Okay, back here to Kennedy Space Center, we have 

time for just a couple more questions, and will start with Mike 
Mitchum from Ganette. 

MITCHUM (Ganette) - General, let me play worst-case situation for 
a moment. If you had lost the arm completely, are you going to 
work on a contingency plan to allow the astronauts to manuever 
the Solar Max down using the MMU's? 

ABRAHAMSON We haven't yet made, no we haven't yet, 

MITCHUM I understand you haven't yet, is that, is there 

some consideration of that now, I understand it can be done, 
from the Martin Marietta people think that it can be done. Well, 
their stuff works, 

ABRAHAMSON Well let's, let's hold on a minute now. Let's be 
fair. This is a very complicated arm. And as I indicated, we 
still could have used it on a priority mission, and we think we 
know at least what the failure was, and we can go in and fix it, 
and ensure that we fix it in a generic sense, so that it won't be 
a problem, hopefully in future flights. So we don't consider 
that the reliability of the arm is in question. Look back on how 
many good successful flights we've already had with that. We've 
got a good history on that arm. 

MITCHUM Just one other quick one. Is it a daylight launch 

planned for the next one, is that right? 

ABRAHAMSON yes, l f m sorry I should have remembered that, and 
off hand I don't, 

PAO We'll get that for you Mike, over here; (garble) 

I'm sorry, the one in the middle of the row. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (Reader s Digest) General, you spoke of a slow 
buildup of confidence with the auto landings, and the cross-wind 
potential, etc., would you care to speculate how far away we are 
from a fully operational Space Transportation System? 

ABRAHAMSON We'll that's a, okay, that's a complicated 
question. A fully operational, you know, there isn't, it's a 
good question by the way, I'm pleased that you asked it. There 
is not some point in time, just one single magical point where 
you have all of the confidence that you would like, and you have 
proven every subsystem and you say, okay, now we will never have 
another problem, and therefore, it's operational. We felt after 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5kd 2/11/84 7:30 am PAGE 3 



the fourth flight, that we indeed had reached a point where we 
would not have to spend most of our flight activity aimed at 
getting additional data which is used primarily to prove the 
system and say, from a thermal point of view, the spacecraft is 
safe and it works, from a operation of the system's point of 
view, We just flat didn't have to take anymore of that kind of 
data and we felt comfortable enough with our ability to operate 
the system as a system that we said we were operational and what 
that meant is that we could put our primary attention on 
operational types of missions, such as putting in communication 
satellites up, or the Spacelab as you saw last time. There are 
still data points for R&D that we are getting, and we will 
probably always do some. There are still operational methods 
that we're trying to improve for the future. I think we're 
operational right now, and I thought we were at the end of the 
fourth flight, and I'll go back again to what the definition of 
operational is, at least in my sense. That the machine and all 
of the support equipment is in a position so that we have a 
reasonably high confidence that we can perform our mission. And 
I think we have arrived at that point. But the final ingredient 
that really makes it work, is that the team is ready. The 
people, and that is clearly the case in my judgement. Now, take 
a look at the achievement on this flight. We announced that we 
were going to go on at the end of January, and we moved it just a 
couple of days, in spite of the fact that we had a real unknown 
with the APU, and had some problems with the computers, that we 
had a better understanding of at the end of the last flight . And 
this team dug out what those problems are, satisfied all of us 
that we were indeed safe, and it's being proven by this 
successful flight, and we stayed on time, and met our launch 
date, tfow that's an operational team. Now, I personally feel 
optimistic about the, about the PAM motor, and our ability to be 
able to troubleshoot this problem, turn the full capability of 
our national resources on this, and hopefully maintain this 
schedule* Now there is no guarantee, and X may be proven wrong, 
as an optimist. But we've done it now, pretty well. The engine 
was the only one that had a really major impact on us, and that 
was not because the team wasn' t ready, it was because we just 
flat -didn't have much hardware. We didn' t have spare engines. 
We now have spares in most of those categories. We solved and 
found the SRB NOSL problem and got that fixed, a very similar 
kind of thing as the PAM, in a space of about 6 weeks, and we're 
able in fact to have enough confidence to divert hardware, that's 
an operational team. And I think it's getting better and better 
all the time. 

PAO Unfortunately we're running out of time* Only have 

time for one more, we'll try to catch your other questions after 
we're done. Reggie Turnell. 

TURNELL General, it may have been a slip of the tongue, but 

I thought I heard you refer to the next mission as the STS-13. 



STS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5kd 2/11/84 7; 30 am PAGE 4 

Is there any hope we can persuade you to return to a designation 
system that our audiences can understand? 

ABRAHAMSON Reggie, I'm sure you heard me wrong. 

PA0 Before we conclude this formal press briefing will 

have ... 

*** 



3TS-41-B POSTLANDING BRIEFING pl5ke 2/11/84 7:30 am PAGE 1 

wiu have a briefing tomorrow morning at 11 a.m. to 
tell you what we know about the condition of the Orbiter after 
we've gotten it into the OPF. Anybody who we didn't "St to for 
questions, if you want to come down here now that we're done, 
we 11 try to get those answers, or over to the press dome. Thank 
you very much, see you at the next launch 41-C. 



END OF TAPE 



END 



DATE 
FILMED 



A P R 2 3 



STS-41B PRESS CONFERENCE 
TRANSCRIPTS 
FEBRUARY 1894 



Public Information Office 
NASA Johnson Space Center 
Houston, Texas 77058 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING plj 2/3/84 11:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Okay, good morning and welcome to the first Change- 

of~Shift Press Conference for Flight <I-B. we have the off-going 
Ascent Flight Director Gary Coen with us, He will talk about 
what's happened during the ascent phase and 1 1 11 just go ahead 
and turn it over to you Gary, 

GARY COEN Okay, thank you, We started the countdown this 
morning on time. The count went very smoothly. The operations 
both at KSC and here at Johnson went really well. The count 
proceeded with no problems at all, We got down to the lift-off 
time and lifted off on time* We did have a few concerns about 
what the weather was going to do. It turned out that the weather 
cleared up fantastically for us so we had a beautiful day and a 
pretty launch. Trying to predict the weather at night time like 
that and trying to figure out when th-s fog was going to clear and 
whether the fog was going to move into the immediate Cape area 
was a little bit of a challenge. It turned out that our worries 
mainly were all put to bed, of course, when we lifted off on 
cime. And they were mainly just worries. We were just worrying 
the situation. It was a beautiful launch. The performance of 
the solid rockets and the main engines was just right. We lifted 
off within 38 milliseconds of the intended time. As you know, 
the main engines throttle back. The throttle back during launch 
was not quite as deep as we had predicted. We had predicted we 
were going to be back to, excuse me. It was a little deeper than 
we predicted. We figured it would be back to 75% throttle on the 
main engines and we went down to 73, That's because the solid 
rocket booster performance was a little bit hot early and it was 
cold late. There was a very slight performance penalty on the 
solids and you'll probably get better data later but our estimate 
was that the solids were maybe 40 feet per second low in total 
performance. This resulted in, as far as the abort region times 
were concerned, resulted in them changing maybe a second or two 
on the way up. 3g throttle down occurred just when we predicted 
it would and main engine cutoff was just exactly when we 
predicted it would be , 8 minutes and 4 2 seconds into the 
mission. Velocity attained was, again, exactly what we predicted 
as near as we can tell. We will be getting more granulated data 
later and be able to tell you a little closer but we predicted 
25,670 feet per second. That's what we got. OMS 1 went 
smoothly. Ended up with apogee and perigee of 165 by 50, OMS 2 
essentially the same story and we're in an orbit right now of 166 
by 165. We have some, a few minor problems that we're working. 
There are none that we expect to be any impact to the conduct of 
today's activities or the remainder of the flight. We are 
working some instrumentation errors. We're working a problem 
with a water separator in the waste management system. We have 
some, have a heater problem in one of the APU systems. We have 
some limit switches that, one limit switch on a umbilical door 
that is indicating incorrectly. We intend to go back through our 
data and see if possibly that's even maybe a data problem. No 
problem with the door. Anyway, that's in work. So the launch 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plj 2/3/84 11:30am PAGE 2 

just went great. We're all happy that we got it up there/ we did 
things on time and that the performance was so good. 'I'd like to 
open it up for questions now. 

PA0 Okay, we'll take questions here at JSC and then 

we'll go to the other Centers. Right back here on the aisle 
there, 

DAVID DICK (CBS NEWS) Has there been any development onboard 
which could conceivably affect the timing of the deployment this 
afternoon of the Westar Satellite? 

C ° EN David there hasn't. No, there's not been anything 

that would change our plans as to when we intend to deploy. 

DICK And what, if anything, was a problem with the 

camera? Was there a camera - - 

C0EN Camerfc D, that's the right starboard camera. The 

crew reported to us a problem in both, in 2 axes. Just a minute 
and I'll tell you which is which. They reported it was slow to 
pan and that they couldn't get it to work in the tilt axis. 
That's the forward starboard camera. 

So, so far there's nothing wrong with the Cinema 

360? 

COEN NO. 

p AO Okay, and right here. I'm sorry. 

MIKE WILLIAMSON (KJOJ) Two questions concerning ascent. Did we 
here a call that the APUs were running a little hot this time and 
also, what about the cooldown? Did the APUs cool back down 
properly? 

C° EN You ma y have heard after the APUs are shut down, 

there are some valvcss on or a valve module on the APU that has to 
be cooled by water. When we turned the first water controller 
on, the water controller apparently put too much water into one 
of the valve cooling systems and then quit working. And what you 
might have heard when we were discussing hot was that when it 
quit working then the valve got too hot. we brought on the 
secondary water system and cooled the valve back down. This 
water is used to cool those particular valves, that particular 
valve after the APUs are shut down. Has nothing to do, the water 
has nothing to do with the operation while you're turning the 
turbine. 

WILLIAMSON What about the SRBs? Have they been sighted and 
recovered? y 



STS-41-B CHANGE -OF- SHI FT BRIEFING plj 2/3/84 11:30 am PAGE 3 



COEN 



I didn't get a report on the SRBs. I don't know. 



PAO Okay, Paul. 

P ? U L c . 0n the waste management system, it sounded like one 
of the fans is cratered all together. Is that correct? 

co f N We don't think it's cratered all together, Paul. 

We re seeing stall currents in the telemetry. That's how we got 
onto the problem in the first place. We're seeing stall currents 
which indicate that either that the fan had stopped, it was 
running slow and taking too much current, or perhaps since it's 
an AC motor that drives the fan we had a failure in one of the AC 
phases which would cause the currents in the other phases to go 
up. when we discussed it with Vance, we learned that his 
impression on the fan was that it didn't sound normal so that 
told us that is was turning but since his report was it was not 
normal it's probably turning at a slow speed. He went to the 
other fan, pronounced it normal, at least a normal sound, and of 
course the other fan was not showing any high currents. So, the 
fan is at least turning we believe. The separator is at least 
turning but it's indicating currents that are too high and it 
doesn't sound right, it's probably not turning fast enough. 

? AUI ' * ? kay ' even though it's not turning fast enough was 

it performing its function? 

C0E , N 7 te don't know for sure. That'll be part of the 

work that we'll be doing today and tonight. 

PA0 , Okay, any other questions? Understand that we have 

K ?h! S ^?2r. from °,£ he F c « nt «s so we'll just call that and end 
to the briefing. Thank you. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7:30pm PAGE 1 

? A0 ...introduce the players on the podium here. To my 

immediate Light, of course, is Harold Draughon lead flight 
director for 41-B and to the far right, Bill Ziegler, who is 
Mission Director for Western Union. Bill's presence may lead you 
to suspect a problem with the satellite and that is, in fact, the 
case, as we shall describe to you now beginning with Harold's 
debriefing. 

DRAUGHON Okay, I'll just give you the — those facts first 

dealing with the satellite deploy, with the Westar deployment 
this first shift, and after we've talked that particular subject 
through to whatever detail you folks you want to, then we'll go 
ahead and pick up the other items that are worthy of note, I 
think, and the activities for the day. The predeployment 
activities relative to the deployment of the Westar were 
absolutely nominal, we deployed the satellite within less than a 
second from what would have been the absolutely most acurate time 
you could have done it, the attitude errors at the time or 
deployment were well within tenths of a degree. Because of the 
topic that's come up and potentially some problem with the 
vehicle, we've been going back in the last half an hour or so and 
.lust reverifying all of those numbers. That was done just before 
I left the Control Center. All of those things have been 
recomputed and, in fact, they were computed and verified by 
ourselves and the customer, predeployment, so the thing was 
absolutely normal. The PAM checkout, the PAM performance 
predeploy was nominal, really can't say anything detrimental 
about that. The attitudes were within tenths of degrees of what 
had been not only computed but of what had been predicted prior 
to launch. They were in the decimal places and every parameter 
from what we've been seeing in our simulations. After the 
deployment, a normal scenario would have you — as most of you 
probably know, at, deployment plus 45 minutes there is the first 
stage burn that the PKM puts you in a total elliptical orbit. 
Wittv the ground tracking stations that were available on this 
particular flight, there was no coverage at that time, the first 
station that would have seen it after that was at deployment plus 
an additional 15 minutes which would make it an hour later. The 
scenario as best as I understand it from the reports that I've 
heard were that initially they thought that they had a signal 
partial acquistion shortly after that time. The attitude that 
the vehicle was in at that particular point has the OMNI antenna 
radially outward from the Earth or from the tracking station, so 
you're looking at the other end of the vehicle and wouldn't 
expect a terribly strong signal, it turned out later on, some 
time later, that after they didn't get better acquisition, better 
signals, later on, they went back and questioned that first 
acquisition report and in fact the guys recanted on that and said 
that they weren't sure they had had a real acquisition then. So 
following that activity, the reports began to feed back into the 
Control Center here and since that time we've been mustering up 
support to try bring to bear all the facilities that the NASA has 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 2 



to offer as far as bringing tracking stations in the GSTDN in the 
deep space net up to try to acquire the vehicle and looking at 
the NORAD tracking stations also to try to acquire it. I think 
the, as best we know the situation right now, everything was 
absolutely normal up to deploy both on the spacecraft and on the 
PAM vehicle. The Orbiter systems all were nominal, since then 
we have been unable to decisively acquire the vehicle. A couple 
of instances where some people thought they might have acquired 
it, nothing as far as a definitive acquisition. Now that we know 
there's a real question about whether or not the first stage burn 
occured or not, General Abrahamson has been in contact with the 
other agencies that have tracking facilities and we're bringing 
all those facilities to bear as well as our own network and we're 
methodically going about trying to determine with some of those 
tracking sets looking at where that vehicle would be if the PKM 
burn did not occur and then at the same time having some others 
look at where it would be had the burn occured and just that some 
problems, perhaps with the radios or something of that nature, 
occurred. And I believe that's really the extent of what we know 
right now. 

PA0 Mr- Zigeler, is there anything you want to add to 



ZIEGLER No. Harold said almost everything that I was going 

to say, I do — we do concur that the deployment from the 
Orbiter was nominal. It was very accurate both in attitudes and 
in the rates at time of deployment, and it was deployed about 
4i00 p.m. Eastern time with no observable anomalies of either the 
deployment itself or the spacecraft or the PAM. And although we 
did expect to begin tracking, controlling the spacecraft about an 
hour after deployment, we've been unable to establish radio 
contact with the spacecraft. And as Harold says, we have the 
full cooperation of NASA, INTELSAT, and NORAD attempting to 
locate and communicate with the spacecraft. 

PA0 Anybody have any questions here in Houston? Craig 

Covault, Aviation Week. 

COVAULT Two questions, the first for Mr. ziegler. Do you 

have_any times coming up where you would anticipate some 
acquistion of the spacecraft through NORAD or other sensors that 
you'll be looking to here in the next few hours? 

ZIEGLER We'll be looking continuously for... 

DRAUGHON Yes, yes Craig. There are quite a — depends on, 

you know you got to look at both potential orbits that it might 
be in. We've already tried once with the Ascension tracking 
station and we're going to be trying with some others. They are 
laying out that plan right now. So they'll be allocating some to 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 3 



the packing orbit, if that's where it still is, and then if it 
did do the PKM burn, then, of course, it's way up in altitude and 
there are lots of sets that can see it. And that strategy is 
being laid out right now. 

COVAULT Okay, second question, you've got a second PAM and 

a second HS 376 in the bay, what about tomorrow morning? 

DRAUGHON That's not a resolved issue yet. The Hughes folks 

and the PALAPA customer have not come to grips with that yet. 
They're working on that problem now and, as you know, we have a 
~~ the nominal opportunity is tomorrow morning around 10:00 
o'clock for the PALAPA deploy. We have a backup, I believe it's 
rev 32 or 30, no it's 1 day later, about midday, a little later 
in the day on the same day that the rendevous starts, if the 
customer wants to exercise that option to do some more thorough 
checkout than is already available to him, then he'll certainly 
get that option to do that. 



PA0 Justin Urvich, Justin Urvich from Time. 

URVICH Mr. ziegler, is the, is the satellite actually 

lost, or can you, do you know where it is, or you're iust unable 
to establish radio contact? 

ZIGGLER No, we're — since we're unable to establish radio 

contact with it, as yet, I would have to say, it '3 possibly 
lost. The other poasiblity is that there's been a failure in the 
spacecraft of the telemetry transmitters so that the but since 
we can't communicate with it, we don't know where it is. 

PAO Any other questions? 

ZIEGLER it may very well be in the nominal orbit that we 

had planned to put it in. 

PAO Craig Covault, once again. 

COVAULT if it is in a nominal orbit and you had a nominal 

PAM firing and you're unable to communicate through your normal 
means you would be communicating now, can you and have you 
thought of going through with commanding some deployments that 
would bring up the big antenna, then you could pick up a little 
data down the track. Explain the timing on... 

ZIEGLER Yes, we have already sent commands, for example, to 

turn on the telemetry transmitters, to go to the high gain 
setting to deploy the OMNI, in the event that didn't deploy, and 
to do all of that over a seargh pattern and we're getting that 
computerized so that we can repeatly do that in a rapid manner. 



TS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p2ja 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 



COUVALT And which station are you using to send those 

commands? 

ZIGGLtSR We're using the best station of, at different 

times, but Filmore, the Hughes station at Filmore, California, 
and several of the INTELSAT stations, Halimalu, Yamagooche, and 
Arvan, which is the current — all of those have visibility to 
where the satellite should be at this point in time. 

COUVALT And those commands are going almost continuously? 

ZIEGLER Yes, we're... 

COUVALT To try and get something out of the burn. 

ZIEGLER Yes, we initially starting doing it manually on a 

repetitive basis and are getting it computerized so that it will 
be automatic. 

COUVAULT Okay, and one last question and then I'll get off 

the mike. Your normal AOS would have been through what station, 
Harold, or Mr. ziegler. 

DRAUGHON What was... 

COUVAULT Your normal AOS, if you would have picked it up 

when you wanted to. 

Yamagooche. 

Yamagooche. 

Right, Japan. 

Japan, right. 

Yes, sir. Your name and affilation, please. 

Jim Barlow with the Houston Chronicle. You're 
supposed to send the same type bird up in the shuttle in January 
of next. ... 



ZIEGLER 
COUVAULT 
Z IGGLER 
COUVALUT 
PAO 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30pm PAGE 1 



2IEGLER November of next year. 

J. BARLOW Is it November? 

ZIEGLER November of 85, yeah. It's too early to have 

second thoughts. 

PA0 Any other questions here in Houston? Craiq 

Covault, again. 

COVAULT Yeah, I'm afraid it's a Pearl Harbor question, but 

if you've lost the bird, discuss the insurance, the potential 
insurance ramifications of it. You are insured on the 
spacecraft? 

ZIEGLER yes. 
COVAULT For about how much? 

ZIEGLER I don't know the exact number, but it's in 

the order of a hundred million dollars. 

COVAULT And you paid about how much for your launch this 

time? 

ZIEGLER For the launch, or the premium for the 

insurance? 

COVAULT For the launch. If you're insured for about one 

hundred million, and then you paid NASA about how much to launch 
the bird today? 

ZIEGLER Well, NASA's fee is about ten million dollars. 

PA0 There are no questions at Kennedy, I 

understand, Does anybody have anything else here at Houston 
before we adjourn? Mr. Barlow, from the Chronicle. 

BARLOW The insurance that you had, is that also sort of a 

business interruption insurance as well as the value of the bird 
itself, and of the launch fee? 

ZIEGLER The bird, and the launch, and the PAM, and 

then it's insured for replacement value, if you will, and you may 
say that includes some provision for business interruption. 

p A0 Okay, Craig Covault, again. 

COVAULT Well, digging further back into history, and I 

don't recall, have you ever lost a westar off of a delta? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 2 



ZIEGLER NO. 

COVAULT This would be your first loss, if it's lost. 

ZIEGLER if, in fact, it's lost. Yes. 

PAO Yes sir, you're name and affiliation. 

A. MARSH (Aviation Week) Was there anything different about the 
transmitter, or transmitters rather, or power supply on this one 
as opposed to 5 or 4? 

ZIEGLER No. Well, there must be some detailed 

product improvements since time has elapsed. There's nothing 
fundamentally different. 

PAO Jeff Orvich again. 

ORVICH Yes, you said that the fee for the ride is ten 

million. Would you go over the cost of the satellite and the PAM, 
please? 

ZIEGLER Yes. The satellite costs in the order of 30 

million plus another 5 million that Hughes would earn as 
incentives over the life of the spacecraft for a continuing 
timeframe. The PAM is about seven million dollars. We have 
other costs in providing launch services and getting the thing 
into orbit, an insurance premium of roughly 6 percent of the face 
value of the insurance policy, and we do have costs in getting 
our — some additional ground station equipment, control station 
equipment, in order to control the additional satellite. I don't 
have the details on that. 

PAO Mr. Barlow from the Chronicle. 

BARLOW Are you satisfied that NASA did all it should have 

done? 

ZIEGLER Well, to the best of our knowledge right now, 

yes, NASA gave us what we required through deployment, and 
they've cooperated significantly above and beyond the call of 
duty, I might say, in assisting in this search. 

PAO Okay, Craig. 

COVAULT I believe the ANIK bird on the STS-5 had a problem 

where its transmitter was misconf igured. Have you already 
reviewed that, the history of that to a great extent and - - 



ZIEGLER 



Absolutely. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 3 



COVAULT Have you now ruled that out absolutely? 

ZIEGLER No, We haven* t ruled anything out 

absolutely because until we can get in contact with that 
satellite and find out what its state of health is, and what 
orbit it's in, we won't be able to rule out anything, 

COVAULT Have you been in contact with TELESAT Canada, just 

to trade the technical information on their problem on their 
deployment? 

ZIEGLER Well, we have the same spacecraft 

manufacturer that TELESAT had and they're fully aware of that 
detail. 

PAO Al Marsh, again, please. 

MARSH How long before, if this satellite is lost, you 

could build another one and launch it? 

ZIEGLER We have Westar 7 under construction and it's 

scheduled to be launched in November '85. How much we could 
accelerate that, I couldn't possibly say at this point in time. 

PAO Mr. Barlow from the Chronicle. 

BARLOW Did you pretty well have all your transponders sold 

or leased on 6? 

ZIEGLER I don't have the details on that. I know 

there was - - is some uncommitted capacity on Westar 6, but how 
much I don't know. 

PAO Okay, you appear to be satiated with that issue. 

I'll let Harold continue with the remainder of the debriefing of 
his shift. Harold. 

DRAUGHON Okay, most of those things are, perhaps, going to 

seem a little mundane. The Camera 0, I didn't get to hear Gary's 
debriefing, or shift handover this morning, so I don't know if he 
talked to you any about Camera Delta or not, but anyway, the 
starboard camera on the forward bulkhead of the Orbiter has a 
problem in that we don't have any tilt control of it. The pan 
capability of the camera, or the ability to slew in the yaw axis 
works in a reduced sense. It'll go for a while, but then it 
hangs up, but the pan doesn't work at all. We've gone through a 
fairly extensive checkout of that camera since that problem was 
noticed early this morning and it doesn't look like it's going to 
come back. There is some chance that the guys can take a closer 
look at it when they're EVA and we'll have them do that. We 
don't hold a lot of hope for any good results out of that, 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 4 



though. The crew has reported and put on the TV,, the Cinema 360 
has a - - there's a thermal shroud that goes around the GAS can 
that the Cinema 360 is encased within. That particular thermal 
shroud is closed on the forward inboard side by some patches of 
velcro. Those velcro patches came loose, probably during 
ascent and they are partially opened by just a few degrees. 
Again, we'll ask the crew during the first EVA to just remate 
that velcro and close that thing back up. We've gone some 
through some analysis of what the thermal environment is out 
there, and the amount that that shroud is opened, and it is not 
judged to be a problem. We're not modifying the attitudes that 
we're flying during the night or for tomorrow prior to the EVA's 
to compensate for that. The fan sep in the waste control system 
has failed. It shows stalled currents, I do know that Gary 
briefed you on that one. We have not troubleshot that any 
further. We have a redundant fan separator and that unit is 
online and is working per fectly. We are looking at some details 
having to do with how to dump the water that's in the EMU units 
that are used in the EVA. We need to dump that water out and put 
fresh water in prior to the EVA's. We were going to dump it in a 
fashion that would carry it through this fan separator. We may 
use an alternate procedure now that would bypass that and dump it 
directly out an overboard vent. The relative merits of going to 
a different procedure are being evaluated by the guys in the 
control center now. The crew has, on two occasions, mentioned a 
problem with their onboard intercom. This has just been in the 
last, maybe the last half of my shift, and originally, they 
weren't - - we have no manifestation of this noise on the voice 
loops on the ground. It's only evident onboard. Originally, 
they weren't sure whether it was on air/ground and the ICOM or 
the intercom system, or just intercom. Since then, we've talked 
to them a little more thoroughly, and they have done some 
troubleshooting. The problem is isolated to the onboard, both 
ICOM systems A and B. It is there pretty much all the time, and 
varies in intensity. They have gone through different changes of 
batteries in their headsets, in the wireless headsets, and 
they've even gone as far, Vance went and tried one of the old 
fashioned plug-in type headsets, and it's there even then. We 
don't know the source of that, or what kind of troubleshooting 
will be involved with that tomorrow. That's pretty much all that 
went on. The ship is behaving, as far as the Orbiter is 
concerned, the ship is behaving in a very fine fasnion. It's 
doing all the things that it's supposed to do and doing them very 
well, We've not had a lot to contend with as far as abnormal 
management or any kind of problems to deal with. That's all I 
have, I'll take any questions. 

PAO ICOM, we understand, is the intercom system. 



DRAUGHON 



Intercom system. 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p2jb 2/3/84 7:30 pm PAGE 5 



PA0 The crewmembers use it to communicate among 

themselves. Any other questions? And I guess nothing still from 
Kennedy? Is that right? Okay. The meeting's adjourned. Thank 
you for your time and attention. Good night. 

END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3ja 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 

PAO Okay, Good morning and welcome to our delayed but 

otherwise still in tact Change-of-Shif t Press Conference with 
of fgoing Flight Director Randy Stone, Randy's been here over in 
the Mission Control Room since about 1 this morning and he can 
tell you what's been going on and also to his right Mr, Bill 
Ziegler with the Westar Mission Director will talk to you a bit 
about their situation and we'll go ahead and turn it over to 
Randy now, 

RANDY STONE Good morning* I'm sorry to keep you waiting this 
morning but due to the circumstances of the deployment yesterday, 
we have been working some alternate plans that required the ltad 
Flight Director, who is my change-of-shif t partner, to be working 
offline to work some ongoing plans to accommodate a PALAPA 
deployment tomorrow and build into our flight plan the option for 
PALAPA to deploy on Monday and that decision will be based on 
engineering evaluation of the Westar PAM situation that I'm sure 
you all are very interested in me talking about, I think 
probably the appropriate thing to do this morning rather than go 
down through all of the things that the crew has accomplished on 
this shift is to bring you up to date on what we do know and what 
we do not know about the WESTAR, Through the night, on my shift, 
we have brought our tracking network to bear to try to locate the 
WESTAR satellite. What I can tell you, and truthfully it is all 
that we know at this time, is that we are tracking some multiple 
objects in an orbit that is very similar to the Or ibter ' sv We're 
tracking one fairly sizeable object that is big enough for us to 
track with multiple radars that we have been able to build a 
vector on and we understand, at least have a cursory 
understanding of its ornt. It's in an orbit of about 150 
nautical miles by 265 nautical miles. The correlation of that 
object to the WESTAR situation is unknown at this time but it is 
the only confirmed vector that we have on an object in an orbit 
that is similar to the Oribter. Through the night we have gone 
back and confirmed through all of our playback capabilities in 
the Control Center that the Orbiter yesterday during deployment 
was operating absolutely nominally, I*: was in the right 
attitude* It had very, very small rate errors at the moment of 
deployment and we are convinced, at least from the data that we 
have looked at, that the crew did an outstanding job of their 
mission on the predeployment phase of the satellite, I would 
like to tell you again that any conjecture that we can make about 
the objects that we're seeing on radar at this time is purely 
subjective until we can get more information and have it analyzed 
by our sources. I think it would be appropriate at this time to 
let Bill talk to you a little bit about the efforts they've been 
in through the night , 

BILL ZIEGLER Okay, what Randy says we generally confirm that 
there does appear to be at least 1 large object, perhaps 2, in an 
orbit approximating that of the Challenger or somewhat behind it 
and there are a number of other smaller objects that have been 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3ja 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 

reported. We have attempted to communicate with those objects 
without any success today. But this is a pretty difficult task 
considering the fact that these objects are moving oast ground 
stations at a fairly high rate and most of our antennas that we 
can bring to bear have fairly narrow beams and many of them have 
limited slowing rates so that. But, however, we are gettinq 
computer programs established for this orbit and for our various 
tracking stations in order to be able to send commands to these 
objects and hopefully receive signals from them. Or at least one 
of them, we also have no way to be at all certain that these 
ob3ects are WESTAR 6 or its pam and we are also searching the 
orbit that it was intended to put WESTAR 6 in and other orbits in 
between. We, of course, have speculation on failure modes and 
they're so numerous and so detailed and so flimsy at this point 
in time that I really can't go into them. We'll continue to 
bring all the resources that we have and our subcontractors have 
and NASA's kindly offered their assistance with all the resources 
that they have and we think there are some others that we don't 
even know about that are assisting us to help to solve this 
problem. ' 

STONE Steve, I think it'd probably be good to open it up 

to questions. I have a lot of other things I could tell you but 
I know you want to get to the important stuff. 

f A0 Okay. We'll take questions here in Houston 

first, yes, right back here with CBS. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p3jb 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 

CBS There have been several different figures mentioned 

as to the total investment that Western Union has in the 
satellite, a hundred million is one* Would you break it down and 
tell us what the investment is and the cost, and the cost of the 
launch, insurance, all of that? 

ZIEGLER Since I was in this room last night, I was also 

here a couple of weeks ago, I was asked that question, I think I 
have given you some slightly incorrect information. The 
spacecraft is fully insured at a number near 100 million dollars, 
and when I say near that, I think it's between 90 and 110. I 
haven't been able to confirm what the exact number is, I'm 
sorry. I did though get some more information on the cost, but I 
don't have a break down for it. The total cost for this launch 
is very close the 75 million dollars. And I had previously given 
you 60 to 70 million dollars, so I was in error on that. I 
apologize for that. And I don't have a break down for the 75 
million. 

PAO Roy Neal. Microphone over here. 

ROY NEAL Randy, you've already qualified that any conjecture 

at this time is purely subjective, but if you* re talking objects 
that are esentially in the same orbit as the Space Shuttle, as 
being possible objects that could be the Westar, that means it 
could be that we had something, obviously the PAM didn't take 
off. You didn't go to higher orbit. Can we successfully surmise 
this? Can we successfully operate on that as at least a major 
premise at this writing? I mean is certainly makes a lot of 
sense, and I'm asking for your help to help us to get the story 
out straight. 

STONE Do you want to answer that, or do you want me to? 

ZIEGLER No, I'll give it a crack, and if you, please jump 

in. If those objects are the PAM and Westar, several possible 
failure modes are possible. Either the spacecraft could have 
failed or the PAM or possibly both. One thought, and it's just a 
thought that's being investigated, is that this assembly went 
into a flat spin prior the PAM firing. And if it did so, it 
could have been for different causes. One could be a spacecraft 
fault, another could be a PAM fault. But if it did go into a 
flat spin, there would be very little energy of that PAM that is 
used to give us the impulse in the direction that we wanted it. 
We are persuing, you know, the investigation along those lines, 
all the possibilities that we can think of, for such causes and 
many others, by the way. 

NEAL A follow through, if I may. You are not seeing 

anything, radar or other tracking, at higher altitudes. 



ZIEGLER We haven't found any. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jb 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 



NEAf; You haven't found any at higher altitude but you 

have lound objects at the lower altitudes? 

STONE That's correct. I'd like to comment on that, 

through the night we have been switching radars off of the 
Shuttle tracking network and looking at the higher orbits, at 
where you would expect to find the spacecraft if it were truly 
outbound, and I don't have the number of times, the number of 
station that has done that, but the NASA radars have not seen 
anything outbound. 



NEAL Looks pretty bleak then, doesn't it? 

STONE it could be more positive. 

NEAL Thanks. 

PAO Craig Covault, right here in front. 



CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) Randy, speak a little more 
specificaly to Palapa for tomorrow. Are you right now on a 
course to launch tomorrow, or are you seriously considering 
waiting until Monday? 

STONE When I left the Control Center, 20 minutes ago, my 

Flight Activities Officer was working towards a deploy tomorrow 
in the nominal backup, the backup slot. We understand that, 
while in fact NASA management has asked Palapa for a decision on 
whether or not we should continue towards deployment tomorrow by 
2 o'clock this afternoon, I believe, Craig. And at that time 
it'll be easier for us to make plans for the next day. I can 
tell you though that if we do choose to go one day later, the 
Orbiter does have sufficient consumables, both cryogenic and 
propulsive, that we could stay an extra day and complete the full 
objectives of this flight. So we have looked at it in that 
light, and we're prepared to make the step into delaying it an 
additional day. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jc 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 



COVAULT Okay. A quick follow. The U.S. does have pretty 

good ground camera capability to photograph objects in low 
orbit. Have you made the request to bring Air Force cameras to 
bear to try and characterize that debris visually. 

ST0NE Craig, I can't comment on that. All the resources 

that I have available to me have been brought to bear and I'm 
sure General Abrahamson, if he has other resources is brinninq 
them to bear. 



PAO 

BERGMAN 
questions . 
flat spin, 
pieces that 
case, or if 
that Palapa 
Earth? 



Jules Bergman, next row back there. 

This is for Randy or Bill ziegler. I have two 
One, is it possible that rather than going into a 
the first stage motor exploded bringing about the 17 
Norad is reporting, allegedly. Two, if that were the 
the flat spin was the case, what is the possibility 
won't be launched at all but will be brought back to 



ZIEGLER Possibility of an explosion Is one of the 

possibilities that is being looked at and considered and - but we 
have no confirming evidence to say that it was or was not. 

BERGMAN Before you - let me add to that, Bill. Is there 

any telemetry onboard that would tell you anything about flat 
spin or explosion or anything like that? 



ZIEGLER 

BERGMAN 

ZIEGLER 
it. 



Yes. If we could talk to it. 

In other words, it is completely dead. 

So far we have not been able to raise a peep out of 



BERGMAN 



ZIEGLER 
STONE 



Randy? 

We are continuing to try. 

Oh, I have to answer the second one. Rats. I 



thought you had forgotten, Jules. 
BERGMAN No I never forget. 



STONE Having not talked to the Palapa people yet, they 

have a lot of decisions that they have to make and I don't know 
that decision process they are going through. However, it comes 
to mind from an operation sense that NASA needs to be prepared to 
bring Palapa home should they choose that course of action. And 
we have started just a cusory look at our landing weights and 
what that means to us on landing site selection, runway 
selection, etc. We are prepared to do that and as far as an 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p3jc 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 



Or biter weight situation it is not a problem. I can't tell you at 
this time whether or not we would still commit to KSC with the 
additional weight of Palapa onboard. The preliminary data that I 
saw before I left the control center was positive that we have 
the margins to go into KSC if we chose to. 

BERGMAN Let me follow that up, Randy, very briefly. in the 

event you don't know and ground cameras can't establish the 
debris as Craig suggested, in the event you can't find out what 
happened, would not NASA then recommend to the Indonesian 
Government as the launcher for them, that we should not take a 
chance? 



STONE I don't believe that's NASA's call, Jules. I think 

that belongs in the customer camp and I'm sure they will ask our 
advice but from an operation standpoint as far as the Orbiter and 
what we know about the deploy operations, I wouldn't think that 
we would take that stand. But it is the customer's choice, not 



BERGMAN You can't tell me that somebody in NASA doesn't 

recommend something to the Indonesian Government. 

STONE what I can tell you is, I am not doing that and I 

don't know of the management chain that's going on that would do 
that. I know the customers are meeting today and working that 
with their contractors and I would have to let them comment on 
that, Jules. I just don't have an answer for you. 

PA 0 John Noble Wilford right here in the front and 

then we'll go over there. 

JOHN NOBLE WILFORD (NEW YORK TIMES) The $75 million, what does 
that include and the difference between 75 mill.. on and the 
insured value of 100 million. Does that represent lost revenues? 

ZIEGLBR The 75 million cost, no, is our out of pocket cost 

to get this thing operating in orbit. 

WILFORD m other words that includes the satellite, the 

PAM, the fee to NASA, and what else? 

ZIEGLER Our engineering costs, insurance premiums, I think 

that s the essence of it, our own engineering cost and operations 
cost and ground equipment cost because we're controlling a new 
satellite. But I don't have a break down of that. 

WILFORD But the difference between 75 and 100, that 

represents what? Your lost revenues? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jc 2/4/84 ll;00am PAGE 3 

2IEGLER when we insure, we want to attempt to insure it 

£or the replacement value, to recover the replacement cost. And 
there is some loss of business, and I do^t have a breakdown of 
that, 

*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jd 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE I 

WILFORD when would you be able to put up a replacement? 

ZIEGLER well we have Westar 7 under contract with Hughes, 

and we have a launch reservation at NASA, and we have a PAM under 
contract. It's currently planned for a launch in November 
1985. I m sure all of those entities will bend every effort to 
help accelerate that. But I don't know the answer to how soon we 
can get it done, 

WILFORD And to Mr. Stone, what is it you are doing to 

investigate the status of the Palapa and the PAM associated with 
that? Do you have, are you in communication with that satellite 
in some way? 

STONE we have the normal checkout capability with Palapa 

and we have turned it on twice today, there's one other turn on 
scheduled late this evening, before the crew goes to sleep* But 
primarily that is just checking its thermal condition to make 
sure that all of our predictions on the thermal enviornment are 
going right. There are no extensive checkouts going on there. 
And you wouldn't expect to see any problem. 

WILFORD is that because it's not oossible to do an 

extensive checkout? 

STONE There is, it's possible to do more of extensive 

checkout than what we are doing with these simplified thermal 
checks that we are doing today, and we've told Palapa that we 
would be willing to do whatever checkout that they saw necessary 
and they are still going through an evaluation to see if they 
want to do anything other than the normal deploy sequence. 
Because the normal deploy sequence starts early and gives you all 
the data you're going to get, to make a decision on it. 

WILFORD What would the advantage of going an extra day, 

waiting an extra day, be to do one, some of those investigations? 

STONE No, it's primarily to try to get a handle on the 

problem that Westar had to see if, I'm speculating now, I'd hate 
to tell you what their engineering community is doing, but it's 
just prudent, in an engineering sense when you have a failure on 
one vehicle and you have another vehicle that's identical to it, 
to try to understand what happened to the one that has a problem 
and then check back through your records to see if there's some 
generic correlation that you could make there. But in this case 
we have very little data, so that, that's difficult, and - - 

PAO Paul Recer. 

RECER - Randy, has it been suggested or considered that 

since the orbits are fairly close, moving Challenger within 
visual range of these pieces and try to gather some photo data? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jd 2/4/84 11:00 



am PAGE 2 



STONE We s 

and we've been wor 
shift, Harold will 
enough propellant 
the top of my head 
starting to come i 
like the propellan 
But that has not, 



tarted thinking that as soon as had a vector, 
king just a cursory evaluation of that on my 
work it more this afternoon, to see if we have 
to go do that. Just looking at the orbit off 
and with beginnings of information that was 
n from my flight dynamics officer, it looks 
t cost to do that is too great to accomplish, 
of course, been ruled out one way or another. 



RECER okay, if you ace able to do that, when would it be 

done? Any idea? 

S ? 0NE 1 really don't know, NASA would have to decide to 

give up some of the other NASA primary objectives this mission to 

2?Js2, f 5\iV S °? v l ous that ifc wo «^ take all the reserved 

propellant that we had to do an operation like that, I don't 

expect that to happen, but we have looked at it just to qive the 

managers the cost of doing that, ne 

RECER Okay, one other. The, you said these objectives 

include a large object. How large is large? Do you have any 
idea of the size? y 



STONE 



Bill, do, I don't remember the number. 



ZIEGLER we have an estimate from NORAD that it's in the 

order of 3 to 4 square meters. 



RECER 

ZIEGLER 

RECER 



Okay, well. 

Radar cross section. 

Three to four square meters. 



ZIEGLER Three to four square meters, radar cross section. 

And by the way I don't know whether that was, at this point, I 

don' t know whether that was a single, one of the objects, or the 

combination of 2 possible objects. 3 ' r cne 

S!?2f?i' u- °!! ay '-. there is routinely kept an inventory of 
orbiting objects, is this, are these objects that you are now 

lit ?2l*. an .? d ?u ti0n , t0 . th ? t inven tory, I don't quite understand 
why that, if there is in fact a bench mark inventory, why they - 



lhlt L »$r« a A„ h?5 P"? um ? u s ?' because they would have told us if 
they already had it in their inventory. 



RECER 



And it was not in the inventory before? 



ZIEGLER Well, as I say, we presume so, because they didn't 

tell us it was in their inventory. 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p3jd 2/4/84 11:00am PAGE 3 

KRAMER You talked, Randy, you talked about a flat spin, I 

assume that means instead of this spin, a spin something like 
this, and if you get, if you got a PAH firing would that not send 

X?^f U *°5u pl £ n u?. A ? d where are these things in relation to the 
plane of the Orbiter's orbit. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3je 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 

STONE I'll let you answer the flat spin pact. The out- 

of -plane part, we don't have enough geometry on the tracking vet 
to look at the out-of-plane components. ■ yec 

KRAMER Well, it must be fairly close or else you'd see 

this orbit skewing far from the Spacecraft. 

STONE Yes, you would. 

ZIEGLER Part, preliminary information indicates that it's 

in approximately the same inclination, same orbit with the same 
inclination but with a higher apogee. 

STONE That's right. 

ZIEGLER And about the same perigee. 

KRAMER Wouldn't a successful PAM firinq pointed the wrong 

way send you into an orbit far from the one you're seeing? 

ZIEGLER If you can visualize this stack of Spacecraft and 

PAM in a flat spin, that moans that the PAM plume is spinning 
around like^a pinwheel and spraying in all directions which would 
mean that the average thrust in any particular direction would be 
very small , 

KRAMER Let me ask one or two more if I may. is not 

NASA's responsibility terminated once this thing leaves the 
Spacecraft, This PAM was not supplied by NASA, it was purchased 
„L£? U ?°} ks 1 guess from McDonnell Douglas and it's nice that 
NASA's doing all this and it's nice if the dod is using 
classified instruments to look for it. But I'm curious to know 
the exact relationship between the customer and the government. 
What point do you stop using these resources for a commercial 
venture? 

STONE That's a toucjh one. NASA, of course, is trying to 

be as^cooperative as possible in a situation like this, we'd 
like to have these people as customers downstream, obviously, and 
I think you'd have to ask NASA management much higher than me to 
get a straight answer to that one. 

KRAMER Can I ask you one more thing about the EVAS? You 

talk about extending the mission perhaps 1 day if you have to 
delay the deployment to a further backup day. why would you do 

£w«'52f ^o 8h i ft thin 9 s so that you could still come down on 
the same day? Move some activities up. 

STONE _ we could do that. We have a flight planning 

guideline and it's not a rule, it's just a guideline that we 
would like to not do an EVA on the day before entry and that's 
just because of the massive amount of equipment we have out when 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3je 2/4/84 11:00am PAGE 2 

it takes a while to pack up after an EVA and it's just good 
business to give yourself a day before deorbit to qet vour thinn, 
put away and da an orderly cleanup of the ship. iVt ITt a 9 
rule. One of the options that we'll be looking at over the next 
*Z£ Q ° f ? ayS ? Sh ° Uld We extend the PAI > APA deployment into 
hSS?? beenXe 9 ye?? miSSi ° n l0n * th the 8 *» but that wo ' k ^ust 

PA0 Okay, right here. 

2of^ Y . ^ , , X have a cou ?le of questions concerning the power 
assisted module. As far as I remember, the distanre with the inq 
was about 50 miles from the Shuttle. How far was the WESTAR awav 
when it was scheduled to be launched? How many miles? V 

f'5 0 ?!? S ince you asked that question, I brought a note 

was abou"i m fi and' w/f *- rn ; scheduled PK « burn! the Ot biter 
mifes^above 8 ?Se w^TAR^ 1 ^ 1 mlGS traUing and 6 ' 2 «-«*le.X 

QUERY was that nominal? 

STONE Yes. 

QUERY so the second would be do you have an automatic 

launching sequence for the WESTAR. That means, you don?t need a 
special command either from the Astronauts or from the ground? 

ZIEGLER To fire the PAM? 

QUERY Yes, 

"Started whJ*?J V°"? Pt \ ? '' 8 d ° ne by an ° nboard timer tha * 
45 minutes later! Separates from the 0rblter ™d that firing is 

vffV, th..orrv2ifJiS a a n d d d Y^pe^^ 

sis :s K}?is n ^ 9h aUow the pam to ^nit. i 2r?;StSSd 8 ;;;o 

2? B ?L \ u A 2 d " ho ' s confirming the launch then, the Satellite 

i« ■ Jhl ' S:S5i?M h \ PAM '- the i^ition of PAM? Who's confirming 
it? The Satellite gives you a signal or what. Tells you - - 

ZIEGLER That is our job to do that rather than NASA's and 

our Sa a Lni^ U ? Il L takeS Pla ° e U that we ^firm i? oy Mndtng 
our Satellite in the proper transfer orbit. We haven't done so 
so we can't confirm PAM firing. °' 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING P 3je 2/4/84 11:00 am PACE 3 

QUERY And the last one will be, are the Astronauts 

expected to turn the windows away from the launching of the PAM. 



ZIEGLER 
QUERY 
STONE 
QIERU 
STONE 
PAO 

Right here in the front. 



Yes. 

So that they couldn't see it, 
That's right, we do that to protect the - - 
I know, I know. 

- - window surfaces from the plume. 
Craig Covault, right here and then we'll get Rov. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jf 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) Three questions. Two for Bill 
The PAM has been used off of the delta as well and I think you're 
aware that early in the history of the PAM it did show some 
coning wnen coming off of the delta that caused some concern and 
actually some Spacecraft modifications on other oayloads. Have 
you thought about this coning problem early in the PAM as perhaps 
being something that was a factor in your problem. 



ZIEGLER 
now have wha 
nutation con 
coast period 
automatic nu 
faulty or in 
the sensors 
flat spin ra 



Well, yes. into the design of the Spacecraft we 
t we call an automatic nutation damper, automatic 
trol, ana during this coast period - this 45 minute 

- after it leaves the Orbiter until PAM firing that 
tation control will take out any coning unless it was 
correct. Or, one of the speculations is that perhaps 
got reversed, for example, and caused it to go" into a 
ther than taking out the coning. 



COVAULT I'm not clear on the earlier PAM coning problems. 

Whether that coning was started after the PAM motor was fired or 
as it was coming off the delta spin table before firing. 

ZIEGLER it took place during the last 20 to 30 seconds of 

the burn and during that last 20 to 30 seconds built up 
essentially exponentially and then it built up very slowly after 
that until separation. ' 

C ?Yf U !£ u So *V? not necessarily, doesn't necessarily track 
with the characteristics you're seeing. 



ZIEGLER 



Right. 



COVAULT okay. And following that, since you do not have a 

visual contact due to the window protection attitude, it's always 

been an option to place the telemetry on the PAM that would 

report^back real time to the Orbiter. I believe SBS was the only 

payload that did this. WESTAR chose not to do that in this 

case. Could you tell me how much Spacecraft life you gain by not 

fSfi^!?i t Dw t ^ ext 5 4 weight and is not that the factor why you don't 
install that extra telemetry weight. 



ZIEGLER 
COVAULT 



That PAM telemetry is 

40 pounds? 



R * recall something on the order of 40 pounds, 

But I don't think we were concerned so much about the 



ZIEGLER 
yes. 

weight as the extra dollars. 



the extra 



COVAULT now much more money does it cost to place the 

telemetry on? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jf 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 



ZIEGLER i don't recall that either. I'll have to qet back 

to you, ' 



PAO 



Let's go to Roy Neal, right there, 



ROY NEAL (NBC) Bill, I'm looking at a Western Union release 
that says NASA compressed a normal 33 month schedule into 10 
months. McDonnell Douglas provided a PAM in less than a year. 
Hughes modified the Spacecraft for STS compatability as compared 
to Arean when you decided not to go Arean and go American instead 
with only 9 months lead time. With that for background, what 
kind of quality checks are you running now to see what might hav<=» 
happened on that expedited schedule? 

ZIEGLER Quality checks on the expedited schedule. 

NEAL Yes sir. 



ZIEGLER Well, of course, we're looking at everything and 

when we find out what went wrong, you know, then maybe we'll know 
the answer to that question. But at this point we - - 

mPih Those checks presumably are being run now, however. 

ZIEGLER Oh, absolutely. 

NEAL Various points. The PALAPA, by comparison, was 

allowed to come to full term wasn't it? I mean, it was on a 
normal schedule PAM included. So presumably, if there were an 
error in quality control that would not reflect with PALAPA. 

ZIEGLER I can't, yes due to that reason. I can't really 

speak for PALAPA but as I understand it their 's was a more normal 
schedule than ours. 

PAO Jules Bergman. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) This is I think for Randy again. Though 
NASA s responsibility ended legally when WESTAR left the payload 
bay, it has always been and as stated in the press kit that the 
major mission goal was the launching of these 2 COMSATS. So 
therefore, I submit the Shuttle may not be a simple freighter 
truck, Does that not change NASA's responsibility? 

STONE Well, when we sign up a payload such as a 

communications satellite, and we have two of them on this flight, 
the primary goal of the Orbiter is to deliver those satellites to 
orbit and we will expend, for instance, propellant to guarantee 
that we can deploy those satellites and terminate the mission 
following the deployment and come home without accomplishing any 
of the other objectives in the mission. And if you look at the 
priority flight that we have had ever since we've had satellites 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jf 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 3 

to deploy, and then look at the priority tables that we build to 
use propellant. That's always the case, Jules. We'll, you know, 
our primary goal is to the customer and we'll use up the 
resources of the Orbiter necessary to deploy them but you've got 
to remember in that scheme of things that's implying that 
something happened to the Orbiter. That we weren't in the right 
orbit or whatever that we had to go use up that propellant. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p3jg 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 

BERGMAN Well, therefore, I'm probably wrong on this as 

usual, but therefore, is it not worth, if that was the primary 
goal, is it not worth Nasa changing or expending the fuel, from 
the Orbiter to find out exactly what happened to Westar? 

STONE well I think that's up to Nasa Management to decide 

whether or not that's a prudent thing to do. if the propellant 
cost was relatively low, and you could go get a subset of your 
requirements, I'm sure NASA would consider that. And I'm not 
sure they wouldn't consider it in this situation. But all the 
votes aren't in, Jules, and I just don't flat know the answer to 

v D a C • 

PA0 4 . c _ Okay, we'll take one more here and then we'll take 
questions from KSC. Right here. 

WILLIAMS - (KJOJ) - One quick question Mr. Stone, how would the 
EVA s be affected with a Palapa satellite, still be in, with the 
Palapa satellite still remaining in the cargo bay? 

STONE it would look to the EVA crewman, a normal 

situation, because the sunshield would be closed and the EVA 
crewman doesn't know whether there's a satellite in there or 
not . 

WILLIAMS So it would not cause any dangers or, also, are 

there any checks made on the PAM itself before the satellite is 
released. 

STONE Certainly, there are extensive checks on the PAM 

and Bill probably is more familiar with them than I am. But they 
do go through a check of their sequencers, make sure their safe 
and arm devices are in the proper configuration, make sure all 

Ju £?i ays . are set ri 9 ht ' so there's an extensive check out of 
the PAM prior to deployment. 

5* A0 Okay, we'll take question now from the Kenneday 

Space Ccenter . 1 

£2L<- * ,, We ™ ve severa l questions here. The first from 
Reggie Turnell, BBC. 

TURNELL - (BBC) Is, just two points on the Westar problem. 
McNair did comment on the heavy jolt, when it left Challenger, 
is this thought to have any bearing on the problem? And the 
other one is, is no consideration being given to allowing 
does take C place ake a very brieC look at the Pal apa firing if this 

STONE Well, I'll take a crack at answering both of those 

questions, The sensation of feeling a jolt when you deploy a 
satellite from this configuration has been reported on nearly 



STS-41-B CHAHGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING P 3jg 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 

every flight on one degree or another. I don't believe anybody 
thinks there was any contributing problem there, with respect to 
looking at the Palapa PKM burn, we've started some analysis in 
the Control Center and brought in some of our off-line technical 
people too look at techniques that would allow us to use the RMS 
camera, either the end affector camera or the elbow camera, to 

??m£ S? t hh«°2S2 w he ° rb i^ r e nd be P oi "ted at the Palapa at the 

a the PKM burn. And that analysis will continue through 
the day to determine, one, whether we can even get into an 
attitude that the camera can look back over the payload bay doors 
S, t e "i ng ™ d S T the satellite, and two, whether there's any 
J^LJ and primarily to the RMS that would jeopardize 

downstream use of the arm. 

LORETZ - (Chicago Sun Times) - I may have missed something 
earlier but in suggesting an extra flight day, do you imply a 

™l aV f ° f d f y in the se ^ond EVA, that is, moving the second 
EVA from Thursday to Friday. 

STONE Dick, I'm really not positive how we'll insert that 

h*nl?^?£i' l USt fr( ^. th ; e sim Plicity standpoint, it would be 
SfSJii i *° ^ fUght P lanners ' just, to take a day out of the 
2nf i!„ d ? 5? lapa one dav late ' and move everything downstream 
one day, including both EVA's and the rendezvous and that's the 
most simplified thing for us to do from a paperwork standpoint, 
of getting the right information of when to do what to the 
'£E!J\k 5 ? that would be the first choice, but we have to look at 
what that really means to us, and we don't have that story fully 
put together . * 1 

SAILSTBAD - (Baltimore Sun) - I have two questions, first to 
double check Mr. Stone's numbers on the position of the Westar 
I wrote them down as 8.5 nautical miles trailing. That iS thJ 

oEhiS5 !!! < r ? iUn 2- th ? W f! tar bv 8 ' 5 n^tical miles, and the 
Orbiter was 6.2 nautical miles above the Westar, is that right, 

bl?n? of the PAM CreCt ' That at tHe time ° f the scheduled PKM 

SAILSTEAD At that time when they actually saw it visually, 
was it in a proper attitude then. y ' 

STONE we did not, we do not monitor visually the PKM 

Si, fh» C A W u? tUal ! y , turns the 0cbi ter away from the burn to 
protect the Orbiter windows from contamination from the solid 
rocket motor. So we're not, unless we do something that we 
normally don't do, we cannot see the PKM burn. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jh 2/4/84 11:00 pm PAGE I 

SAILSTEAD All right. I understand that, but I don't 
understand when they last saw it. We all saw it on television, 
spinning out of the cargo bay. When did the astronauts last see 
it, how high above or beyond the Orbiter was it, and was it thpn 
in a proper attitude. 

STONE I don't know what the range was when they started 

their manuever to the sep burn attitude, which would kind of give 
you a feel for where it was. I can get that number for you, but 
I don't know what that it. it was nominal as long as we had it 
in the TV, and it was nominal as long as the crew was looking at 
it. Now they may have stopped looking at before they actually, 
it was actually completely out of the field of view, but I doubt 
that. Normally they watch it until it disapears into the 
darkness. But I could get you those ranges. 

MIKE MEECHAN (Gannette News Service) Can someone clarify 
exactly who has son these objects? Is it NOR AD, or is it NASA's 
tracking system? 

STONE It's the NORAD tracking system that is providing us 

this information. 

PA0 , That's all the questions from KSC, wait a minute 

there's another question, Harry Rosenthal from AP. 

HARRY ROSENTHAL (AP) I know that you've said how much fuel, 
that it would take too much fuel to try to catch up with the 
satellite, or the chunks that you are seeing, but can you tell us 
exactly how far away at this point the Orbiter is, I'm sorry I'm' 
out of breath, from the chunks? 

STONE At this instant I have no idea, that's a relative 

motion problem that has to be run almost continuously in the 
Control Center. The, let's see, the approximate orbit that the 
major piece that we're tracking right now is in, is 155 by about 
265, I believe, and the Orbiter is in a 166 by 171 orbit, 
approximately. So it can be a wide variation of ranges, however, 
if you're getting at whether or not we are worried about it 
recontacting, it appears that the orbits are getting slowly 
farther apart, which is what you would expect with 2 different 
energy orbits, 

ROSENTHAL And on another subject please, recalling the 
thermal blanket that - where the velcro was loose in the opening 
pictures of the cargo bay and the thump on the PAM when it was 
deployed, are you worried at all about the things that you have 
in the cargo bay that have to do with the EVA? 

STONE No, we're not. In fact, we're looking at during 

the first EVA prior to use of the Cinema 360 camera that's in the 
bay that has the loose thermal blanket, one of the EVA crewmen is 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jh 2/4/84 11; 00 pm PAGE 2 



going to go over there and see if it's just a velcro closure that 
has pulled loose and pushed the blanket back down to where it's 
suppose to be. And as far as the thump is concerned, we have no 
concern over that, that is something we have seen with other PAM 
deploys. 

TOM O'TOOLE {Washington Post) If you leave the Palapa in to 
bring it back, whether the fact that you have additional 
pyrotechnics on it would impact any other experiments that would 
be carried out on the mission. 

STONE None that I know of at this time. If Palapa 

chooses to return their satellite, we will put it in its most 
safe and powered down configuration. So there is no concern 
there . 

p AO That's all the questions from KSC. 

PA 0 Ok, we have questions at the Marshall Space Flight 

Center, we'll take those. 

DAVE DOOLING (HUntsville Times) For Mr. Ziegler, if, is there 
any credible failure in the Hughes spacecraft portion of all this 
that could have caused the RCS system to lock on to out it into 
the flat spin? 

ZIEGLER Conceivably, but we haven't concluded that of all 

the speculations of the failures, we haven't confirmed that any 
one of them are possible or impossible. 

DOOLING Ok, Randy, Have you considered changing the orbit 

simply to avoid the possibility of any kind of recontact with the 
debris and what would that do to the Palapa deploy opportunities 
and the operations with the irt. 

STONE Well based on what we're seeing now, and of course 

we don't have real accurate data on all of the particles, it 
looks like things are slowly moving away from the Orbiter. And 
especially when you don't know exactly where everything is, where 
you are is as good as any, So no, we are not planning to move 
the Orbiter at this time. The objects that we're tracking appear 
to be moving down track of the Orbiter very slowly. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3ji 2/4/84 11.00 a.m. Page 1 

DOOMING Okay, any indication on how long that would take 

that gradual phasing until the 2 orbits would recontact, 

ST0NE I asked that question earlier this evening, and 

FIDO couldn't count that high, it's long after we land." 

D0OLING Okay, and if don't extend the mission, what 

activities would most likely be lost. 

ST0NE If we do not extend the mission and deploy Palapa 

tomorrow, nothing would be lost. We have flight planned for this 
contingency to give the customer 1 day of backup deploy 
opportunity. Should we have to extend an additional day, you may 
lose nothing except shorten possibly an EVA and shorten a 
rendezvous sequence, but we haven't, we have a lot of options 
there to work with and we're holding them open until we 
understand what we have to go plan for. 

DOOLING Okay, thank you, no more from Marshall. 

PAO Okay, Olive Talley with UPI. 

TALLEY First of all, either Randy or Bill, we've 

mentioned a number of pieces bhat you are tracking. Exactly how 
many pieces are we talking about. 

STONE Exactly we have no idea. 

TALLEY What's your best guesstiment, what is the ballpark, 

10, 15, 20, 2, what? 

STONE I would hate to guess, as the reports have come in 

through the night as we've gotten more tracking data, it's gone 
from 3 to 5 to 9 to 18. Bill have you heard any other numbers? 

ZIEGLER No. 1 and 2 and any other number inbetween there. 

TALLEY Several would be fair. 

STONE Several is probably the appropriate answer. 

ZIEGLER It does though, seem to be narrowing down to some 

agreement, that there are two sizeable particles. 

TALLEY And Bill, 1 more question please, regarding the 

loss of business to Western Union, you said that the .100 million 
dollar insurance figure covers some loss of business. How many 
clients would have used, or have you signed up to use Westar 6, 
how many clients, how much business, can you pinpoint that anv 
farther. 



ZIEGLER No, I can't at this time. 



STS-41-8 CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p3ji 2/4/84 11.00 a.m. Page 2 



TALLEY Or access any financial impact of the loss to 

Western. 

ZIEGLER No. I can't, let's not, neither of those, 

marketing or the financial accounting, is in my area of 
expertise, and I would have to refer you to our Public Relations 
Organization. Oh, by the way, there is an office, temporary 
office down at the Cape, Bill Anderson, is there, in a Western 
Union communications room at the Cape. 

QUERY Phone number? 

ZIEGLER 305-783-1843, I don't know how long they are going 

to be there, but I believe they will be there at least today and 
probably tomorrow. And then our corporate headquarters ought to 
be opened up Monday. 

PAO David (Garble) (CBS) 

DAVID Mr. Stone, I think you mentioned that by 2 o'clock 

this afternoon there may be an announcement as to the Indonesian 
government's decision. Would you like to know by 2 o'clock this 
afternoon whether or not it's go for Sunday or go not at all. is 
that kind of a deadline that you've set. 

STONE It's not a deadline, but the earlier we know that 

we would for instance bring it home, the better prepared we can 
be, to work out our flight plan. And that goes for a one day 
slip too. We would like to know that as early as possible. 
Obviously if we countdown to a deploy tomorrow and for some 
reason choose not to go tomarrow, we still have the option to 
slip one day and it will just compress the flight planning time 
that we have to pull the rest of the mission back into shape. 

PAO Jules Bergman. 

BERGMAN It's probably for you, Bill Ziegler. I have a 

questar telescope, which is hooked to my Nikon, and I can see 
objects the size you're talking about very clearly in earth 
orbit. So even without the Air Force's high powered telephoto 
cameras, or with them, you should be able to see if the flat spin 
theory is true or if burn marks, for example, on pieces of metal 
up there very rapidly, shouldn't you. 

STONE I think you ought to hire Jules to go out and look 

for them. 

ZIEGLER I suspect that was a proposal. I don't know the 

aspects to that. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT Bk.EFING p3ji 2/4/84 11.00 a.m. Pago 3 

BERGMAN What I'm curious about is which organization, NASA 
or Western Union, asked the Air Force to study this? Or did 
both? 

ZIEBLER i don't know the answer to that, 

STONE And I don't either, Jules, I suspect it was a joint 
effort. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p3jj 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 1 
PAO Paul Recer. 

PAUL RECER (AP) Does the relationship of the orbits of the 
object and the Orbiter present any angular or proximate 
advantages in using the onboard radar or radio communications 
equipment to study the problem or try to communicate in one 
manner or another with the objects? 

ST °NE The onboard radar system, our Ku-band radar system, 

I d have to look to see what the closest points of approach are 
of the other orbit. But I suspect, you know, our Ku-band radars 
are very low power device, intended for use fairly close in in 
the rendezvous process and I suspect that we're out of the normal 
range of that instrument but I'd have to look at the relative 
orbits to tell you that for sure. 

2IEGLER Randy's team, though, is looking at that 

possibility. 

RECER Okay, radar. How about of radio or, you know, 

trying to communicate with the - - 



ZIEGLER 
communicate 

RECER 



Well, I don't think 
with our satellite. 

Okay, 



the Orbiter 's equipped to 



PA0 I'm going to take about 2 more questions. Mark 

Kramer right there. 

MARK KRAMER (CBS) Randy, does anyone consider possibly junking 
the IRT exercise and doing a real rendezvous with this 
Spacecraft, or with these objects? 

STONE I'm sure that's a consideration. The tradeoff 

primarily lies in whether or not you have enough propellant to do 
a rendezvous such as what you're proposing with this object. It 
looked to me like, when I left the Control Center just on the 
first vector that we had - and granted that vector is going to 
change through the day as we get more tracking stations reports 
of it and hone it down to some degree of accuracy - but it looked 
like the propellant cost was above what we could do even if we 
gave up all other objectives of the mission. 

KRAMER I know you said you didn't know exactly where this 

group of objects was in relation to the Spacecraft but other than 
exactly, can you characterize it in some way? Is it a quarter of 
an orbit away? Is it 500 or 15,000 miles away? Is it still 
ahead or below? 



STONE it's behind us, at least it was when I left the 

Control Center and I would expect it to get more behind us 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH tFT BRIEFING p3jj 2/4/84 11:00 am PAGE 2 



because it has a higher average altitude of the orbit so its 
orbit is higher so actually it, with respect to us, it's going 
slower so it's moving to a trailing position, a farther trailing 
position to the Orbiter and it's varying quite a bit now because 
of the - - 

ZIEGLER Randy, the last number I heard was that it was 25 

miles behind and increasing. 

STONE And I would like to, before we say that it's 25 

miles behind us, I've also heard the same folks say it is 25 
minutes behind us which at 17,000 feet per second is a whole lot 
more than 25 miles and I just don't know at this time how far 
this is truly behind us. But it is behind us. 

KRAMER So it's exactly somewhere between 25 and 8,000 or 

something like that. 

STONE I wish I could give you some exact data. 

KRAMER With a real firm maybe. 

PAO Doug Miller with KTRH in the back there. 

DOUG MILLER (KTRH) Okay. First of all, Steve can we get the 
exact figure on that. Is there some way we can determine that or 
try to get a better idea? 

STONE Of how far behind? 

MILLER Right. Can we get that and pass it through the 

PAO? 

STONE 1 don't believe you're going to be able to get it 

quickly because as we, like I say, we have 1 vector so far on 
this object. It is not what you would describe as the best 
vector that, we can put together because it has very few stations 
in it and the geometry, if you will, the way it points ^t the 
object has so far been fairly poor. We don't have a good 
selection of sites looking at the target and it'll be, I'm sure, 
much later today before they tie that orbit down and could give 
you an answer like that. 

MILLER All right. And secondly, what do you need to 

finally determine if this debris is your satellite and when do 
you expect to get it? I mean obviously you've got to figure it 
out at some point. What's it going to take and when do you 
expect to make that determination? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING plljk 2/4/84 11: CO am PAGE 1 

ZIEGLER well what it would take would be either close up 

photographic evidence or radio communications with it. And see 
if it responds to it's identity code, and that kind of thing. 
How long it's going to take, That could be 2 minutes, 2 hours, 
or 2 years. 

p A0 Okay, I think we will close it off with that. 

Thank you for coming this morning, thank you gentlemen. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4ja 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 1 



PAO We've got not one, but two Flight Directors, Al 

Draughon whose 41~B lead Flight Director, who's been sort of off- 
line today working the rescheduling and flight planning problem, 
while Gary Coen has been minding the spaceship all day. And also 
on the far end is Mr* Bill Ziegler of Western Union, Al why 
don't you run over some of the planning you've been doing on the 
various options that are open to us tomorrow, 

DRAUGHON What we're going to do here today, and the 

reason there are three of us, as Terry said, I've been involved 
with the replanning aspects , and I'll try to acquaint you with 
the kind of decision points that we're planning to go through for 
the next couple of days, Gary will debrief you on the things 
that went on today's shift because he took that shift in my stead 
today* And Bill will fill you in on whatever they have learned 
in there continuing quest to get some data. We've briefed the 
crew shortly before we left the Control Center, that for 
tomorrow, we still have, the decision has still not been made on 
whether or not to deploy the Palapa or not tomorrow, The 
options, there was a, in the premission planning, there was, this 
was to be - tomorrow would have been the backup date that we 
would have used for either Westar or Palapa, That would have 
nominally been REV 32, We have looked at the over all coverage 
from looking at ground tracking station coverage, both during the 
deploy, and after the deploy looking at immediate coverage after 
a PKM burn and have decided that we will recommend that if we do 
deploy tomorrow that we use REV 34, which will be a 2 REV slip, 2 
REV delay. The decision as to whether or not to deploy, yet 
indeed whether or not to use that particular REV will reside with 
the customer. They have scheduled a meeting to deal with that 
issue around 6j 00 o'clock local. And I don't know what the 
answer will be coming out of that meeting. We will respond to 
either way, if they want to go tomorrow then we are fully 
prepared and ready to do that, If they want to delay then we are 
making plans to go to an alternate profile to bring whatever 
flight activities we can for tomorrow, and try to do as much 
constructive work as we can. So the nominal plan will be, if we 
deploy probably REV 34, but a firm commitment won't be made until 
later this evening. If the decision from the customer is that 
they would rather take some more time to simulate what data they 
have to do further checks, going back through records, and what 
have you, we're trying to make every opportunity available to 
them, to go later in the flight. To fill in tomorrow if we don't 
deploy the Palapa, we will be bringing forward the IRT deploy , 
That's a 2 meter balloon that I talked to you all about in the 
Mission briefing a few weeks prior to launch, We will, if we do 
the balloon work tomorrow, it will be slightly different but if 
all of you had heard that premission briefing, I described to you 
2 rendezvous scenarios. One that was a nominal where we deployed 
the thing on one afternoon, do a little work enclosed with the 
sensors and then separate out to 175 miles, re-rendezvous the 
next day. And then another rendezvous profile that we would have 



STS-41-8 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4ja 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 2 

used had we been on a priority flight and only devoted one day to 
rendezvous. That second profile is the one we will fly if we do 
a rendezvous tomorrow with the IRT. Basically it is made up of a 
deployment, with the IRT, a maneuver to go out to 8 miles 
different distance from the IRT, on the velocity vector, 8 miles 
behind it. Then we do an approach back in to 5 miles behind it, 
go back out to 8 again, and then return in and essentially do a 
final phase rendezvous coming all the way back to the target. 
And by all the way back I mean up to 200 feet. That will, as far 
as what do you get out of that versus the nominal, what was the 
nominal full rendezvous, you get everything except the ground 
involvement. If you do the wrong rendezvous, the difference is 
that you're starting out the return leg from 175 miles, the 
ground makes those computations on those first 2 maneuvers, what 
is called the NIC maneuver and the NH maneuver, to bring the 
vehicle back to the TI point, or the terminal phase point at 8 
miles at which time they, onboard takes over and does that job 
for themselves. So we essentially lose that part of it. I think 
all of you that have been following the program know that we have 
done targeting , ground targeting of maneuvers quite a bit. We 
even did some phantom rendezvous on flights 3 and 4, I believe. 
But on 2 or 3 flights we did this kind of thing, and we did it 
quite a few, quite a lot in the Gemini and Apollo programs, so 
it's not something that's new to us. The softwares is a little 
bit different, the filters are a little bit different, but it's 
something we know how to do. So we don't feel badly about 
missing that particular exercise if do. The important thing to 
get out of this flight as far as the rendezvous is concerned is 
to get this sensor performance between the Orbiter and whatever 
the rendezvous target is. That's the highest priority. Another 
high priority objective was to get the terminal phase involvement 
of the crew and the onboard sensors from the 8 mile point back in 
to the rendezvous target. That's where the job reverts totally 
to the crew, And you've got the man interaction of the NAV 
states, and executing 4 or 5 burns, and doing terminal phase and 
stationkeeping . So we've preserved all of those aspects that are 
rendezvous DTO . So that's the basic plan, we're really trying to 
give the customer as much lee-way as they can in dealing with 
whatever the problem is and taking our best shot at getting a 
good deploy off on the next one. There is consideration even 
begin given to slipping the deployment even further than that, if 
the customer is so desired. That would potentially result in 
moving one of the EVA's day one day forward and putting the 
Palapa deploy between the 2 EVA days. That is not high in the 
list of things that are being considered right now, but it is 
something that is being entertained. It's an option that we can 
do. And the thermal analysis that have been done, would indicate 
that the Palopa and the PAM would not have a problem as far as 
the attitude profiles that we would fly in performing both the 
rendezvous and the first EVA. So it's an option that is 
available if we choose to take that course of action. As far as 
things that we might do differently, whenever the Palapa deploy 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p4ja 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 3 

is scheduled, so far we've identified 2 things. One I've talked 
to you briefly about, and that is rather than putting it on the 
earliest REV, the earliest convenient REV, which is what REV 32 
was, and having a subsequent REV to deal with little nagging 
problems, or problems that we might encounter during the 
predeployment checkout, and having a backup REV, that's why it 
was put on REV 32. We've opted to recommend at least that it go 
on REV 34, which gives us the additional coverage during the 
deployment and additional coverage directly after the PKM burn. 
So that is different. The other thing that is different is, I 
also mentioned during the premission briefing that we were doing 
a thing called a witness plate evaluation. And that is there was 
a test article put on the RMS arm, that we were going to hang out 
in the PAM plume, and see what kind of erosion we got on that 
particular sample material, and more or less calibrate the 
erosion factor of the plume at 10 1/2 miles distance. The reason 
that we would like to do that, is to relieve ourselves of some of 
the self imposed constraints on protecting the Orbiter windows 
and bay from erosion and getting in very specific attitudes when 
a PKM burn is going to occur. If we can measure that, and 
convince ourselves that's it is not as detrimental as our worse 
case analysis are and we know that they are terrible 
conservative, then we would relieve some of those constraints, if 
not relax them totally. We're going to continue to do that, but 
in addition to that, as you know there's a camera on the end 
effector for the RMS, a TV camera. We intend to, the arm 
configuration for that witness plate is the vehicle is, if the 
nose is towards you folks, the arm is on the port side. It will 
be across the bay, and out this way with a little, just a little 
bend in the elbow, and the witness plate is along here. We're 
now going to take the end effect if it's on the end of this guy, 
and turn it down, and to look at the PAM at ignition. There's 
obviously going to be some contamination of that lens when the 
aluminum particles get back to where the Orbiter is, but it was a 
concession that was made to looking and getting what additional 
data we can at ignition for the next deploy. So, other than 
that, everything is pretty much the same. That pretty well 
covers the planning aspects. You want to cover questions now on 
that? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE I 

, PA0 Well, perhaps we ought to go ahead and cover what's 

Happening to the Challenger and then go to questions on both 
aspects. Gary. 

GARY COEN Okay. As you know, I stood in for Harold today on 
the execute shift and as you know the deploy of the PALAPA 
planned for today was canceled. We did do some checkout on tho 
EMU s. we checked out all three EMU's and the EMU's are ready to 
go so when we do the rendezvous part of the mission, those 
particular sets of hardware are squared away and checked out 
quite well. Also did some SPAS checkout. We checked out the RF 
links, all elements of the RF links to the SPAS. We learned some 
tnings from the crew today about one of the lockers, one of the 
lockers he had problems unlatching. Bruce was able to tap it a 
little bit with a hammer and was able to get the locker ooen. We 
don t expect any problem getting the door on that locker 
closed. Crew also accomplished a cabin debris inspection. They 
reported they didn't see a whole lot of debris. They did clean 
a -^ t ^„ 1 J- ter ! toda Y' a11 of them except the filters associated 
with DDUs 1 and 2 which they plan to clean tomorrow. They did 
report plenty of lint on the IMU fans which they cleaned uo and 
they also vacuumed the cabin fans. Most of you, if you watched 
TV today anyway, saw that, or most likely knew, that we did some 
Cinema 360 work in conjunction with that. The vehicle's in good 
shape as far as consumables are concerned. We think we have 
enough consumables to support any reasonable plan that comes up 
in the next few days. If there are any questions. 

oka y* Please wait for the mike. Jules Bergman, 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) For Harold Draughon. what time tonight 
will the decision be made on whether to launch PALAPA tomorrow 
and why rev 34? 

DRAUGHON Jules, the meeting is scheduled to convene at 6 

o'clock between Hughes and the Indonesians and i don't know how 
long that meeting will take. I know that there's a lot of 
preliminary work going on so I suspect they've got their stories 
in order. So I don't know how long that will take but the 
meeting starts at 6:00 to discuss that and have a final 
recommendation to us. 

BERGMAN Second point. Do you see any chance that the 

Indonesians might elect to bring it back to Earth without 
launching it? 

DRAUGHON That's their prerogative. We're fully willing to 

take that course of action if that's what they want to do. We 
carry the propulsion, You know it does make the deorbit delta-Vs 
and things like that go up. They increase slightly because of 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 2 



the increased weight, if they want to do that then we're ready 
and willing to do it. 

PAO Craig Covault, Aviation Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) For both Harold and Mr. 
Ziegler. Any further characterization of the debris, 
specifically were you able to get some imagery that helped you 
characterize it? 

ZIEGLER Well, we haven't gotten any imagery to the best of 

my knowledge, but we did have one clue, if you would, that one of 
our stations has received about 2 minutes of signal from the 
objects that were tailing the Or biter. But it was so weak that 
we were unable to log onto it to gain any intelligence from it. 
However, it had the proper frequency and it was operating on the 
batteries which in the deployment configuration it's not" hooked 
up to charge from the solar cells. So analysis shows that the 
batteries are pretty far down, pretty well discharged. So we 
think one of the first things that goes out is the traveling wave 
tube amplifier on the telemetry transmitters at low voltage, and 
all we were getting was a signal running through the traveling 
wave tube amplifier and out to that. We are attemoting to put in 
commands to change the configuration to charge batteries and, of 
course, if we get a « during daylight and a favorable attitude 
of the sun to the solar arrays, we should be able to get voltage 
and battery up and so forth, but so far we haven't been 
successful in that. It was a signal of the type we would expect 
from an HS 376 spacecraft but it's nowhere near conclusive at 
this point. 

PAO Follow up with Craig. 

COVAULT Yes sir, but there are not a lot of lost HS 376 

spacecraft out there tonight. You have found the bird then, have 
you not? 

ZIEGLER I would say probably. Proabably, but I can't say 

that with certainty. 

COVAULT And the indication on the signal would indicate 

then you did not have an explosive failure that totally 
fragmented your spacecraft then although you ... 

ZIEGLER I guess that would be an assumption you can make 

that we don't know if the spacecraft was damaged or not. 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. 



ZIEGLER 



We're hoping to get some firm information you know. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 3 



PAO 



Paul Recer. 



PAUL RECER <AP) In the event that the Indonesians, in and of 
their own decision, decide not to launch the PALAPA, is NASA 
going to charge them freight? is NAbA 

DRAUGHON Paul, I'm not in the legal end of this thinq but r 

tnemTrTL 0 ?-^ 3 ^ 6 ?- My belief is that we contracted to qive 
them a ride in a deploy opportunity. We are offerinq them thos^ 

alfll 2 PPOr £!: nlt l e8 and if we do that 1 that 2e legaUy 

attitude l 0t ! r , % ide * We,re Ceadv to ^Ploy them in til 

!" ^ and l ? the configuration and checked out the way we were 
pref light. We're still ready to do that. 

?«ef right? S ° " thGy Ch ° Se n0t t0 depl ° y they stiU ? av the 



DRAUGHON 
PAO 



I would assume so. 

Right next to Paul there. 



From receiving the signals, could you find out 

Icllt "in h^ eUite f 5H 8 ' in the l0W Ea < th orbit, high Eath 
orbit, in between or didn't you have any idea where it was? 

ZIEGLER Yes. This was a signal coming from an Earth orbit 

very closely to the orbit that NORAD had given us 
for the particles following the Challenger. 

PA0 Okay. Jules, did you have another question? Okay. 

an R exoLsion dnr i JT5 • f lat ? pin ^ he ° ry now seems moc * than 

JhiSh iSSh? t2 hi ?hf 5f fc f ta ? 6 ignition and to * second question 
which ought to be the first, I guess, following on what you just 

was i 9 0 bv whLilr th ?, SamQ OCbU 38 N0RAD charcteri.ed it, which 
potential use? WaS " eaCth ° rbit ' [t '* ot no 

ZIEGLER That's correct. 

BERGMAN it's just going to burn up as It reenters. 

£I E £™? ~ k n ° U ' S P° ssib le the amount of energy that 

we have onboard after the PAM firing is the apogee kick motor and 

Uft h^H 1 ?? that ; 8 intend0d to c ° ntro1 ^ over the 17 yea s of 
life but that's nowhere near enough energy to qet it up to the 
geosynchronous orbit. y p 

PA0 Chris Peterson. 

ZIEGLER if in fact that object is Westar VI. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIET BRIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30pm PAGE 4 



PAO Chris Peterson, KTRH radio. 

CHRIS PETERSON (KTRH) Two questions. First one for Bill. How 
long are we going to continue this search? I mean, if you seem 
to have a pretty good confirmation on it and if it seems to be of 
no potential use why are we going to continue? 

ZIEGLER We're going to continue - well one would need to 

understand what went wrong for the sake of all future spacecraft 
and launches. And until we do that, you know, we are going to 
continue until we've exhausted all possibility of getting 
additional information. How long that will take I have no idea. 

PETERSON Okay. Second question's for Harold. You mentioned 

moving the EVA forward. Why are you doing that in order to 
accomplish a deploy or looking at that and are you planning any 
possible extensions of the mission? 

DRAUGHON Chris, we're trying, it's not mandatory, but we're 

trying to stay out oe the extension. We'd like to because if we 
do extend you know we only have one more day with a daylight KSC 
landing. Vance trained for night landing. He can Dull that off 
and we know that but we would prefer to have a daylight 
landing. Pulling the thing one day forward, we have that 
flexibility in the way we build a checklist and modularize the 
crow activity plans. If the Indonesians and the Hughes 
contractor wants to go a day earlier, you know — the longer they 
stay in the bay the more potential there is for something to go 
wrong in the bay. The vehicle was designed, that vehicle was 
designed to be a free flyer. It was never intended to live in 
the Orbiter. The sooner you get it out and on station, the 
sooner it's in the environment in which it was intended to live 
and that's one of the main reasons you always see these deploys 
early in the flight. We want to get those things out of the bay 
and into the environment they were designed to live in. 

Does that mean EVA Monday before the Tuesday 
(garble) this case? 

DRAUGHON it's a consideration. If that's what it takes to 

get all the data analysis and get all the procedures and things 
in place then we're ready to step up and do that. 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. 

ft EC BR Gary, you said you had, after your consumable 

analysis you had enough onboard for any reasonable plan. Does 
that reasonable plan include a visual rendezvous with the 
disabled satellite or not? 



COEN 



I didn't hear Harold mention that particular plan 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jb 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 

and no, that may well have been considered. I'm not sure what 
the outcome is. Harold would probably be a better source of 
that . 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jc 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 1 

DRAUGHON Paul, right now there are enough, the results arp 

fragmented enough and there are enough different nieces up there 
you know. Before each flight, as soon as we get the trajectory 
defined and get close to flight, we take that trajectory and beat 
it against all the things that NORAD has cataloged on orbit. And 
you can get a pretty long list, depending on what you want to 
establish as your call point. We normally go through a sort 
based on about 100 miles or so and say list out everything that's 
within 100 miles of this particular trajectory for these 8 or 9 
days. Then you take that and look at those individually, see 
what kind of orbit they're in, how recent the vector is that you 
were running that to catalog against. If it's coming close and 
it s a recent vector, you might go tweak up that vector, ask 
NORAD to track it a little bit, dress up their vector and see 
exactly what kind of a problem you may or may not be dealing 
with. If it's a current vector, and it's out on the fringes of 
where you establish this stress alriqht, then you quit worrying 
about it. So we routinely go through that. But the catalog of 
things that have been coming in as targets that are in some 
proximity, and you know you folks have been hearing about things 
that are as far as 500 miles from the Orbiter, we generally don't 
start to vibrate on things 500 miles away, they've got to get a 
lot closer. It's a big world out there, and we don't worry about 
things that are that far away. At the current time, there is not 
a piece, a new, undefined, piece that's close enough to make it a 
viable candidate for a rerendezvous. 

PA0 Craig Covault, Aviation Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) I have for Mr. Ziegler a quick 
one and then one for Harold, which tracking station oicked up 
Westar VI today? * 1 

ZIEGLER The Hughes Filmore station in California-- 

COVAULT And about what time today was that acquisition? 

ZIEGLER — assuming it was V7estar VI. 

COVAULT Yes. 

ZIEGLER About what time? 

COVAULT Roughly. 

ZIEGLER 1800 + GMT, I don't remember how much time after 
that. 

™ AUL u . H.arold, if you go ahead tomorrow and deploy the 

IRT, what time will you deploy? 



DRAUGHON Craig, you can decouple. If you do that deploy, 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jc 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 2 



the one where you just go out to 8, and back into 5, and hack out 
to 8. That's unlike the long rendezvous where you go out, and 
you have to have particular — you have the radars in the right 
place to compute those first two maneuvers to come back in. In 
the long rendezvous sequence, we're kind of tied to where the 
radars are, which revs are going over the radar sets, in that 
short rendezvous, it's more or less done onboard, just relative 
nav onboard, and we don't target any of the manuevers, so there 
is a lot of flexibility. I honestly don't know where it is. 
It's going to be about 6-1/2 hours long, I know that because we 
designed it preflight, but Larry Bourgeois, who is on shift right 
now, ho is dealing with that very issue during this shift. 
Should he start it early, should he start it midday, or late. 
But it's completely insensitive to where during the day. It'll 
depend on what else Larry tries to shoot or/and bring forward 
from the latter part of the flight and how compatible it is with 
those activities. 

COVAULT And the final phase rendezvous, will that duplicate 

the final phase that would have been under the primary rendezvous 
plan where the Orbiter comes up underneath and then comes back 



DK0UGH0N it will be exactly the same Craig, with the 

possible exception of a little bit of sun angle. It depends on 
if he puts it in the same time of day sun wise, you know. If he 
does that, then the sun — the lighting will be the same on the 
approach. The geometry to relative motion is exactly the same. 
We come in to 8 miles, do exactly the same approach, with the 
midcourse corrections, and back in to 800 feet and then walk in 
on the V-bar. Just what you've seen. 

COVAULT And the night, again, if he does it exactly as you 

discussed, it would be a night approach to the target, the verv 
last one. 

DRAUGHON You terminate the final approach along the v-bar, 

either when you get to 200 feet or when you get into darkness, 
yes, that's correct. 

PA0 Let's take one more question here, and we'll go to 

the Cape. 

Can someone explain why if it turns out that the 
Westar is intact, it would be impossible to have it repaired by a 
future Shuttle. 

DRAUGHON I really think we've got to wait for industry to 

catch up with us a bit in the full utilization of the Shuttle. 
You know a lot of — there are spacecraft being built today with 
grapple fixtures on them, or being built so that they are 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SH IFT BRIEFING p4jc 2/4/84 5:30 pin PAGE 3 



compatible with going and getting them. This PAM-Hughes 
combination, in that it was intended to go up, get checked out 
the Orbiter and then go up to geosync. We don't plan to go up 
geosync and get anything. So they didn't, it was not designed 
that kind of capability wasn't designed into it. It would 
difficult to grab a hold of and if you did, you don't have 
place to put it. There's are no stowage, there are 
those kind of considerations. 



no 



in 
to 

1 

be 

have a 
tie downs. 



PAO 



Okay. Let's go to KSC for some questions. 



DICK LEWIS (CHICAGO SUN TIMES) I have two questions. For 
Harold Draughon. Did you say the Hughes Filmore Station in 
California? 



DRAUGHON 



Bill, that was . . . 



ZIEGLER Yes, it was Hughes Aircraft Company's Station at 

Filmore, California. 

LEW ^ S Can you tell us what the position of PALAPA would 

be if it does achieve stationary orbit, where would it be aimed? 

DRAUGHON I don't know what its CSP is. Bill, do you know? 

ZIEGLER Well, you mean its longitude? 

DRAUGHON Yes. 



ZIEGLER 



I don't know. 



DRAUGHON Neither do I. The PAO folks can get you that. 

It's well known, it's something that's done with the AKM burn 
that's done after the deployment from the Orbiter, so that's why 
we're not that familiar with it. It's done after they're stand- 
alone from our operation. But we can get you that data. 

PA0 Okay. I guess back to Houston now. Any further 

questions here? Second row. 

MIKE WILLIAMSON (KJOJ) Have the, has there been any - for 
Harold, for Mr. Draughon. Has there been any plans to cut the 
EVA short by any length? I know you said you went to the 
secondary rendezvous. Is there a secondary EVA plan as well? 

DRAUGHON There in fact is. For the priority flight we 

would, we ordered the EVA activities so that we had everything 
that we were extremely desirous of prior to the Solar Max Mission 
on the first EVA so the priority, EVA-wise the priority stuff is 
EVA 1 or the first day. We have no reason to be thinking about 
making the EVA shorter. In fact, we've added two new aspects 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jc 2/4/84 5; 30 pm PAGE 4 



that are going to be sandwiched into the EVA activities that are 
already ongoing. Those are to look at camera delta, the forward 
starboard bay TV camera, that won f t tilt and the color wheel is 
stopped on it. The other thing is, if you'll recall from the 
first or second shift debriefing, the thermal blanket around the 
Cinema 360 has partly got its fly open and we're going to zip 
that up when we go out. 

PAO Olive Talley, UPI. Right behind you, Theresa, 

OLIVE TALLEY (UPI) Bill, you said that the object was probably 
Westar VI. What probability can you give us that it is and if it 
turns out to be, how long does it have to live? How long will it 
be before you know, well maybe that's three questions in one, 
But how about probability first and then we'll go with the 
others ♦ 

ZIEGLER I don't I once had a boss when he was told by 

the marketing guy that the Air Force had signed our contract, 
we've won it. And the boss says, "let me see it". He says, "oh 
they've put it in the mail". "Oh," he says, "well then I guess 
I'll raise the probability of that being a win from 10% to 
50%". So, you know I hate to speculate on the probability that 
this is Westar VI. I think it's a reasonable guess that yes it 
is Westar VI. We haven 1 t been able to lock up on the signal that 
we got from it but it did have the right frequency. It was only 
one instead of two but that might be due to the expected low 
battery voltages and so, you know, we're hoping for the best and 
we did judge it sufficiently — there was evidence sufficient to 
cause us to concentrate more effort on getting commands into 
those objects that are tailing the Orbiter. 

TALLEY Is there any chance of saving it, or is the only 

chance of saving it dependent on whether or not you lock up with 
it and get some commands to start recharging the batteries? Is 
that where the hope lies? 

ZIEGLER If Westar VI is now in that low altitude orbit 

there's virtually no chance of it becoming useful. 

TALLEY How long might it remain there before it just, will 

it just burn up or what? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jd 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 1. 



ZIEGLER if Westar 6 is now in that low altitude 

ocbit, there is virtually no chance of it becoming useful. 

TALLEY How long might it remain there before it 

just, will it just burn up, or what? 

ZIEGLER it will gradually decay, because of the atmospheric 

drag; however, we haven't made any plans, there is still some 
energy onboard. There's an apogee kick motor, and hydrazine. 
And we may use that to put it into higher orbit, or a transfer 
orbit, or I guess conversely, we could use that energy in a 
retrograde manuever to have it crash into the ocean someplace. 

TALLEY One final question, if you are able to 

maneuver and get the apogee kick motor to fire somehow, and you 
got it into a higher orbit, could it stay there until you could 
— is there a chance that it could be revived at that point? 

ZIEGLER No we could never get it up to geosynchronous 

orbit. 

PA0 Okay I've got an answer for Dick Lewis at the 

Cape on the parking place for PALAPA B 2. It's 113 degrees east 
longitude. Back here over to John Petty, Houston Post. 

PETTY - (Houston Post) - When you say you're hoping for the best, 
what is the best under these circumstances.? 

ZIEGLER I guess the best is that we are able to make 

a fairly conclusive failure analysis. 

DRAUGHON That's really the truth, that's what you 

can hope to get out of that thing. Now you would really like to 
know what went wrong, so that we can, the design people can take 
whatever actions they need to, to correct that anomaly — like to 
identify it. 

PETTY But you're not looking any place else. You're 

convinced that this it? 

ZIEGLER Oh, we are looking other places. All I'm 

saying is we have devoted more of the effort towards this 
particular one, because it's a clue that's worth following up 
on. 

PAO Over here. 

Two questions for Mr, Oraughon. Is there anytime 
tonight, tomorrow morning at which you could no longer do the 
PALAPA good tomorrow. In other words if this meeting that's 
going to take place, takes too long, are you out of the water tor 
tomorrow? 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jd 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 2 



DRAUGON No, in our normal way of getting ready to do one of 

these jobs, we know how to do a PAM PALAPA or PAH Westar 
deploy. We're fairly proficient at that. The ingredients that 
go into that are first knowing rather accurately where you are 
because their burn to kick it up is hooked to where we deploy, 
start some timers and things to run it. So we have to tie down 
the vector, we generally keep pretty good track of vector anyway, 
but we do pay some extra attention when we're goint into one of 
these deploys. :f we've got the vector tied down fairly well, a 
normal activation and orderly deployment takes about an hour and 
20 minutes. We could shorten that up some in a real emergency. 
But it doesn't take long. 

Essentially the same question about advancing the 
EVA to Monday. Is there a time when you have to make that 
decision, or you can't do it? 

DRAUGHON The things that you want to look to on the EVA 

scheduling, the first thing that is a long lead item is that we 
need to get — you know we are using the new prebreathe 
denitrogenization procedure for this flight that's going down to 
a 10.2 psi cabin. We will probably schedule that tomorrow 
sometime, I don't know whether it will come early in the day or 
later in the day. Once we have done that, and have gone through 
a sleep period, we will have fulfilled the medical requirements 
for denitrogenization. So we could schedule an EVA as quickly as 
the crew could unstow all the things they need to get into the 
suits. And that is why that is going to be moved, probablv moved 
forward to tomorrow. 

PAO Paul Recer 

RECER Earlier we were told that NASA was bending a lot of 

efforts toward trying to find the bird. Now since presumably it 
has been found, have you all abandoned those effort's? 

DRAUGHON No Paul, nobody has slacked off any. But 

it|s a very promising sign, and a lot of people think that's 
going to turn out to be the vehicle, but no we have not relented 
in the other facilities that we are looking for that vehicle 
with. 

RECER Okay. Now I understand that you use some ground 

based radar to establish the vector for the spacecraft, and have 
you been using that radar — you've been letting your routine 
vector checks slip, in other words, and using that radar for 
search? 



DRAUGHON We have been giving up some of the normal 

GSTDN network radars to go off and look for that vehicle. 



STS-41-3 CHANGB-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jd 2/4/84 5:30 pm PACK 3 



Normally, we don't need as much radar coverage as is available in 
just flying in a routine daily fashion. There are times when you 
do need all that help and that's when you are trying to anchor a 
vector real good for one of these critical alignments, critical 
deployments. Another time is when you are trying to compute a 
lot of maneuvers that are coming within a couple of rev«s of each 
other, and you've got to drive out the arrows from one maneuver 
and get ready to target the second one. So sometimes you need a 
lot of radar sets. Other times you don't need quite so many. 
But you've got to have them for the time tha you need them. And 
we're letting some of those go, the Orbiter support and the 
vector maintenance there is not suffering, it's down to within, 
the last one I heard was about 3 miles, I think, somewhere in 
that handover . * 



RECER How much vector checks ahead do you need to narrow 

it down to the point where you feel safe to deploy PALAPA? In 
other words how much time ahead would you need to correct for 
that? 



DRAUGHON The computations — Bill you might know 

these better than I do. When do we owe you your first vector? 
But it's like 5 hours ahead of time, on that order. We actually 
go through two comp cycles. We get in a bunch of tracking data 
and give the customers a first look at the deployment, the time, 
another crossing, and those kinds of things. They look at — 
they put it into their simulators and see exactly how it's going 
to fit with the PAMs guidance equations, and do they agree with 
the solutions and those kinds of things, and then we go back 
again a little closer to deployment and refine that. So we go 
through it twice, but 5 hours or so ahead is in the general time 
frame. 



Rh 9. You would have to start that initial 

refinement about 2? 



DRAUGHON yeah the FIDO, the flight dynamics officer, 

that was going to do that on rev 32 for tomorrow was supposed to 
come on console at 3 a.m. because I talked to him about how 
enthused he was about that. 

RECER , , , But it would be about 2:00 in the morning that 

you would have to start that refinement? 

DRAUGHON He would have started around 3:00 to make a 

rev 32 deployment. We are now talking about a rev 34, so it 
would have been 3 hours later to start that process. 

PA0 , . Okay, one more question right here, and then we 

will shut it down. 



STS-41-3 CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p4jd 2/4/84 5:30 pm PAGE 4 



Okay, one question for Mr. Coen and then a real 
quicky one for Mr. Draughon. Mr. Coen did we hear a call about 
some voltage anamolies in the EMU's this morning, or was that 
just a little glitch from turning them on? 

COEN We have a reading anomaly, it's not voltage it's 

current. One of the switches on one of the EMU's, it's the EMU 
number 1, it's the one that Bruce uses. With the switch in the 
main B or main A battery positon shows a tenth of an amp. We 
can't exactly figure that cut. We have duplicated that with an 
EMU on the ground and we have one on the ground that shows a 10th 
of an amp also. We don't understand it, but it's not worrying us 
right now, we're trying to figure out what the real story is 
there, though. 

So it's no constraint to the spacewalk then. 

C0EN No they're not. In fact, I didn't get to give you 

some other minor problems with the EMU's which I would like to do 
right now. EMU 2, that's Bob's EMU, has a crack in one of his 
helmet light lenses. This is the outer lens on the light. He 
reported that to us. We have considered that, and also decided 
that that's no problem. EMU 3, when they did their coiwn checks 
with it, they had some static in the VOX position, voice operator 
relay position. That static is there, it is acceptable to us. 
But the checkout went well. We did pick up these minor things, 
and we're not concerned really about any of them. 

PAO okay back here. 

FORTUNIA (Televisa) Harold, I have one question. I 

understand, and correct me if I am wrong, one of the objectives 
of this mission is to test NASA's ability to recover satellites 
and do you find it ironic that Westar was lost this time, that we 
don't know where it is or what happened to it? 

DRAUGHON Well, perhaps. You're right about the 

objective, we are testing out the backpacks, the EMU's, the EVA 
capability. And the rendezvous objectives are forerunners the 
solar max repair mission which is a retrieval and reoair on 
flight 13. 

PAO Thank you very much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5ja 02/05/84 9:45 AM PAGE 1 



PAO Thank you for coming. Let's start off with Flight 

Director Randy Stone going over the early morning activities and 
the attempt to do the IRT rendezvous. Randy. 

STONE Now that you've set the stage with the good news. 

I would like to report to you that the Orbiter is performing 
flawlessly as is the crew, they are doing everything we ask of 
them and doing it in a very timely manner. We have been 
extremely pleased with the performance of the vehicle. I have so 
few anomolies written down on my anomoly sheet on the console 
that I keep forgetting where it is because usually it's a great 
big list and it's not very big at all this flight. We have been 
accomplishing secondary test objectives and primary test 
objectives today with the SPAS and the MLR, but I'm sure the 
topics of interest to you today are, what's the latest on Westar 
and tell me about the balloon deployment this morning. So I 
would like to give you as much information as I know and then 
we'll open the floor to questions. The latest summary of 
information that we have from all the tracking stations that 
we've been using to track what we believe is Westar has homed in 
on the following few topics. We believe that there are two 
objects in an orbit of about 600 nautical miles by 150 nautical 
miles. They're about 12 to 15 miles apart. One of the objects, 
the larger of the two is presenting about 5 square meters to the 
radars and radar reflectivity. That object is believed to be the 
Westar. It is rotating at about 20 rpms. The other object, the 
smaller object is about 2 1/2 square meters in size and it is 
suspected to be the PAM. The total number of pieces being 
tracked in the orbits close to that are 13 total. The two high 
ones that I described to you, the two larger objects and then 11 
other smaller objects that are scattered from about 25 minutes in 
front of the Orbiter to about 50 minutes behind the Orbiter. 
They are a large distance in feet and miles from the Orbiter. 
The last report that I heard was that any rf contact that they 
believe that they might have had from Westar was a false 
signal. I can't comment on that any more, that's all I know 
about it. That's a piece of data I got when I left the control 
center. The consensus is that we are tracking the Westar in this 
orbit that I described to you and I will move on to the 
successful deployment of the balloon or the can that the balloon 
was in. You may have heard through the night that we have 
changed the Orbiter 's orbit, we have lowered it to 150 nautical 
miles. That was done to protect our end-of-mission lighting and 
crossrange constraints at KSC to give us a nominal profile into 
Kennedy on the normal end-of-mission day and a 1-day extension 
should we need that. The planning at the end of yesterday 
probably didn't include all that because we just hadn't run all 
the trajectory data that we needed to run to know what we needed 
to do with the orbit to protect those end~of-mission 
constraints. Because of that change in orbit the deployment rev 
for Palapa which we told you yesterday was probably going to be 
on 51 is a little bit uncertain now. The only reason it's 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5ja 02/05/84 9:45 AM PAGE 2 



uncertain is because at the lower altitude the Palapa flight 
dynamics people are looking at what the most optimum rev to go 
out on would be. We've given them a number of revs up to and 
probably beyond 51 that are acceptable to the Orbiter and they're 
just picking the one that is most optimum for their needs. We 
should have that decision - you probably heard, I heard it on the 
monitor over here a few minutes ago that the decision on what 
orbit we're going out on will probably be made about 10 o'clock 
this morning. Once that's made we can go ahead and put together 
out flight plan for tomorrow and then be back on - basically back 
on schedule for the EVA's and the other activities, The 
deployment of the balloon this morning was in support of a 
rendezvous test which I'm sure you all are familiar with, we've 
described it to you several times. The rendezvous test today was 
an abbreviated rendezvous from what was scheduled in the flight 
plan before we had the problem with Westar and subsequently 
changed the deployment opportunities for Palapa. We abbreviated 
the rendezvous sequence from a 2-day sequence down to a 1-day 
sequence to allow us to stay on a timeline that was very close to 
our normal flight plan. Faulting down to this 1-day scenerio 
will get us about 90 percent of the objectives of the rendezvous 
and we felt like it was a prudent thing to do to keep the mission 
running smoothly. So, I came in this morning with the intention 
of rendezvousing with a big white balloon and we deployed the 
balloon at 1 day 22 hours and 50 minutes, approximately. The 
deploy was on time, we had a TV camera on the deployment, if you 
were watching at that time of day. The deploy leaving the 
Orbiter looked totally nominal from our standpoint. Just looking 
at it on the TV, of course, it was a very short period of time 
that we could see it since it ran up in the colorwheel on camera 
Delta that's kind of down over the lens. But we did get a good 
view of it for several feet as it left the Orbiter. Shortly 
after deployment there is a pyrotechnic device in the balloon can 
that is ignited, it's a timed burned type pyrotechnic device that 
blows the stays or the constraining sides of the can off to allow 
the balloon to subsequently inflate. At the time the stays were 
suppose to come off there was no activity, we still had a canned- 
shaped object leaving the Shuttle at about 1.8 feet per second. 
At the time that the balloon should have inflated there was still 
no activity, the stays were still attached to the balloon casing 
and about, I don't have the exact time, I wrote it down and then 
didn't bring the piece of paper, but at a time probably 2-3 
minutes after the scheduled inflation of the balloon, Bruce 
McCandless watching the balloon through some binoculars said that 
it appears to be inflating. So, we all said, "Ah. Looks like 
we're going to get out of this just a little late." And his next 
statment was, "It blew up." Well, some of us took that to mean 
that it broke and blew up like a popping balloon and some of us 
in the control center says, "Well, good. It blew up." I 
rephrased my question to Bruce and ask him if it broke blew up or 
just inflated blew up and he told us it appeared to break. By 
that time we were out at a range where the rendezvous radar would 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p5ja 02/05/84 9:45 AM PAGE 3 



lock on to the object and it locked on, started tracking, and I 
elected to have the crew continue on with the nominal subsequence 
for the - that sets us up for the rendezvous, it's a maneuver, 
about 8 tenths of a foot per second that takes the Orbiter out to 
an 8-mile point from the balloon and then we would start the 
rendezvous sequence from there. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP- SHI FT BRIEFING p5jb 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE I 



STONE We started that sequence, started analysing the 

relative motion of an object that we weren't sure what it's drag 
was since it wasn't any of the configurations that we had worked 
with* We had worked with just cans, where wo intentionally put 
out a can where we knew the balloon was not going to inflate. 
There were some failure modes that we knew about that could 
possible put you into that scenario that we would choose to just 
rendezvous with the can. Unfortunately, in this case we had - it 
deployed normally, it tried to inflate, and then burst and left 
us into a configuration that we neither knew the drag nor knew 
the reflectivity of, As we were out bound from the balloon, 
Bruce was giving us extremely good engineering reports on what he 
was seeing. He, before the incident where it did break, Bruce 
was describing a couple of lanyards that appeared to be trailing 
behind the can. That brought to our engineering folks 
considerable concern right there because there are some lanyards 
that are in the can that are suppose to stay with the structure 
on the Orbiter. And these lanyards pull some pins that start 
pyrotechnic devices into operation. We, of course, don't know 
that these things that Bruce were describing were the lanyards 
that were suppose to start the activity in the canister rolling, 
but we suspect that that is the case, that something possibly 
failed and the lanyards instead of staying with the Orbiter and 
pulling the pins in the IRT that it just went with the IRT. 
There's a lot of engineering analysis that has to go on before we 
can be certain that that's what happened. But as we were 
continuing outbound in the rendezvous sequence, we had to make a 
decision fairly quickly about whether or not we wanted to 
continue the rendezvous sequence, which amounts to going out to 8 
miles, doing a maneuver into about 5 miles and then returning on 
a nominal rendezvous sequence with a, what we call terminal phase 
initiation burn, that would take us into a point in front of the 
balloon and do proximity OPS with it. Because Bruce was telling 
us that he could not see the can or the weights, the things that 
give the balloon mass in this flapping mass of mylar out there, I 
was relatively convinced that I didn't know enough about the, or 
we didn't know enough about the configuration that we were trying 
to rendezvous with, to go back in and get close to the object. 
We probably had two objects, one of them that had large frontal 
area no mass; and one that had large mass and no frontal area. 
Two different drag configurations and I was going to be 
rendezousing with the one that didn't have any mass and therefore 
I would not know where the heavy object was. And the mass that's 
associated with the balloon, which is a weight that is part of 
the can and the balloon actually inflates around this weight, is 
about 200 lbs. We elected to abort the rendezvous sequence, by 
just not doing the next burn. And then instead of making us 
start to loop back towards the target, that just allowed the 
relative motion to march out down the orbit, getting farther and 
farther behind the balloon; To salvage as much of the test as we 
could, we kept on our navigation sensor profile, we locked on 
with the rendezvous radar and kept tracking. It tracked much 



STS-41-B CHANGB-OF~SHIFT BRIEFING p5jb 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGB 2 

farther out than we expected it to track when dealing with a 
small object, something that was not spherical shape. The last 
time that we got an acquisition was about, it was about 96,000 
feet. We expected it to break lock with this poor target, at 
about 36,000 feet and we went much farther than that. The first 
day time pass after we deployed, we got startracker information 
and this is very important to the engineering community that we 
had gotten this rendezvous data and the startracker data, because 
it tells us that our navigation sensors are actually better than 
spec value, because we were seeing, seeing things that ranges, 
that we would not have expected to see them, since the target was 
so poor. We ran the rendezvous targeting software in the Orbiter 
and it was doing exactly the right thing* We could tell that it 
was getting a solution, it knew what to do, to go back to the 
target and we gained some experience and some good information 
there. Truly we didn't accomplish the rendezvous DTO as we had 
intended to do it, but we were able to salvage some good 
engineering data out of the test. We ran the startracker passes 
for another full rev, in fact when I left the Control Center, we 
were just coming in to daylight again, and we're trying to lock 
on to the piece of the balloon that we had been locked on in the 
previous daylight pass and I expect that it did lock on, I didn't 
hear the report when I left. Because we have terminated the 
rendezvous sequence today, we have a little bit of free time in 
the flight plan, this rendezvous sequence was suppose to run 6 
1/2, 7 hours. We have moved some shopping list items into that 
area, we're doing the, when I left the Control Center we were 
doing the RMS checkout, checking out the arm for OPS downstream 
over the next 2 or 3 days, just getting that out of the way, to 
free up the timeline, downstream. Crew did some cabin 
measurements, engineering measurements, to see how the cabin 
distorts in space and that's something we do, that we do a little 
bit of all the time just to look at what the structural movement 
of the Orbiter is, you've heard us say, this cabinet won't close, 
or this locker, the door doesn't work quite right on previous 
flights, we haven't had any problems this flight, and we f re just 
trying to understand the flexing, the thermal flexing of the 
Orbiter. And we accomplished that this morning in this free time 
since we aborted the rendezvous and as I left they were looking 
at other things they could move into that area, so we're, even 
though we didn't do the rendezvous today we are picking up some 
other test objectives for SPAS and the people that are on the 
SPA's pallet, we're doing some scientific data takes for them. 
And with that I'll let you ask questions, I thought I answered 
all of them. 

PAO Mark Kramer, CBS. 

KRAMER - (CBS) Seems like everything that leaves the payload 
bay on the spacecraft explodes. Who made the IRT canister, and - 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jb 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 3 



STONE when I walked in here I was going to know that and 

I don't have the name of the company, I'm sorry. 

PAO Space Data Corporation, Tempe, Arizona. 

STONE Super, he knew that question. 

KRAMER Space Data, okay. And would you know by any chance 
if the 200 lb weight was painted black, white, or unpainted, or 
whatever. 



STONE Since I never expected to see it, I really don't 

know. It was probably a dark color, just guessing, because 
nobody would have attempted to make it radar reflective, and - 

KRAMER That's the nature of my follow up which is do you 

know it's approximate dimensions? And had it been painted white, 
would you have been able to do what you had to do. 

STONE it's an extremely dense object, very small, it's 

less than 8 inches in diameter, I'm not sure what it's height 
is. It would have been, no, I don't believe we could have. We 
looked at a lot of scenarios where we put at, where we had to 
jettison the entire can because we knew the balloon wouldn't 
inflate, we looked at that scenario, that was a much bigger piece 
of metal, to look at, and it would have been very difficult even 
with that canister to do the full rendezvous DTO. So I don't 
think so, I don't think it would have been practical to try to 
rendezvous with just the weight. 

KRAMER Have you put to bed the possibility of moving the 

EVA's around? Are you pretty well resigned to launching Palapa 
tomorrow without messing around with EVA times? 

STONE The NASA is, our planning is heading towards that, 

and that's Palapa has agreed that tomorrow is their deployment 
day. The only piece of information that I don't have yet is what 
rev were going to attempt to deploy tomorrow. 

KRAMER Thank you. 

PAO Let's take Jules Bergman, up here. 

BERGMAN Randy, what danger is there that that 200 lb weight 

could hit the Challenger in what might be histories first 
midspace collision? 



STONE Well, I told you that we were trying to decide 

whether or not we wanted to continue the rendezvous sequence when 
I elected to not continue because I didn't, we really didn't 
understand whether I had two objects out there, one object, 
multiple objects. We did not do one of the burns, which would 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jb 2/5/84 9:45am PAGE 4 

have brought us back in. When we didn't do that burn we're on a 
trajectory that's marching away from that weight, we can estimate 
it's drag knowing what it's size is and, no, we're not in the 

" e may d ? a V additional small tweak burn later in 
the day. That was undecided when I left. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jc 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 1 



BERGMAN 



Do we know where it is? 



bTONE Oh, certainly. it didn't go any place with respect 

to the myler that was around it. in fact, it may still be 
attached. We just couldn't confirm whether it was or was not 
attached to the balloon material, and because we couldn't confirm 
that, we didn't want to rendezvous with 2 objects that had very 

g u e ? t .5 if . erence ln dra 9* We can make a ve *y 9oo6 assumption on 
what the drag of that weight is and we are in a safe orbit that 
will never come back and recontact with it. The Flight Dynamics 
Officers are looking, I told them to be extremely conservative in 
their, in the way they computed whether or not we had a recontact 
problem, and because of that conservatism, we may, once they get 
a little more data, we may do about a 1 foot per second tweak 
burn to get away from it. 

BERGMAN There's getting to be a lot of junk around the 

Challenger, up there. 

STONE 1 wish there were a lot of, at least one balloon, 

but unfortunately there is not, Jules. 



PAO 



Craig Covault, Aviation Week. 



CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) Randy, could you discuss the 
final test sequences on the balloon hardware before launch? It's 
my understanding that the test hardware had a number of failures, 
preflight. ' 

STONE Craig, the balloon has gone through 2 sets of 

certification tests for flight. The first set of tests showed, 
and these are vacuum chamber tests, that, let me restart this. 
The mechanism for deploying the IRT can has worked in every qual 
test that I'm familiar with. The problems we had in 
certification of the balloon had to do with its inflation rate 
and ripping the very thin mylar skin of the balloon as it 
unfolded. You know it's like one of these plastic raincoats that 
you buy that comes in a package that once you take it out, you 
can never get it back in. Its folded up very tightly inside the 
can and it was ripping small holes along the folds in the mylar 
material. There were some changes made to the inflation 
mechanism which slowed down the inflation rate, very slowly. And 
once we completed that modification, we ran some additional 
chamber tests, one of which the balloon inflated and stayed 
inflated indefinitely and there was absolutely zero leakage from 
the balloon. The other test tore a very tiny hole in it and the 
balloon stayed inflated for many hours. Certainly long enough 
for us to complete a one day rendezvous sequence. So our history 
of problems with the balloon are different than the problem we 
had today. We have never seen a failure of the inflation 
mechanism where the stays don't come off. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jc 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 2 



COVAULT Ok, and to follow that, this was oriented to help 

you plan solar max. Obviously NASA has flown many, many 
rendezvous over the years, so you haven't lost your only 
rendezvous attempt you've ever made, but - relate it to the 
problem in April. 

STONE There were 2 things we wanted to accomplish on this 

flight. Granted we have done many rendezvous, and we understand 
how to do rendezvous, and everybody is totally confident that the 
ground system and the software system that we have put together 
will do a rendezvous. The only piece of information that we 
truly didn't have was the sensor performance, the startracker, 
which is the same startracker we use for IMU alignments on how 
well it will track an object that we're trying to rendezvous 
with. And 2, the Ku-band rendezvous radar. These are 2 new 
sensors that we have not used in a rendezvous scenario. So we 
wanted to do an integrated rendezvous. That's one that the 
ground system interfaced with the onboard, did the initial 
targeting to start you back towards the, start you towards the 
target, and then the final phase, which is totally an onboard 
relative navigation problem, the ground does not participate in 
that last 8 miles on in set of manuevers. We wanted to just 
demonstrate that all those integrated procedures worked 
together. The information we learned today, one makes us very 
happy that the sensors performed like they're suppose to, and 
two, we saw the close-in rendezvous navigation problem being 
solved by the onboard software. And it does not take any of our 
enthusiasm or confidence away from the solar max mission. 

PAO Roy Neal, NBC. 

ROY NEAL (NBC) Two questions, first just a casual one. We had 

heard some conversation just prior to this session, that there 

could be a Palapa deployment today instead of tomorrow. 

STONE I believe the conversation you heard, I was 

listening to it too, and several people have asked me the same 
question, but I believe the conversation was, had nothing to do 
with the deploy today, it was picking which rev tomorrow that 
they wanted go out and that - I was just handed a note, the 
CAPCOM on duty says that the Palapa community has elected to go 
for a 10-D deployment tomorrow, the ascending node on orbit 50, 
which is 1 rev earlier than we told you yesterday, so we have 
made our decision, we're pressing on. We'd plan to deploy 
tomorrow. 

NEAL That's very good. Now you mentioned an anominally 

list earlier being very short. I wonder if you could run down 
just a few off the top of that anomnially list for us. So that 
we have some idea. And most particular I'm interested in the 
Waste Management. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jc 2/5/84 09:45 am PACK 3 

STONE we have one, the water separator device in the 

Waste Management System, there's 2 of them, 1 of them on flight 
day l, i believe, started slowing down, we saw higher currents on 
the motor that spins this device. We have switched to the other 
water separator unit in the Waste Management System. And at the 
j-ast time I heard a report, it was working normally, and when I 
left we were putting together a message of questions we'd like to 
ask the crew about that and we're still putting together the 
story on that, it's not a big deal. The Waste Management System 
is working fine, we just have lost some redundancy in it. Just 
to give you some typical things that are on my failure list, very 
minor things, and if we hadn't had all these other exciting 
things to talk about we would have talked about them because that 
is normally all the kind of things we have to talk about. We 
lost a quantity gage reading in the OMS propellant system today 
during the burn, if you listened to the first circ burn. The 
crew reported that they got a fuel alarm and our prop guys on the 
ground confirmed that it was no problem, we continued the burn 
normally. And it was just a sensor that failed, and we lost the 
gage m the fuel tank of the left OMS engine, or the left OMS 
pod. That's absolutely no impact. We can use the gage on the 
oxidizer side as our gaging tool because the propellant - the 
•I?? 1 the oxidiz e go down together as you use the engine. But 
it s that type of thing, in fact the others are so minor, none of 
them have happened on my shift and they're not things that are 
continued opened, you know, that we are working trying to 
solve. They are things that we have put to bed and we're just 
not talking about any more. 

NEAL How about that Delta camera? For instance, are you 

going to have Bruce or Bob go out and give it a kick? Mavbe 
start the colorwheel? 

STONE I don't know what the plan is on the delta 

camera. I haven't been working the EVA planning. We're kind of 
compartmented a little bit on the EVA's this time. We have a 
group of people that are totally dedicated to the EVA planning 
and their execution and I have not been working that planning. 

NEAL We have a more than passing interest in that 

camera, of course. 

ST0NE l ' m sure you do, but if you saw the deployment this 

morning, the lower portion of the camera gives a great picture. 

NEAL in black and white. 

STONE Yes. 

*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 1 
PAO Lynn Sherr, ABC, 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Randy, how much is the replanning and the 
sending the new CAPs up to the crew getting in your way. You're 
losing an awful lot of time through all this. Aren't you? 

STONE Well actually we have not, the only major objective 

that we haven't completed, you know, by the timeline has been 
this rendezvous and it's really been through no fault of the 
replanning effort. The replanning effort has worked extremely 
well. You know, our planning team, as we call it, when we're 
operating in this mode, not like Spacelab where you're planning 
all the time and redoing things. We have a team dedicated to 
redoing the flight plan to get things organized for us and 
they've done just an outstanding job of keeping it flowing. We 
have, as far as I know, we'll be able to complete all of the SPAS 
activity, all of the data takes that for them all the Cinema 360 
things. The MLR has been running in the background. All of the 
data takes on the various payloads that we ran yesterday and day 
before have gone well. So we're really not losing time. What 
you're seeing is, you know, 1 or 2 crewmen that are dedicated for 
instance, to rendezvous that we had busy today. But the other 
guys that don't work the rendezvous problem have been off doing 
their things - SPAS activation, getting ready to do data takes 
for the SPAS, activating GAS cans, that sort of thing. All of 
that's going on in the background just normally. 



SHERR 

that means ye 



Well, now that you have a new Palapa deploy time 
t another plan revision, right? 



ST0NE *e s * Yes it does but getting ready to deploy a PAM 

spacecraft, you know, is something that we have well documented 
and we can just move it in in mass one way or another and 
start. You know, once we decide when the deploy time is we just 
back up from that and the plan works no matter what day you do 
it. So that's not a big effort but we'll be looking at the 
things tomorrow to get ready for the EVA. The things that can 
give the crew a leg up to be ready for the EVA - the suit 
checkouts and that sort of thing, depressur izing the cabin to 10 
2 for the prebreathe activities. That may be done today, but 
since they have - Palapa has for sure decided to go I suspect 
we'll delay going down to the lower cabin pressure until tomorrow 
after the deployment. 

PAO Second row back here. 

Q "?u Y ,, ,? tnere ' s a failure with Palapa, just as there was 

with Westar, if Palapa is lost - would that cast such a pall over 
the mission that you would think the prudent thing to do would be 
to postpone the EVAs? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 2 



STONE No sir. I don't believe that's the case at all. I 

believe we would press right on. We expect Palapa to be a 
nominal deploy and we'll be telling you about it tomorrow night 
that they're headed outbound. 

PAO Doug Miller, KTRH Radio. 

DOUG MILLER (KTRH) One of the possibilities we heard under 
discussion earlier was that if the Palapa deploy were delayed 
until Monday the mission might be extended an extra day. What's 
the, what's under consideration as far as that's concerned riqht 
now? 

STONE Well that's still an option from the point of view 

of cryogenics, the consumables to run the fuel cells. We have 
plenty of propellant, RCS propellant, to extend a day and that 
option is open to us. The activity we did this morning, the 
recirc to 150, assured that we still had that option to nominal 
end of the mission 1 day later and that's why we were anxious to 
do those burns to get to an orbit that would allow us to extend 
that 1 day if we needed to. 

MILLER But right now, does it look as though you'll have 



STONE No it does not. It looks like we'll be able to 

accomplish all of our objectives in the boundaries of the planned 
mission. 

MILLER So how are you going to buy the time? Are you 

rescheduling tomorrow's activities for today so you can buy time 
for Palapa tomorrow? 

STONE Now, what we've done, you know, the big time buy 

off that we have done on this flight was going from a 2 day 
rendezvous sequence down to a 1 day rendezvous sequence that 
lasted about an hour and a half, so we have bought back a lot of 
time with the way we planned the rendezvous today. 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. 

PAUL RECER (AP) You may have already covered this, but you also 
bought back a lot of fuel that you were going to use in 
rendezvous. Do you, are you considering the possibility of using 
that fuel plus your surplus to visually rendezvous with the 
debris from Westar? 

STONE I don't believe we, you know, even with all the 

fuel that we bought back we have enough fuel to rendezvous with 
the Westar thing. What we are looking at, and it is that we 
would like to find where the closest points of approach are to 
our orbit and see if, you know, if it's 10 miles or 8 miles maybe 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 3 

we could look at it through the binoculars onboard or one of the 
other optical devices - the COAS for instance. 

RECER And the rendezvous radar perhaps? 

STONE Yes, certainly if we got a good enough vector that 

we could point the rendezvous radar that would be a 
consideration. But that's in the background. Our primary task 
is to deploy Palapa tomorrow so those are all very low key things 
that are going on in the background. 

RECER well you say it's in the background, but is it 

being actively studied as a - - 

STONE No rendezvous plan is being actively studied. 

RECER But a look at the debris. 

STONE We're going to look to see if there is a closest 

point of approach that might allow that. 

PA0 Okay, let's take one more question here, Roy Neal, 

and then we'll go to the other centers for awhile. 

ROY NEAL (NBC) When you deploy the Palapa, will you attempt any 
television coverage of it this time? 

STONE Yes sir. I think Harold Draughon may have told you 

that, yes we're - - 

RECER We had talk of that with him. I just wanted to be 

sure that it's still in the - - 

STONE We're still, as far as I know, we still plan to do 

that looking at it with the end effector camera. 

RECER End effector camera, right. 

STONE And that plan is in place and you know it's not, we 

haven't flight planned it for tomorrow yet but we're putting 
together the procedures to accomplish it on - - 

RECER I assume you'll either be TDRS or ground station 

located so that live TV would be possible at the time? 

STONE Since they just picked it I haven't looked. 

RECER Yes, I haven't looked either. 

STONE I flat don't know. 

RECER Okay, thank you. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 4 



PA0 Okay, how about Kennedy. Do you have any questions 

down there? 

REG TURNELL (BBC) Going back to Westar, am I right in thinking 
that you just don't have any data on which you can have much hope 
that you'll ever find out what went wrong with that deployment 
thus making observation of tomorrow's PAM firing all the more 
important. 

STONE I think that's a fair assessment of where we ace. 

I don't see us getting a lot of - more information on the Westar. 

ED TOBIAS (AP RADIO) Just following up on that a bit, you're 
still using words such as suspect and probably in relation to the 
debris. Are you as convinced as you're going to get now that 
that debris that you've been tracking is, what was or is Westar 
and the PAM? 

STONE I belive that we are fairly convinced. You know, I 

have to use the word suspect because I haven't been actively 
pursuing all of the data that people are looking at„ I'm 
responding on this particular subject on data that has been given 
to me by the people that have been doing the analysis and I 
believe the community is convinced that what we are seeing is the 
Westar and probably the PAM. 

MIKE MEECHAN (GANNETTE NEWS SERVICE) It's unclear to me. Do 
you suspect whether the pyrotechnics went wro lg on the IRT or 
whether they did not fire and then it exploded because the 
nitrogen gas started to expand. I'm not quite sure what you 
suspect caused the explosion. 

STONE The one thing we know for certain is that the 

nitrogen gas tried to expand because the balloon tried to inflate 
with the stay still around it and you can just imagine a can with 
an open top and inflating a balloon in it. It squirted out the 
top and because it was attached to the can it broke. As to why 
the stays didn't come off, we just haven't evaluated it 
completely. I gave you what was a possible failure scenario that 
the pyrotechnic device did not get armed when it left the Orbiter 
because these lanyards may have had a failure in the lanyards 
But that at this time is very, very subjective and no hard 
data. The engineers that are responsible for the balloon and the 
deployment mechanism will be working on that over the next couDle 
of days so they can understand it. 

MEECHAN Switch ground here a little bit. What is the 

health of the crew? 

STONE it's outstanding. Everybody is performing to the 

timeline and you saw the live TV yesterday, everybody looks 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jd 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 5 

good. Everybody sounds good on the air-to-ground and we're very 
pleased for their preformance . 

MEECHAN The health of the rats? 

STONE I'm not a rat specialist. 

*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p5je 2/5/84 9:45am PAGE 1 

QUERY Have you heard anything from the crew, I think they 

were suppose to check on them periodically. Y 

STONE They turn a light on and off in the animal 

enclosure container, and that is about the extent of the 
experiment, to make the rat, animals think they are going through 
a day night cycle, there have been no reports on the activity. 

SALESTEAD {Baltimore Sun) One more time on the balloon, if I 
?HpH W ^ n i£?? f aid .3"st a moment ago that apparently the balloon 

firS'fSoJ JlJS e WXt V5£ Sta l S stU1 around it, that was the 
first fact that caused the subsequent proble, but could you take 
it one step beyond that. When the balloon tried to inflate with 
the stays still around it, what then happened? intiate w i fc * 

STONE it broke, not being facetious it appeared to break 

and we had instead of a round balloon, we had a flat piece of 
mylar which, you know, indicated that we were seeing either one 
£k S ?■ ^ e balloon after ifc ripped up the side, you know, 
by that time the range was several thousand feet, so the view of 
the small object was not very good. 

SALESTEAD But when it broke was it out of the canister then, 
?iJ J yS StlU attached to ifc in someway or was it still in 

^m? N L • ^ et me stra ighten out the nomenclature, it comes 

^f^f* 5 aniSt !u' the . stavs are the part that I have been 
refering to as the canister that the balloon kind of came out of 
when ( it popped, but ordinarily it comes out of a can that is, 

^ a vASL t i?*° rbite *' an 2 then once U ' s out of that ^n, the 
stays come off exposing the balloon and allowing it to inflate. 
And the stays did not come off. So it was presenting to the 
balloon like it was constrained by a can, but that's kind of a 
misnomer, I was just trying to make it clear in your mind for a 
picture. 

MCCONNELL - (Readers Digest) - I would like to follow up what you 
■ ear i ie f . about the Mission Specialist deploying the SPA's and 
working to timeline, in view of all the problems that have 
arisen, would you say that the diversity between flight 

I P !?JSii 8 ^? n ? mission specialist have proven in this case to be 
a strong point. 

STONE Yes, I think that is absolutely true. The 

nilinJ 8 ^? ?u th £ ^? WS ^ We ' re flyin 9 have been 3 very strong 
JSbS'.fSSlSSeSSSjJ^ Xt aUOWS US t0 d ° 3 nUmber ^ -mplex 

CHINELL You did say, you expected to do a nominal Palapa 

deployment tomorrow, can you tell me why you're confident that 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5je 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 2 

and r ?Ilapa? different/ th3t thSre iS 3 different between Westar 

n^2 NE * . . Wel1 we do have a qood track record on deployinq 
PAMs and havmg the PAMs operate normally, and I for one would 
liKe to believe that we have a nonrepeatable problem, nothinq 
Intern? ^ PAM SySt6m ' Ifc is an extremel y reliable booster 

MEECHAM Could you run down the rest of today's activities 

a ^i^ at V?"' 11 be , doin 9 tomorrow besides getting ready for the 

™f „. . " e11 the rest of today will be taken up with some 

2pm? 22 iX- tles, „ a f leaS - that ' s one of the scientific things 
we 11 be doing. We're going to calibrate the mass spectrometer, 
which is an instrument on the SPA's pallet. We plan to do the 
yaw sensor test which is another experiment on the SPAs and I 
don t know the exact scheduling of those items today. We'll 
on^h^L?? ? numbe ' of M ?Ms data takes, it's another instrument 
on the Pallet, and items like, items like that. I don't have a 

th1o^lr\\& ln £C ° nt ° £ not. .won't tHj^go 



MEECHAN 



That's sounds like a fairly relaxed day. 



S I? NE . Y ! S ifc wiU be a ^irly relaxed day, because what 

lf ! aUy done is added the - three of the crewman are 
running their normal timelines today. The Commander and Bruce 
S at !f! eSS who . wer ? the rendezvous specialist had been freed up 

SJh«? f^ 0 PUttln9 in thingS *° fil1 u ? their free time, but the 
other three crewman are running through their normal flight plan. 

MEECHAM And aside from the deploy and the suit check out 

tomorrow, what other activities would there be? 

^T?h E o Da . n"!! 1 We ' U 9 ° in and gi7e tne scientific community 
*J» ? i 3 th f °PP° rt unities that they would like to take 
JSi? i! ke8 f °- an l We 11 be Poking for any shopping list items 
that we can give the crew to fill in where they have time. 

MEECHAM you are open to suggestions? Is that what it 

amounts to? 

STONE we'll I wouldn't say it like that. We carry a 

number of things m our flight planning bag of tricks to fill up 
fiHutinii becomes available, and our flight activity people are 
looking at those that have the most merit. 



MEECHAN 



Thank you. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5je 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 3 



MCCONNELL Going back to the diversity of the crew, given 
these problems that have arisen, are they in affect, filing 
writing accident reports on board as these things happen, or are 
they leaving that to Houston. 

STONE We'll every crew keeps a very detailed engineering 

log of what goes on, especially those things that he is directly 
responsible for, and yes, there will be a detailed debriefing of 
the crew observations with respect to any of these problems that 
we've had. 

MCCONNELL Just one more, and will these engineering logs 

eventually be available to the public? 

STONE I'm sure they are from the standpoint that the 

debriefing material is totally available to everyone once the 
flight is complete. 

BOYLE You mentioned more time for the SPA's people. What 

consideration is given to SPA's maybe being rendezvous target? 

STONE None. 



QUERY Yes, I have a question phoned in by Jerry Lipman. 

I'm afraid it's about the old balloon again. Could you explain 
please what the actual inflation mechanism was, was there a 
bottle of nitrogen involved, or what exactly was suppose to 
happen in terms of the inflation? 

PAO Tell him to read the press kit. 

STONE Yes, there is a nitrogen bottle involved and it's 

just opened up to the balloon and slowly fills it through a 
restrictor device in the bottle, so it doesn't Inflate to 
rapidly. 

SCOTT (CBC Radio) Going back to the subject of the solar max, I 
don't know, I might have missed it. What exactly did not happen 
today, that you would like to have seen happen as a preparation 
for the solar max. 

STONE we would have liked to have been able to run the 

integrated rendezvous, both the ground processors and the onboard 
processors in concert, just to demonstrate our level of 
proficiency of doing that with a new spacecraft, and a new set of 
sensors to solve the old rendezvous problem that we understand 
quite well. 



KSC We have no further questions from KSC. 

PA0 Marshall you have questions? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5 je 2/5/84 9:45 am PAGE 4 

QUERY 1 wa nted to double check on a couple of numbers 

before I get to my main question. What was the orbit before you 
trimmed it down to 150. 



STONE 



It was I believe 166 by 171. 



MARSHALL okay, what impact will that have on the Palapa 

people in trimming once they go into geostationary orbit? Is 
that just a minor number of, bunch of number changes for them, or 
does it have any real impact? 

s ?°m it, and I would be speaking for them, before, 

obviously before we committed to an orbit change, we talked to 
the customer and the impact of them was primarily just 
reselecting the deploy orbit. And I don't believe it was a 
gigamc redo effort for them. 

QUERY Okay, did I understand the numbers correctly on the 

Westar orbit, you said 150 by 600? 



*** 



t 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP- SHI FT BRIEFING p5jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 1 



STONE That's an approximate set of numbers, I was 

roughly computing from meters, so that 1 s a rough set of numbers, 
it's not down to the hundreds of feet, 

QUERY And the last one, again, back on the balloon. This 

is a rather nifty, elegant little deployment system you had for 
it. But was it really necessary? The Payload bay wasn't exactly 
full, why couldn't you have launched with the balloon just 
partially inflated and let it come up to fully inflation as the 
Orbiter ascended to altitude? 



STONE I was not involved in the design of the balloon 

package, but that as far as I know, was never a consideration, 

PAO Ok, no more from Marshall. 

STONE The IRT is the engineering that went into the 



deploy mechanism in the balloon is something that these folks 
that designed it have been doing for a while, and they've done it 
for other sounding rocket programs. And that's, we were taking 
some off-the-shelf-type hardware when we did this, 

PAO Ok, I guess we're back in Houston now, Lynn Sherr, 

ABC, front row. 

SHERR Randy, just one more on the Palapa, is it, is what 

you're saying is that you don't really know anything different 
from what you knew at the time of deploy and the time of the 
problem with the Westar, but you are confident in going ahead 
with Palapa because of your past record, I mean is there 
something, did I miss a beat in there? 

STONE No, I don't believe you missed anything. You know 

we've gone back over all of the, from the Orbiter 's side, and I'm 
sure the McDonnell Douglas people with respect to the PAM and the 
Hughes people with respect to the spacecraft, are going back 
through their quality control records to make sure there's - no 
glaring error was made, as are the Palapa people and the same 
thing. Any time you have a failure on a device that's as complex 
as one of these spacecraft, you go back and look at all of the 
things you can possibly look at to understand its pedigree. And 
that's what's going on, and nobody is finding anything that just 
jumps up and says, ah ha, I think I've found something that's a 
problem. Things like that are just not showing up. We've gone 
back on the Oribter and looked at the procedures and made sure 
we're doing everything properly as we were asked to by the 
customer, and we're convinced that all of that is as it should 
be. I believe everybody has a high degree of confidence that 
tomorrow will be very sucessful. Obviously, since we've had a 
failure, I'm sure the pulses will be up at a higher rate than 
they would have if we had had a nominal Westar deploy. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 2 



PA0 Olive Talley, and then back to Mark Kramer. 

TALLEY Randy, just to clarify, you are going to be using 

the camera on the end of the arm? 

STONE That's the plan right now. You know, we hadn't 

transmitted that up to the crew, but we're building the 
procedures to do that, and we have found no engineering reason 
from ouc standpoint that that's not an acceptable thing to do. 
There may be some lens cover damage, not really damage but 
coating, from the solid rocket motor plume, but we believe that's 
the right thing to do, 

PAO Mark Kramer. 

KRAMER Randy, I think you used the figure 90 percent when 

you said that by giving up the long-range rendezvous, if you had 
been able to do this mornings rendezvous successfully, you would 
have gotten 90 percent of what you had hoped for from the 
original Intergrated Rendezvous test procedure. Is there a way 
to come up with a number that represents what you think you got 
now? Are you down to 10 percent, or 50 percent, or 75? 

STONE To be honest with you I haven't sat down and tried 

to make that kind of assessment. Our navigation people, and our 
procedures people will certainly look at the holes on the things 
that the we didn't really cover with what we got done today. But 
no, I don't have a number like that. 

Pft O Fourth row back here on the aisle. 

JIM BARTLETT (Houston Chronicle) Would you translate the Palapa 
deployment inTO the Central Standard Time? 

STONE I can get it close. I tell you what, I would 

rather have a FIDO call in and give us the exact deploy time, 
because I would surely miss it by 30 minutes and then you would 
think I wasn't telling you something right, and I don't want to 
do that. I'll get you the exact time, though. 

BARTLETT Ok, thank you. 

PAO Ok, next over there. 

AL MARSH (Aviation Week) Are the 11 smaller objects also 150 by 
600 miles? 1 

STONE I don't have, I wasn't given that data. That was 

just a summary report from the tracking stations and I don't know 
that, I just don't know. 



PAO 



Front row over here. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 3 



QUERY (Germany) Are you absolutely sure that the failure is a 
PAM failure by now or are there any other possiblities possible? 

STONE I can't comment on that, I'm not involved in the 

failure analysis that the customer is going through, 

QUERY (Gen Yin But this was the first time ever that a PAM 
didn't function properly, is that correct? 

STONE It's the first time that a, I'm speaking from our 

NASA point of view, it's the first one that we have deployed that 
hasn't functioned normally. And I don't know the history of the 
PAM's on other launch vehicles. 

QUERY (Germany) You said earlier that the astronauts might look 
with binoculars to the debris of Westar. Could you give a rough 
guess from what distance that would be? 

STONE That's the kind of answer that we'll be looking 

at. We're trying to see if the orbits got anywhere close to each 
other, that would allow something like that to take place. 
Because the orbits are actually, they are actually getting 
farther and farther away from us, and we're looking to see if at 
any point in the rest of the mission that the orbits are close 
enough that you might have a chance of seeing it through a 
device. We don't even know that that's possible yet. 

PAO Ok, Roy Neal, NBC. 

NBAL Randy, I'm having a tough time reconciling 

something here, maybe you can help me. Here-to-fore we've always 
heard from NASA "We'll only launch, or deploy in this case, when 
we're sure we know what happened to the last one." Now, is it 
that you now know something that we don't know about what 
happened to the last one, or is this just a case of taking a 
calculated risk that you'll get away with a good launch on 
Palapa. I'm confused. 

STONE Well, let me try to put that in perspective for 

you. What I think you're referring to is something, that if we 
have a failure we will not go and fly an Orbiter until we 
understand that failure, if it is something that is significant 
that would be vehicle or crew threatening. You have a situation 
here where we're already flying, we have had a failure of a 
customer's spacecraft and it really is, as long as NASA deams it 
safe, and we do, we're willing to do what the customer would like 
to do with their spacecraft. 

NEAL So the customer's the one that's deciding then to 

take a calculated risk with that stuff, is that right? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p5jf 2/5/84 09:45 am PAGE 4 

STONE I think any time you're dealing with complex space 

vehicles there is some amount of calculated risk, if you will. 
We like to term it as opposed to risk, good preparation and 
engineering analysis, but it's the same thing* 

NEAL Yes Ok, 

PAO Mark Kramer, 

KRAMER Since we spoke of last, yesterday, since we were 

here yesterday, have you seen any photographs from the DOD or 
even Jules Bergman that show you the - - 

STONE No, and I'm really disjointed that Jules didn't 

bring his pictures today. 

PAO I want to know how he can afford a Quastar. 

STONE The question that was asked in the back, sir, the 

Palapa deploy is 9:13 am Centra). Standard Time, 

QUERY Thank you, 

STONE I'm sure glad those people over there are 

listening, 

PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. 

RECER Are your, is your tracking network still exerting 

maximum effort trying gather data on the debris or whatever of 
Westar, or is that effort looking back. 

STONE It is my understanding that the report I gave you 

is the summary report and we're now concentrating on our normal 
business, 

PAO Ok, one more in the back there, and lets shut it 

down, 

QUERY Can you tell us what the current weather report is 

for a landing for KSC, We heard bad words about the weather 
yesterday. 

STONE I don't know what the current forecast is right 

now . 

PAO Ok, thank you very much. 

END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6ja 2/5/84 4:30 pm Page 1 



PA0 Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's 

briefing. Off-going Flight Director Harold Draughon and once 
again Mr. Bill ziegler from Westar. We will go ahead and turn it 
over to Harold and see where we've been the last shift. 

DRAUGHON Okay, today has, after the IRT incident this 

morning, we spent the remainder of the day trying to get some 
order back into the timeline's you might say and get back on an 
even keel. We continued on with taking as much rendezvous data 
as we could or as much sensor data as we could on the section of 
the IRT that the crew acquired. I have some data here, there it 
is, on what kind of performance we did get. It turned out that 
the sensors with the rendezvous radar, the sensors that you use 
on a rendezvous radar and the startracker and the COAS. The 
startracker and COAS, two optical devices, rendezvous radar is a 
radio. So we used all three of those guys in looking at the 
largest piece of the target that the crew noticed and continued 
to take data on that thing just to get relative motion 
measurements. The rendezvous radar gave a solid lock or solid 
indications out to about 40,000 feet and then there was 
intermittent data out to about 110,000 feet. The startracker 
went out to almost 400,000 feet, about 370,000 feet with solid 
data. Then the crew reported that there was intermittent data 
after that and they reported even at that range with the COAS, 
and I don't remember the exact magnification power of the COAS 
optics but they could still visually with the aid of the COAS see 
the target even at 370,000 feet. The measurements were extremely 
consistent as far as the angular data that those instruments were 
measuring and things that we were looking at was a consistency in 
that data. The sensitivity of using those instruments, 
particulary the two optical instruments with the lighting that we 
had, it worked very well, the lighting was not nearly as 
sensitive as some of the people had thought that it might be and 
as I think Vance had thought it might be, having flown before. 
It was working extremely well. They obviously had no problem at 
all in deciding on the piece of the balloon that they were taking 
measurements on. The other aspect was a thing called the filter 
and that probably doesn't mean much to some of you folks but the 
filter is a mathematical tool that's used to weight data that's 
taken - measurements that are taken by the rendezvous radar or 
the optical elements to give the navigation hardware and software 
something to deal with. It's a way of saying, how well can I use 
this data, how much can I believe this data, when you first get 
data you think you didn't know a lot about - you don't have good 
knowledge of where the target is so you believe any measurement 
you get real strongly. As you get more and more measurements on 
it you think that, well, I've learned a little more and a little 
more and so you shrink down this filter and you become more 
selective in the kind of - the weight you would put on subsequent 
measurements. And it's a way of not letting a particular piece 
of data come in and completely throw out your knowledge of what's 
going on in the rendezvous situation. So that process was one 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6ja 2/5/84 4:30 pm Page 2 



that we needed to validate and the behavior of what we thought or 
what we had estimated is the right way to weight those 
measurements, so it turned out to be quite acceptable, quite 
good. So we got a real good feel for the sensitivity to lighting 
and to the interpretation of the data from the three rendezvous 
sensors. The rest of the day was fairly uneventful. The only 
thing that I think that you might even closely call a problem and 
it really wasn't, when we did the checkout of the RMS, that would 
normally be done after the Palapa deploy, but since we had 
slipped that a day we went ahead and did the RMS checkout 
anyway. The checkout went good and the RMS is completely 
functional no problem at all. when we were stowing the RMS back 
down into the cradle that's along the longeron, the mid MPM or 
the mid support that you have to put the cradle in before you 
latch it down, there are microswitches there to tell the crew 
when they've got it close enough so that the hooks that come up 
can pull the cradle in and secure it . They weren't getting 
those indications and it just turns out you have to jam that 
thing further into the cradle harder than you might anticipate or 
at least than this crew might anticipate. They had it well 
within - there are some markings on it that you can look out the 
window and tell when you've got it close or not and they did 
that, and we told them they were close enough but they elected to 
go ahead and tweak the system some more and in about 20 minutes 
they finally succeeded in getting the microswitches in each of 
those support mounts to close and went ahead and latched it up. 
So that all went well. Not a great deal of other activity going 
on today. The SPAS was activitated and some MOMS data was 
taken. The systems - there was on the mass spec there was one - 
you can think of it as an inlet (garble) on one of the devices, 
that there are some conflicting indications as to, it reorients 
itself based on the way they are taking data and some conflicting 
indications in telemetry on where - what the positioning of that 
thing is. it turns out the crew can look out the window and see 
it. It did perform as it was supposed to and went through the 
right sequence so it's a data problem and not a problem with the 
instrument. As far as plans going forward for tomorrow, flight 
day 4, and this is roughed out. Larry Bourgeois is over now with 
the planning team and they are putting together the details and 
some of this may move a little bit but none of the major events 
are going to move very much. Tomorrow morning we will try a 
longer range startracker acquisition, looking back at APs from 
the target, from the IRT. The 2 or 3 revs when I was paying 
attention to what the ranges were doing between the Orbiter and 
the piece we were tracking, it was increasing at about 9 miles a 
rev, I believe, something like that, and that may be off but it 
was growing something like that. We'll look tomorrow morning and 
try to get a long range acquisition and see if we can just get 
one calibration out at whatever that range is tomorrow morning. 
The big event will be on rev 50 descending node, rev 50 will be 
the Palapa deploy. That's a mission elapsed time of 3 days, 2 
hours and 13 minutes. Central standard time is 9:13 central 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6ja 2/5/84 4:30 pro Page 3 

standard. Their Orbiter separation maneuver, which is an 11-foot 
per second sep to leave the area, which is a standard sequence 
after any PAM deploy is done 15 minutes later at 9:28 central 
time. The PKM burn which is also a timer event 45 minutes after 
deploy is at 9:58 central time. Following the PKM burn we have a 
phasing maneuver scheduled that we may or may not execute. We 
are really put it in the timeline to give us the timeline option 
to have the thing there and if we choose to do it we will. Later 
in the day after that deploy a burn is being scheduled right now 
to fix up end of mission lighting, Y'all have heard all of us 
probably talk about the trade between crossrange and the sunrise 
and sunset or the terminator crossing at KSC. You can build 
yourself into a box of getting there when you've got plenty of 
range capability to get close enough to KSC but it's just gotten 
dark or you can get that another time and you can't quite *=ly 
that far out of your ground track, but you're in the day time. 
You've got to work that problem and the trick to that is to get 
there at the right time on the right rev. That's controlled by a 
thing called phasing. We do that by adjusting the period of the 
orbit that we are flying in some days before planning. We're 
putting a maneuver in there, we may elect to do it then, we may 
elect to delay that to the next day. We'll decide that once we 
get there, we get a little closer in on it. That 's pretty much 
what I have. I'll entertain any questions you might have. 

5 A0 Okay. Before we get started in that, Mr. ziegler, 

do you have anything particular you wanted to say before went to 
questions. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jb 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 



ZIEGLER I think so. We have succeeded in locating Westar 

6, thanks to the orbit information that NORAD was able to supply 
us. And I believe the NASA network assisted in that. Our 
Hughes, Filmore station in California, picked up early this 
afternoon, 19, about 19:30, That's - I'm trying to convert to 
central time. 



PAO 

ZIEGLER 
about 2:30, 

PAO 



Was that Greenwich, 

That was 18:30, I'm sorry, Greenwich time, yes, 
About 2:30. 



ZIEGLER About 2:30, Picked up Westar 6 in a pass and got a 

limited amount of data. It appears that our blind commanding to 
the Spacecraft during the last, well since the loss after PAM 
firing, was successful in getting the configuration, such that 
the batteries would charge from the solar energy that's received, 
and the indications are, that we've learned so far, the 
separation switch had operated, so it had separated from the PAM, 
which implies that the PAM timers worked, and as far as we can 
tell, has all the electrical systems on the PAM provided all the 
commands to the spacecraft that it should have. We also have a 
pressure in one of the two hydrozene systems, which is exactly 
the same pressure as it was prelaunch and which also implies that 
one of the two, neutation damping thrusters, did not fail, did 
not stick open, I should say. It is consistent with either no 
firings or with the normal firing that you would expect during 
the post period for neutation damping. The amount of fuel that 
you'd normally used for neutation damping, in the drift period, 
the 45 minute drift period, is so miniscule that we couldn't 
measure the change in pressure in the tanks. All the 
temperatures, the temperatures that we could measure, are normal, 
what we would expect. The both bus voltages are up to what was, 
normally expect, and the currents are nominal and the batteries 
are charging as commanded, one is on fast charge, and the other 
battery is on trickle charge. The reason for having only one on 
fast charge was that we - in commanding it that way, was so that 
we'd get at least one battery up to snuff as quickly as 
possible. So the conclusion is that we will, we'll be getting 
more data from the spacecraft, that we have clearly identified it 
as Westar 6 in this orbit that the NORAD was able to give us this 
morning. Our next, there are several opportunities to get 
additional information. Several intelsat stations , are 
attempting to get lock up on this signal and get data for us and 
get commands into this, but all of the intelsat stations have 
very large dishes, 30-meter dishes, which implies a very narrow 
beam. With a target that is going by so fast, they have 
difficulty in locking on to it and getting any appreciable amount 
of time on it. The station net Yamagutchi, Japan, after this 
(garble) acquisition, did get a signal, but the, for insufficient 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jb 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 

time to lock on it and get any data. The next opportunities for 
the smaller stations, that is the wider beam width stations, are 
for Glenwood, Glenwood, New Jersey, the Western Union station, at 
Glenwood, and the Hughes station at Filmore come early tomorrow 
morning. Ten o'clock zulu, which is about 4 o'clock, central 
standard time, for the first Glenwood possibility of seeing it, 
and they can see it for 4 more orbits, about an hour and a half 
for each orbit. And Filmore can see it beginning about 11:30 
zulu, which is 5:30 central standard. And it would have an 
opportunity again for 4 passes. So we're hopeful that we will 
get more data, we do not yet have a spin rate, we do not yet have 
the pressure on the other RCS system, and all of these things can 
tell us more about the failure mechanism. 

PA0 , Okay. All right, I guess we'll go ahead and go to 

questions, and Jules, Jules Bergman, right here. 

BERGMAN Mr. Ziegler, I don't understand exactly what you're 

saying. Are you saying we have a cripple spacecraft, that we can 
now talk to? That's batteries are already chargable but cannot 
leave earth orbit, it cannot ever reach synchronous orbit, or 
what? ' 

ZIEGLER As far as we know we have a spacecraft that's in a 

wrong orbit, that's completely healthy. 

PAO Olive Talley. 

TALLEY Bill, you do look a little bit better this 

afternoon. Two questions, please. There's been a conflict in 
the orbitoral figure, that NORAD has given out and that NASA has 
given out, and Hughes has given out. is it 600 by 155, if it is 
please say so, if it's not please give us the correct figures, 
and one other question, the other pieces that were tracked 
earlier by NORAD that we've discussed, the figure ranged from 13 
to 15 pieces including these 2 major pieces, what are they and 
where are they? 

DRAUGHON I'll take the second. 

PAO Several 

ZIEGLER i haven't gotten the report from the orbital 

dynamics people since we've had this, been able to communicate 
with the spacecraft, but it was based on the NORAD report that we 
got this morning, earlier this morning, which was, and I don't 
know the nautical miles, but it was 1,218 kilometers apogee, and 
307 kilometers perigee, for the 2 major pieces. So we are 
consistent with that, within the tolerance of that measurement. 
I believe that's good orbit. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jb 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 



TALLEY Does the figure, 600 by 155 nautical miles, does 

that correspond with the kilometers or you're saying you're not 
sure. 

ZIEGLER Without getting out a calculator, I don't know. 
DRAUGHON It's about half, it's 

ZIEGLER it's approximately consistant, just from the, it's 

about 6/10ths of a kilometer in a nautical mile. 

DRAUGHON It's not surprising, it's not surprising in the 

people in the business, if you go look someplace for a lost 
target, or target that you're not sure where it is, to find a 
bunch of other things already there. There's a lot of stuff in 
space. A good indication of that is the kind of work we do. You 
know everytime we get a mission defined and get a trajectory 
defined, we go through a search on all the things in the NORAD 
catalog, and if you just ask, you've got to get that list down to 
something manageable. If you, if you said give me a list of 
everything within 500 miles, you wouldn't want to carry it around 
with you. We do a call of about 100 miles or so, and we say give 
us, show us, tell the computer to give us a list of everything 
that's going to come within 50 to 100 miles of you, then you look 
at that thing, and find out, off that set which ones do you have 
real accurate vectors on, what kind of orbits are they in, what 
kind of approaches are they making, and you make some estimation 
of how well you need to go in and look at in depth at any one of 
these things. So if you just, and everytime we change our orbit, 
we go off and do that again. Everytime we make a maneuver we've 
got to make that search. It's not surprising that if you go to 
someplace new and then all of a sudden you turn all to radars out 
there and say "Do you see anything?" You get a long list. 
You've been watching us for the last few days, go figure out, 
that's not it, that's not it, that's not it. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04:30 pm PAGE 1 



TALLEY But you had said earlier that one of the pieces 

looked like it could be the PAM. Could the PAM have shattered 
into several, or many pieces and could that be pieces of the PAM 
that have been so close to that - - 

ZIEGLER it could be pieces of the PAM NOSL. 

DRAUGHON It's possibly. 

TALLEY And one final question, is Bruce going to go fix 

camera delta when does the EVA? Has that been decided yet? 

DRAUGHON It has not been definitely decided, it's being 

considered by the team that's on right now. 

PAO Paul Recer. 



RECER 



Ok, now that you have a healthy spacecraft in the 



wrong orbit, what are you going to do with it? 



ZIEGLER 



That's my job for next week. To figure that out. 



RECER what are the possibilities? 

ZIEGLER I don't think there is any possibility we can get 

it into geosynchronous orbit. Even if we spend, well, the amount 
of energy onboard consists of the apogee kick motor, and the 
hydrozene, and I don't think the apogee kick motor by itself 
could even get us into the geosynchronous transfer orbit much 
less the hydrozene get us into circular sequence orbit so just 
what ^ we '11 do with it, we'll complete this getting the data and 
finding as much as we can about the failure analysis. And there 
was one possibility suggested, although I don't know if it's even 
worth the try, is maybe to put it in a 12 hour orbit, but I don't 
even know if that is feasible at this point in time. 

RECER If you put it in a 12 hour orbit, it would have some 

communications ability or some use then? 

DRAUGHON Well, we might get a few hours twice a day out of 

it. We could arrange it so that it's almost stationary for maybe 
a couple of hours every 12 hours. 

PAO ok, John Wilford. 



WILFORD 

the failure was in the PAM? 



Are we to infer then that the most likely site of 



DRAUGHON It's very clear that we did not get the delta V 

that we expected to get from the p AM. It is not yet conclusive 
that it wasn't a failure of the spacecraft to provide automatic 
nutation control. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04:30 pm PAGE 2 
p AO ok, Chris Peterson, 

PETERSON Harold, did the IRT failure really suprise anybody 

in the control room, and if not, why not? 

DRAUGHON I think most of you are aware the qual tests stuff 

that had gone on with the IRT, the balloon, preflight. The 
testing that we had had with that particular balloon, that 
particular balloon was procured from a vendor that's been 
building balloons like that to put on sounding rockets and we 
tried to lowball it to make something as cheaply as we could to 
use for this rendezvous demonstration, and not spend any more 
money than we had to for that. There had been some development 
problems with that particular system. Most of them related to 
temperature affects. I don't believe that those qual issues that 
we found in the testing, and made some mods to fix, led to the 
real problem. It looks, and it's early yet, but it looks like a 
ring, a lanyard that's suppose to pull and start a pyro timer to 
charge it - to timing out and then release the strap that holds 
the stays on. It yanked itself out by the roots. It did not 
stay attached, and therefore it never started that timer. And 
that looks like the failure mechanism. But there was some 
question as to how long it would stay inflated because of the 
qual history before it, but there had been some changes made and 
the recent testing had been promising. 

PETERSON One other question for you, Harold. How does the 

failure of the IRT - manuevers on this flight going to affect 
your confidence level or what your going to try on the next 
mission? 

DRAUGHON Well, we got the main thing, the highest objective, 

which was the sensor performance, that was the big unknown, and 
the other 2 things that I talked about yesterday have to do with 
the, secondly with the manned machine interface on how you 
interact with that software compute manuevers and edit that 
data. And we obviously did not get that. The last ingredient 
that we didn't get was the ground involvement in computing those 
very few, and remember from my discussions yesterday, the ground 
computes the first 2 manuevers and getting those things in. That 
ut ne ver really needed to begin with, it was just an ingredient 
that bridged between the 1st and 3rd objective. So we got the 
most important and we feel very confident in going forward with 
13 for that rendezvous. We can handle it. 

PAO ok, Lynn. 

SHERR Harold, how does the information that Western Union 

now have figure in your feeling about the deployment tomorrow for 
the Palapa. Does it increase the confidence at all, although I 
realize that NASA has been confident and says its been confident 
all along. But how does that figure in. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04:30 pm PAGE 3 



DRAUGHON Well Lynn, I don't think it really, its nice to 

have that knowledge, but I was truly confident that we ought to 
go ahead with the Palapa the next day. There have been lots of 
PAM's flown and they have a good track record. If that's where 
the problem was and, I felt like we should have gone ahead with 
it. It was unlikely in my opinion that we would have learned 
anything in a couple of days that would have led us to doing 
something very much smarter, 2 days later, if you could have 
found out what it was. it was probably something with the amount 
of interaction that we have with those vehicles that you could 
have fixed it or responded to it. So I was ready to go ahead 
with it to begin with, it's nice to have that piece of data 
behind you though. But we're still confident, and I expect the 
PAM to work. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC News) This is for Bill ziegler and Harold 
for you too. What is your best surmise now on what actually 
happened to Westar? 

ZIEGLER I tell you, I guess, I would guess, my opinion is 

that the PAM failed probably, NOSL failure. But you know, that's 
not confirmed. 

DRAUGHON If you want to take a shot in the dark, and that's 

all your doing, that's the most likely thing to have happened. 

BERGMAN will you ever actually find out from the telemetry 

you're getting back now that that did happen or didn't happen? 
And do you know, do you know that the apogee kick motor is still 
onboard? 



ZIEGLER We have an apogee kick motor temperature which is 

nominal. We don't yet have a spin rate and so forth. Let's see, 
the first part of your question was will we ever know what 
actually happened from the telemetry. From the telemetry, I feel 
quite confident, we'll obtain a complete health status of the 
spacecraft and we will know whether the automatic nutation 
control is working properly and can, of course, that doesn't 
conclusively prove that it did work properly during the coast 
period. But it could rule out a lot of things, if those things 
check out as we get more data from the spacecraft. 

BERGMAN I appreciate your fatigue, sir. But neither of 

your answers answered my question, will that tell you what 
actually happened? 

ZIEGLER no, it won't tell us what actually happened, it can 

only rule out a lot of possibilities. 

BERGMAN So the wire service quote, attributed to a Hughes 

spokesman, is therefore wrong. 



STS-41-B CHANGE -OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jc 2/5/84 04:30pm PAGE 4 
ZIEGLER Oh, I don't know about the - - 

BERGMAN "There's no hope of saving it," I'm quoting, "but 

it is exciting that we will be able to piece together the story 
of what happened." You're saying that that's not so. 

ZIEGLER it is true that there is no hope of savinq it. the 

spacecraft. 

BERGMAN I wasn't in doubt about that. 

ZIEGLER we will be able to eliminate a. lot of possibilities 

and narrow it down to a few, based on spacecraft telemetry. 
There are other sources of data that may tell us what actually 
happened. 2 

BERGMAN Such as. 

ZIEGLER Well, NORAD is continuing to collect information 

about the Item #2 out there, and the particles, the other debris, 
to see if they can reconstruct where they originated and give us 
some timing of what events happened at what time which can help 
to track it down. v 

PAO we need to move on, I'll take 2 more before we go 

to KSC. We'll have this gentleman in the white, and then we'll 
have Paul, 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE I 

ANATOLIA (GERMAN RADIO) Mr. Ziegler, you said you have a 
healthy spacecraft is it possible that once you get further data 
you found some damage within the spacecraft or could you rule 
that out right now? 

ZIEGLER Oh, of course, it's possible we'll find some 

further damage, yes. But from the data we have now we have found 
no damage within the spacecraft. 

PAO Paul Recer. 

PAUL RECER (AP) You said that your guess was that the failure 
was probably a NOZL failure. Such a failure, would that be an 
explosive event or could you characterize that. 

ZIEGLER Well, there has been a failure in a ground test of 

an engine which was a failure of the NOZL and pieces of the NOZL 
came off m this test. That allowed the plume, if you will, to 
create more heat behind the rest of the NOZL assembly and the 
eventual -it took only about 20 seconds - failure of the whole 
rear end of the PAM engine and that caused the whole rear end of 
the PAM engine to come off with a big jagged hole and that 
reduced the pressure so much the flame goes out and stops 
burning. And that, the amount of impulse to get us into the 
orbit that we are in, the one that NORAD reported here is 
approximately consistent with that second flame out in about 20 
seconds after the start of burn. 

Jf'^ R , . . t With a failure of that type, is the size of the 
second object, second large object that has been seen, would that 
size be consistent with such a failure also. 

ZIEGLER yes, 

RECER Okay. And one other thing. Is there any 

indications that any debris impacted the spacecraft itself so 
that you're getting degraded performance from some of the 
elements such as it's not charging or not creating or generating 

fS?™ 1 ??^ 1 ?^ as U would if a11 the cells healthy or 

anything like that. 

ZIEGLER There's no indication of any damage to the 

spacecraft. 

PA0 Okay. Let's go to KSC for questions. 

Hucenda of Today?*' KS ° ha< * *' C ° Uple ° f ^ estions - F " nk 

PRANK HUCENDA (TODAY) First question's for Mr. Ziegler. Is 
^!tlt i ny ohan 2!i or l or Harold, is there any chance that this 
might be a candidate for a future satellite rescue operation? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 



ZIEGLER This satellite wasn't designed for that purpose 

with that possibilty in mind basically because it was intended to 
go up to geosynchronous orbit and I don't think repair capability 
is even in the minds of NASA yet at that altitude. So, I doubt 
that that's a possibility although since it's in a low altitude 
orbit now maybe at some point we could bring another pam engine 
up there and attach it on and go from there. But that's pretty 
far out thinking and I suspect by the time that that happens why 
our solar cells will have deteriorated and the batteries will 
have worn out and we'll be out of hydrazine. 

HUCENDA A ways down the road then. Second question, how 

does this work out for you for insurance purposes? Is it the 
equivalent of banging a fender and not totally out or do you 
still intend to collect the whole amount. 

ZIEGLER I'm not an expert on our insurance policy but in 

the (garble) of cars I think it will be a total loss. 

KSC PAO One more question from KSC. 

QUERY Last question. This is for Harold. We've been 

getting indications of problems with the waster management system 
again. What is the story with that? Is it working? Is it going 
to continue working? Are they bagging it? What's the story? 

DRAUGHON The situation has not changed since the first shift 

and I think it was debriefed there. There are 2 fan separators 
in that system that are used to keep a flow through the various 
tubes and what not. One of those, the first fan separator #1 had 
indicated stall currents. We talked to the crew about it. They 
could preceive, listening to the thing, that it was running but 
not running at full RPM . We switched to the redundant system and 
that one is performing satisfactorily, in fact, it's performing 
nominally and we have not changed the way that we are using that 
system, normal operations. 

KSC PAO KSC has no further questions. 

PAO Okay. Go to Marshall for questions. 

TOM KNIGHT (WAFF TV HUNTSVILLE) For Harold, first of all from 
the initial inspections at Kennedy on the NOZL and SRBs, anv 
report on that? 

DRAUGHON If there are any, they've been coming into the JSC 

Management here. That doesn't affect anything that I'm doing in 
flight and I've got lots of other things to be worried about 
until after the launch. We just, the guys on the console don't 
get concerned with that until after the flight. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 



KNIGHT And Cor Bill Ziegler, based on the fact that you do 

say you have a healthy satellite, if you find down the road a bit 
that you are unable to move the Westar to a different orbit or do 
something with it how long would the current orbit, will you be 
able to maintain that current orbit before it will beqin to 
deteriorate. 



ZIEGLER I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question at the end. 

KNIGHT The Westar VI. If you are unable to, if you find 

down the road that you will be unable to move, how long will it 

be able to maintain that orbit before it begins, the orbit begins 
to deteriorate? 



ZIEGLER Oh, it's a good long time, I don't have any 
figures on that. 

DRAUGHON it's a real long time, 

ZIEGLER Probably a good many years. 
MARSHALL PAO No further questions from here. 

ZIEGLER Harold, I guess you ... 

DRAUGHON It is on the order of years. It's a long time. 

MARSHALL PAO No further questions from Marshall. 

PA0 Okay we'll come back and take a couple more here 

and close up. Craig Covault. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) Bill, some things on the Westar 
deployment. Does the fact you're charging batteries indicate the 
big drop skirt has come down? 

ZIEGLER Negative. We won't deploy that until we get a lot 

more information about the spacecraft and maybe not even then. 
But we have enough solar cells exposed to the sun to provide the 
command and telemetry operations that we need to do. More than 
enough as a matter of fact, and therefore, we won't do any 
operations on that until we've thoroughly checked out the 
spacecraft. That is an operation that requires a command and so 
we're not going to do that until we're pretty sure we know what 
we're doing. 

COVAULT And to follow on the condition for engineering 

analysis of the failure to help you out there, is the temperature 
situation on the Westar a comfortable one or is this a serious 
concern lust from maintaining your engineering data flow since 
you're not in a geosynchronous orbit? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p6jd 2/5/84 4:30 pm PAGE 4 



ZIEGLER No. The temperature on the spacecraft from the 

limited data that we have is all perfectly normal and we are not 
concerned about it. If we were to turn on more like transponders 
and start using up a lot of power, then we would have to drop the 
skirt in order to expose the thermal radiators. But that's not 
the situation right at this point in time. 

PAO And John Petty. 

JOHN PETTY (HOUSTON POST) Have there been any private medical 
conferences? 



DRAUGHON No, there have not. 

PA0 Okay. Anymore? Yes sir right here. 

QUERY Would it be to correct to state that you were able 

to check some of the rendezvous instruments successfully although 
you didn't fly the maneuvers you originally planned for the 
balloon? 



DRAUGHON Yes, that's perfectly true. We have gotten the 

instrument performance. We just didn't get to apply that 
performance to a rendezvous situation. 

p A0 Okay. Final one here from KJOJ. 

MIKE WILLIAMSON (KJOJ) Mr. Draughon, I noted in the pref light 
handouts that we were given that pogo testing was an objective on 
the launch for this flight. Has pogo become a concern for the 
space shuttle and could that have caused some of the incidents 
that we've seen happen in the past few days. 

DRAUGHON No there's, the latter is not the case or I would 

have certainly known about it. I didn't work ascent and I don't 
know what the pogo testing was but there is nothing that is 
significant in a pogo area on that vehicle. 

PA0 Okay, that'll do it for today. Thank you very 

much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7ja 2/6/84 9:30 am PACK 1 



PA0 , G °od morning. Change-of-Shif t Press Conference 

with Randy Stone. Randy, why don't you hit your log there and qo 
from there. y 

RANDY STONE Good morning. My shift this morning was very 
quiet. The Orbiter is performing as advertised and we've 
accomplished a number of tasks to set us up for the EVA 
tomorrow. When I left the control center, Palapa had been 
deployed from the Orbiter on time and in attitude and we're 
awaiting the developments of that deployment. Today on our shift 
we conducted a long-range startracker sensor test, one of the nav 
sensors required for rendezvous, trying to track the IRT - the 
balloon that we deployed yesterday. We were unable to lock onto 
it. It was at about 290 miles and we would not, it is not 
surprising that the startracker was unable to acquire the remains 
of the balloon. A number of housekeeping-type events occurred 
today. We have reduced the cabin pressure in the Orbiter to 10.2 
psi. And that was accompanied with a prebreathe of the two EVA 
crewmen. The 10.2 cabin pressure is the protocol to set us up 
for denitrogenation of the crew prior to the EVA to prevent the 
bends. And that went as advertised and we are, the cabin is 
stable at 10.2 psi. We have started the work on the EMUs or the 
backpacks for the EVA tomorrow to dump the water that's in them 
out and to recharge them and that is just a normal function for 
the backpacks to have fresh water in them so that we maximize the 
cooling capability in the backpack. The rest of the morning was 
taken up with preparations for the deployment today and that all 
went very smoothly and I'm open for questions. 

p A0 Okay, Jules Bergman. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) Randy, whatever became of 

PAO Wait for the mike please. 

BERGMAN Randy, whatever became of the 200-pound lead 

weight? 

STONE The weight on the IRT, that is part of the IRT 

balloon, yesterday we suspect it had separated from the mylar 
covering. After tracking the IRT remains through the night, you 
can make an engineering judgement that the weight is probably 
still attached to the mylar. If the mylar had been without any 
mays to it it would have changed its orbit significantly and 
started to deorbit. It has not done that. It is acting like a 
piece of material that does have some mass so we're assuming that 
the IRT weight is still attached to that mass because we were 
able to track it all night and it, the tracking showed us that it 
was probably still there. 



BERGMAN And so you're not concerned about any m 

collision taking place. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7ja 2/6/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 



STONE Oh, no. No we're not, Jules, Even if it had come 

loose from the mylar we were convinced that we had a separation 
rate and there was absolutely no problem with the Orbiter. 

PA0 Mark Kramer, CBS. Second row over here. Second 

row back there. 



MARK KRAMER (CBS) I may have missed discussion this morning 
about putting the arm out with the wrist camera to look at the 
Palapa firing. Is there any reason to assume that's not qoinq to 
happen? 

STONE No sir. That is going to happen. There was very 

little discussion about it because it was in cur teleprinter 
message from last night that went up and gave the crew the joint 
angles to do that and when to turn on the camera, etc. There'll 
probably be a reminder over the air-to-ground that you'll hear 
just prior to the PKM burn that will confirm that that's all in 
place but it's going to be done. 

KRAMER And will be done as described the other day, that 

is over the starboard side? 

STONE Yes sir. As far as I know there were no changes 

in that procedure. I just looked at joint angles last night and 
they looked the same so I don't believe there's any change in the 
procedure. 



PAO Craig Covault, Aviation Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) Randy to follow on that, did you 
hear any discussion on the type of imagery you expect to see off 
the RMS camera, specifically being sure that you will be able to 
acquire the plume, that the camera will be pointed in the right 
location and following on that about how long you expect to be 
able to follow the burn? 



STONE I'll take your last question first. We are not 

going to move the camera to track the burn. We are pointing the 
camera as close as we can to where the burn should be taking 
place which is about 10 miles away from its line of sight. The 
plume or the rocket motor will light up the sky fairly 
significantly as far as the TV camera is concerned so it doesn't 
have to be pointed exactly at the target to see the, to confirm 
the ignition* 



PAO 



Okay, back here second row. 



QUERY After the ignition of PAM, how long will it last 

until we get the first signal of the satellites or how long will 
it last until we know whether it's on its transfer orbit to 
geostationary orbit after the ignition. 




STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7ja 2/6/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 

STONE I don't know when they acquire. That's not our 

network and I don't really answer to that. 



PAO 



Paul Recer, Associated Press. 



PAUL RECER (AP) You may not be the right one to ask this but do 
you know if there's been any finalized plans to chanae the orbit 
of the Westar at this point? 

STONE I am not the right one to ask and I have heard no 

discussion on that topic. 

RECER All right. Let me ask you an engineering question 

then. Based on the predicted orbit and the actual orbit of 
Westar at this point, can you express in percentage terms about 
what portion of the PAM did, in fact, fire in the appropriate 
direction? 



STONE 
either . 



No sir, I just, I don't know the answer to that 



PAO 



Lynn Sherr, ABC. 



LYNN SHERR (ABC) Randy, was there anything, excuse me, anything 
done any differently this morning in the deploy from what was 
done on Friday morning? 



STONE 



No they were identicals. 



SHERR Is there anything different being done in terms of 

the tracking or was there any extra caution in terms of the 
predeploy preparations. 

STONE We're always very careful when we go through our 

checklist and so no, there was nothing different done with the 
checklist. As far as tracking is concerned, yes. We are doing 
something a little bit more than we would normally do for a 
deployment of this type. We have assigned radars that would 
normally be tracking the Orbiter. We have turned them over to 
track the satellite at the time of the PKM burn just to get added 
data on the deployment and the status of the burn. 



SHERR 



Can you tell us which radars they are? 



STONE I wish I had brought a list. I know we've turned 

over Guam and Hawaii. Beyond that I'm not sure of the other 
radars but there are some, there are other radars that are 
involved in that. 



SHERR Approximately how many? What's the difference from 

a normal procedure? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7ja 2/6/84 9:30 am PAGE 4 

STONE Well, normally our NASA radars are not part of that 

tracking network so any of them that we are supplying are 
different from the normal course of action. But we're just 
trying to add some assurance that we understand what happens 
around the PKM burn. It's just conservatism. 

SHERR I'm just trying to get a sense of how many, how 

many more radars will be tuned on than were before. Is it half a 
dozen, is it 3, is it 10? 

STONE Since I'm not sure how many radars they use I don't 

know what the difference is. I think we have another 3 that are 
going to be utilized for this purpose. 

PAO Front row down here. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (READERS DIGEST) This morning on the 
television of the broadcast of the flight crew they looked 
extremely healthy. I realize they had slept a full 8 hours, etc. 
but could you comment on why there has been so little talk of 
space sickness or what are the procedures on this flight that 
have been any different or have the procedures been any different 
on this flight in terms of sickness? 

STONE well there are no different procedures on this 

flight than there were last flight or the previous flight. You 
know we have our protocol on private medical comm that we did as 
a matter of course in previous flights. We don't do that unless 
there's a crew request and there has been none and the crew looks 
and sounds like they are doing quite well. 

McCONNELL Have there been no mentions of disorientation at 
all, of a dizziness or nausea or anything like that? 

STONE None that I'm aware of. No sir. 

PAO Jules Bergman. 

BERGMAN I beg to differ Randy but there is one procedure 

that's somewhat different on this flight. Your commander Vance 
Brand has flown before and he learned the hard way at STS-5 about 
space sickness. So would it not stand to reason that he, Vance 
Brand, had advised the crew about hot overeating or moving their 
head in sudden directions and things like that? 



*** 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF~SH I FT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



STONE Jules, we shate all of the knowledge that we learn 

from flight to flight, from commander to commander, and crew to 
crew, the things that you know can aggravate the situation, yes, 
we talk about them, and say take it easy. So that sort of thing 
is just a learning process that we're going through and some of 
the things that we do seem to help. 

BERGMAN And that may be trickleing through to each crew. 

STONE That's, it's not trickeling through, if we learn 

anything, we're passing it on. This is something that all of us 
in the space program want to overcome, so it is not a liability 
to us in later flights we have planned. 

PAO Greg Covault (Aviaton Week) 

COVAULT Randy, have you sent or do you plan to send any 

teleprinter messages or voiced instructions on changes to the 
EVA. I believe you are going to bring your camera inside for 
repair, 

STONE This morning we asked the crew how they felt about 

adding a procedure to bring camera delta, the one we're having 
problem with out in the bay, into the crew module, and either 
replace it with one of the cameras that's in the cabin, or do 
some in flight maintenance on that camera. The decision is not 
final whether or not we're going to do that additional task. I 
suspect we will, it looks like a very simple task and it has been 
run in our simulators, and it looks like it will probably be 
done* But tne final decision to bring the camera in, will 
probably be made later on today. 

COVAULT Anything else in the EVA change world? 

STONE We've talked about the procedure to put the thermal 

blanket back down on the cinema 360, trying to think if this - 
Oh, there is one other thing that you may have heard us talking 
about on the loops, over the last ccuple of days. The mass 
spectrometer on the SPAS, evidentually has some microswitches 
that are either stuck or not operating properly, and we're 
looking at a, if there is anything we can do to help that 
experiment. Right now it can only point in the z axis, straight 
up out of the payload bay. And they have some experiments they 
would like to run with that instrument that requires it to be 
pointed in the X axis or down in the payload bay. And right now 
it cannot be pointed down in the payload bay. But whether or not 
to do that depends on whether or not there is something 
beneficial with - the EVA crewman can do. And we don't know that 
yet. 



PAO 



John Wilford, New York Times. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/64 9:30 am PAGE 2 



WILFORD Why is fixing the delta camera so important? What 

would you lose if you don't have it operational. 

STONE We don't lose any engineering data if we don't have 

it operational, It's a matter of providing as good of TV 
coverage of this EVA as we possible can, since it is entirely 
different from anything we've ever done before with the man 
maneuvering unit, 

WILFORD what phases of the EVA will we not be able to see 

if we don't have the delta camera? 

STONE You will be able to see all of the EVA whether we 

do anything to the delta camera or not. There are some improved 
views you get of the MMU crewman docked to the SPAS when it's out 
on the end of the RMS, and that's one thing you'd like to 
document as good as you can. But you will not lose anything, 
you'll be able to see him up there from one of the other 
cameras. It's just not as good a view. 

PAO Paul Recer , AP. 

RECER In your ground simulations, have you been able to 

duplicate the apparent failure of camera delta. 

STONE I believe the camera people understand the color 

wheel problem, if whether or not they have been able to shake one 
and make it do that, I don't know, but the camera folks seem to 
understand that failure mode. 

RECER Okay, can you just kind of roughly tell us what is 

involved in fixing the color wheel? 

STONE The concensus of those of us that have talked so 

far on the camera is that we will not, probably not try to fix 
it, but just replace it with one of the cabin cameras. The TV 
cameras inside and outbide the bay are identical except for the 
thermal covering, that's just held on by velcro, so we'll take 
the covering off the payload bay camera, put it on the cabin 
camera, and then reinstall it outside. 

RECER Okay, what is involved in taking it off its rack 

outside, I mean remove a pin or what? 

STONE There are, and I'm not absolutely positive the 

number of pins that latch it down, but I believe there are three 
pins that, 4 pins, I've got a guy out there giving me hand 
signals, there are 4 pins and a, just a standard electrical 
connector that you unscrew and pull apart to take it off. It's a 
very simple task. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/84 9; 30 am PAGE 3 

RECER Okay, ana they would put a thermal blanket from the 

outside C right?° n ^ inside camera ' and P ut th e inside camera 

PAO Whose on first? 

STONE if you can repeat that, maybe I can answer it. 

We 11 take that thermal blanket on the one that's on the outside, 
put it on the cabin camera and then return it. But we won't do 
it, obviously can't, won't do it in the same EVA. It will be 
bring it in on 1 EVA, put it back out on the next EVA. 

PAO Mark Kramer (CBS). 

KRAMER 2 things. Can you put to rest speculation that the 

spacecraft might fly over and try to look at pieces of Westar and 
can you also talk about the traveling wave tube amplifier on the 
Ku-band antenna, and where that stands and how you (garble) all 

DG § 

STONE I'm glad you brought that up, I'd forgotten to tell 

you that the Ku-band after we cycled it this morning, is 
operating normally. So there is nothing wrong with the traveling 
wave tube, it was a power supply that just tripped off, and when 
we reset the logic in the Ku-band it came back up and it's been 
operating normally. Your other question, I missed it. 

KRAMER There's a rumor about flying over to look at 

Westar. 

STONE There are no plans and there will be no plans to 

rerendezvous the, with Westar. we do not have the propellant to 
do that. 

P ?°*.uj ^ KSC has a couple of questions, let's switch to KSC 
at this time . 

MIKE MEECHUM (Ganette News Service) when they go out on the EVA 
tomorrow, will you be back on the same schedule that you 
previously were or have there been changes there. 

STONE The EVA schedule tomorrow, the only changes that I 

know^of that are being planned in that EVA, are the one, or the 
couple that I related to you about possibly bringing in delta 
camera and putting down the thermal blanket on the cinema 360 and 
possibly^if we come up with a fix for the mass spectrometer 
adding that to the EVA, but the day should be as advertised in 
the premission CAP pretty much. 



MEECHUM Could you refresh my memory then, when does that 

put them, starting the EVA, at what time? Do you know that? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p7jb 02/06/84 9:30 am PAGE 4 



STONE You'll have to give roe a moment, I'll have to look 

that up, I'm not sure what time the EVA starts. 

7:15. 

STONE I have some help from the audience, it's 7;15 

eastern. 

KOBAL (Space Age Times) - Question regarding Westar. Because of 
what happened with that satellite, is it likely that you're going 
to change your procedure and use the RMS camera in the future to 
monitor future satellite deployments? 

STONE i don't believe we have even discussed that 

question, on what changes wo would make to a normal procedure, 
but I suspect we would not do that normally. 

KSC No other question from KSC. 

p AO I understand Marshall has no questions. Back to 

Houston, any further questions here. We thank you very much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8ja 2/6/84 4*30 pm PAGE I 



WARD Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, I'm Doug Ward, 

Deputy Director of Public Affairs at the Johnson Space Center, 
I'd like to introduce our participants for the briefing this 
afternoon. On my right is Glynn S. Lunr.ey, Program Manager of 
the National Space Transportation System at the Johnson Space 
Center? to his right is Richard D« Brandes , Group Vice President 
and Manager of Commercial Systems Division of Hughes Aircraft? to 
his right is Charles A . Ordahl, Vice President , Space Program 
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company; and on the right, I'm 
sure you're all familiar with Harold Draughon the Lead Flight 
Director for the 41-B mission. Before we begin with Dr. Lunney 
I'd like to read a statement we have from the Indonesians . The 
statement reads as follows: After an apparently successful 
deployment from the Shuttle, it appears that PALAPA B2 has not 
achieved the proper orbit. The Indonesian Government has been 
involved in communications satellite operations for a number of 
years beginning with the successful deployment of PALAPA Al and 
A2 on delta rockets in 1976, and 1977, and more recently the 
successful deployment of the PALAPA Bl on the Shuttle in June, 
1983. Obviously, the apparent failure to successfully inject the 
PALAPA B 2 into an operational orbit is a major disappointment. 
However , our communication satellite system continues to hv 
operational with the other three PALAPA satellites in 
geosynchronous orbit and supports our current needs. We will 
continue to work with all participants in an effort to resolve 
the cause of the failure. And that concludes the statement and 
we will have copies of that available for you in the news 
center. I'd like to turn it over now to Glynn Lunney. 

LUNNEY Thank you, Doug. Is it working all right? I guess 

I'd first like to say that NASA joins with the Government of 
Indonesia in the regrets and disappointment on the deployment of 
the satellite. It appears now that both of the satellites will 
not reach the geosynchronous on this mission. In the course of 
the discussions that have occurred on events surrounding these 
satellites and some of the discussion-making process, we thought 
it would be useful if we took a few minutes to explain the 
relationship that we at NASA have with the commercial customers, 
in this case, of coarse, a foreign commercial customer from the 
Government of Indonesia. NASA has also a - has kind of what you 
might call a fleet interest in the PAM program, the PAM program 
as it supports the communications satellite industry because 
obviously a lot of our traffic is of the communications satellite 
type. A lot of those satellites are lifted by PAMs which have 
been used on this flight. A lot of them are of the same kind of 
design. So, we have a tremendous interest in this kind of design 
either the PAM or the communications satellite, all of them 
together as a combination. We* re also Interested in whatever 
affects our customers but I thought it would be useful for you if 
we differentiate it between that general interest in our part, 
our specific concern in terms in how hardware works for the 
benefit of our customers and what the decision process is in real 



STS-U-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8ja 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 

time or even in terms of getting ready for a flight. It's quite 
separate from those above interest on our part and it's new for 
us. There has appeared to be some confusion about it f in that 
people don't quite seem to understand the respective roles of the 
parties involved. That's understandable because it's new, it's 
certainly new for us in the manned space flight business and for 
those of you who have covered it for many years and we have been 
taking time to try to learn how to do that* There's been a body 
of experience in NASA in the expendable launch vehicles where 
people have worked for, in effect for communications satellite 
industry fot a long time and we have been trying over the last 5 
or 6 years to apply those lessons to the ST3, modified as 
appropriate. In the case of these flights we provide, we agree 
to and we provide orbiter services, conditions, and also and 
importantly, I believe, operational options so that customers can 
exercise as much room as they can in making whatever decisions 
they want to make during the course of the flight. We have, 
however, agreed from the beginning on all these flights with 
communications satellites that the decisions to deploy or not are 
primarily essentially theirs to make. We will offer whatever 
support we can to that decision-making process, on this last 
deployment we offered time. We offered 48 hours, we could have 
offered more and we continue to offer more if the customer wanted 
it. However, he appeared to be satisfied that he had exercised 
all of the information channels tha he wanted, all the background 
that he wanted and he iiad come to the point where he thought it 
was time to make up his mind and he so did. We do not become 
actively involved in that process on his side. He has a variety 
of considerations that frankly we at NASA are not aware of nor do 
we fully understand. But, my observation, our observation of the 
process was that it was very thorough, very careful, complete, 
took enough time that all of the available evidence and thoughts 
could be brought to bear on the subject and a decision was made 
to proceed. Again, I want to say, I separate that in-flight 
decision making on a satellite that a customer owns in effect, 
from our interest in this subject which is real and continues. 
We are very interested that we be able to get back in the air 
with communications satellites and as soon as possible. So, we 
are very interested in this subject and, of course, it's too 
early to tell and it would be unfair to speculate where the 
problem really was, but where ever we find it to be, hopefully it 
will be soon. And in the course of that we at NASA and probably 
other people in the government, the Air Force for example is 
interested in the star motor, will be involved in the failure 
analysis in case that comes to be the part of the system that is 
focused on. In any case, we and others will be involved in the 
post-flight failure analysis and the recovery plan to this. But 
I thought it might be useful for you to differentiate that and 
our interest in this subject and the communications satellite 
industry as a whole from the details of what are, in effect, 
private decisions made by customers as they get ready for a 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8ja 2/6/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 3 

flight and as they indeed make their decisions to deploy or not 
in the course of the flight while they're in the Orbiter. I hope 
that clarifies it, ^ 

WARD I think Richard Brandes also has a brief statement 

and then our int nt is to go to questions* If there's time left 
when we finish that we'll have Harold Draughon do the usual 
summary of today's activities, Dick. 

BRANDES Okay. I hpve a statement which will be available 

to you. It's titled, "The Hughes Aircraft Company Mission 
Report, 6 February, 4:30 CST.' ! The attempt today to inject the 
PALAPA B2 spacecraft into a geosynchronous transfer orbit was an 
apparent failure. NORAD tracking has identified an object which 
appears to be the satellite in a low-earth orbit of approximately 
650 nautical mile apogee by 150 nautical mile perigee. Telemetry 
information was obtained at approximately 4 p.m. CST which 
indicates the spacecraft is indeed operating in this orbit. From 
this orbit the spacecraft cannot reach synchronous orbit and 
carry out its intended mission. Indications point to a failure 
similar to that which we believe occurred on the WESTAR 6 in- 
jection, namely a failure of the PAM motor to properly complete 
its burn. The McDonnell Douglas PAM stage has successfully 
launched 12 Hughes HS-376 spacecraft. We understand it has also 
had 6 other successful space firings. Two similar failures after 
18 consecutive successful space firings, obviously suggest a com- 
mon technical problem may have existed with these two motors. An 
intense effort is underway to explore this hypothesis. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8 jb 2/6/84 4 j 30 pm PAGE 1 

PAO With that we'll begin with your questions starting 

first in Houston. Here in front Craic Covault and if you would 
please, state your name and affiliation if I don't. 

CRAIG COVAULT (AVIATION WEEK) For Mr. Brandes and Mr. Ordahl, 
did either Hughes or MacDonnell Douglas make a recommendation to 
Indonesia not to fly the deployment today? 

BRANDES I'll take that. No, the problem with the WESTAR 6 

Spacecraft was the subject of an intense investigation and study, 
as you might imagine, from the time it didn't appear in the 
proper orbit at the right time until we finally sorted out what 
had happened to it. We concluded yesterday after receiving 
telemetry from the WESTAR 6 spacecraft that the problem had been 
with a limited burn of the PAM stage and the data and the studies 
we had done in our mind eliminated any other possibilities for 
that problem. We had at the same time, of course, been studying 
- all our experts and those from MacDonnell Douglas and Thiokol, 
had been studying the motor history and the motor pedigree of 
both the PALAPA and the WESTAR motors. We concluded, that 
investigation was completed and we concluded that there was no 
apparent defect with either motor or any problem or any unusual 
characteristic with either motor. Based on the results of all 
that study and the activities, all of the parties associated with 
the launch, that's Hughes, MacDonnell Douglas, COMSAT which is 
the technical advisor to the Indonesians, recommended that thev 
proceed with the deployment today. 

COVAULT In a quick follow, based on your discussions with 

Thiokol on the Star 48 manufacture and the integration of that 
into the PAM, have you come across anything that you could 
identify as being done differently to these two PAMs as opposed 
to previous PAMs? 

BRANDES No, we cannot, 

p AO Jules Bergman, ABC. 

BRANDES Do you want to add to that, Chuck? 

ORDAHL No, that's a correct statement. We have not. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC NEWS) Mr. Ordahl and Mr. Brandes, we 
understand, some people have said that is, that both these 
engines for both the WESTAR and the PALAPA used a new nozzle 
construction and they came off the line at the same time. Is 
that true? And if not, what else do you think caused it? 

ORDAHL First of all, there is no new design consideration 

here. The design is exactly the same as the design of all of the 
successful missions that PAM has flown. In so far as the nozzle 
construction, the exit cone did go through some of the processes 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jb 2/6/84 4»30 pro PAGE 2 



at HITCO, a subcontractor to Thiokol, at the same time which is 
not unusual, of course. That is a situation a number of exit 
cones go through the processes together. In this particular case 
two did go through the process together. 

BERGMAN I don't think that's being quite responsive sir. 

What I really was getting at, was were either the exit cone or 
the nozzle of lighter weight construction or of any different 
type of construction than the previous 18 successful PAMs. 

ORDAHL Absolutely not. All of the production acceptance 

data on these nozzles was as good or better than those which have 
flown before. That was the basis of our judgement. 

PAO John Wilford, New York Times. 

JOHN WILFORD (NEW YORK TIMES) when you say a limited burn, what 
are we to infer. My impression is with a solid, once it lights 
it's got to go to depletion, 

BRANDES Well, what I meant by a United burn is that the 

impulse generated by the motor was substantially less than it 
would have delivered if it had burned properly for its entire 
burn time, I think, check me, it's 80 some seconds is the normal 
burn time. 

ORDAHL NO, 85. 

BRANDES 85 seconds, The orbit that these spacecraft are in 

are similar. As I said, approximately 650 nautical miles by 150 
and that would correspond to a substantially less burn and I 
don't have the number at my fingertips but it's on the ordej of 8 
to 15 seconds in that time frame. 

PAO Right here on the aisle. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (READERS DIGEST) I have a two part 
question. Were either of the flight, the PAM-D flight system 
cradles and spin tables used in a previous STS, and also, what is 
the avionics interface between that flight craddle and the 
satellite itself. Could there have been a malfunction from the 
avionics interface between the satellite and the launching 
cradle? 

ORDAHL I think I should - - 

BRANDES You take the STS part of it. 

ORDAHL The cradle portion. As far as the cradle, they 

have been flown before and as far as we know at this time, there 
is no means by which those cradles could be related to this 
condition that we have here. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jb 2/6/84 4:30 pro PAGE 3 



BRANDES with regard to the interface between the spacecraft 

and the PAM. Prior to completing the analysis of the WESTAR 6 
problem a number of hypotheses were generated which could account 
for malfunction. We tracked all of those to ground and 
eliminated those as possibilities. The telemetry we received 
from the WESTAR 6 spacecraft eliminated those possibilities as 
candidates and reduced the population to a PAM motor failure. 

PAO flack here in the back, Chris Peterson, KTRH. 

CHRIS PETERSON (KTRH) Tor Glynn Lunney. Glynn, you have a 
number of PAMs scheduled coming up later on this year and a whole 
bunch in the future of the Shuttle program. Is NASA going to 
reevaluate the reliability of the PAM and not fly anymore until 
they figure out what's going on or what's your position on that? 

LUNNEY Our position on the subsequent use of the PAMs is 

that they are a very, very important part of our communication 
satellite industry and getting the communication satellites to 
geosync orbit. We are going to offer all the help that we can in 
the resolution of this problem and that can come perhaps in a 
number of ways and I don't know what they are today but whatever 
they are, we'll be able to offer help to that solution and it may 
be of some value it may not. But we're going to try help in 
solving the problem. 

PAO Roy Neal, NBC. 

ROY NEAL (NBC) Can you give us a handle on how you will begin 
setting up failure analysis on this Glynn? What will you do, set 
up a task force to work on it? will the Hughes people do this? 
Will MacDac do it? How will this effort be coordinated? where 
will it take you? 

LUNNEY Well, I think we probably Let me just answer 

the first part. I think we need to probably pursue this problem 
a little more to be sure what all of our evidence is. There's a 
discussion that says we're clearly dealing with a PAM problem 
whioh the evidence suggests that we are but that, one still ought 
to keep an open mind about that. On the assumption, though, that 
there is a PAM problem I believe Chuck has already started some 
work on that subject. 

ORDAHL That's true, Glynn. We have started a review board 

activity, a senior review board activity, we have participation 
on the part of Morton Thiokol personnel and their suppliers. We 
started this work earlier and are, of course, continuing it at 
this time and NASA has also offered, as Hughes has, to 
participate in that over a period of time. 



PAO Paul Recer, Associated Press. Back here in the 

second row. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jb 2/6/84 4 s 3 0 pm PAGE 4 



PAUL RECER (ASSOCIATED PRESS) if I understand you correctly, 
you now have two healthy communication satellites in two wrong 
orbits. What do you plan to do with them? What do you plan to 
recommend to your customers to do with them? 

BRANDES Well we, from this orbit as I said earlier, we see 

no way to, they certainly cannot perform their intended 
mission. Offhand we don't know of any other mission that would 
be useful that they can perform. What we are currently doing, 
though, as interim measure is to put the spacecraft systems or 
subsystems into what we would call a safe condition so that 
nothing deleterious happens and we'll continue to monitor them 
indefinitely until we reach a decision about disposition. 

PAO Olive. 



OLIVE T ALLEY (UPI) Couple of questions, what are you going to 
do now with the schedule that you have for other satellites using 
PAMs? Will you Dust sort of stop and put some of those on 
hold? Secondly, what sort of liability might you be lookinq at 
regarding these failures? 

BRANDES we all have probably different views on that. As 

Mr. Ordahl said, clearly a very intense and thorough and wide 
ranging investigation is going to start, has started, we'll be 
participating in that as a very interested party as a supplier of 
satellites and I'm sure other people in the industry will be as 
well. And I believe that some clarification of the problem would 
have to develop before we could recommend further use of the pam 
motor, Now when that might happen is speculation but we are all 
going to be working on that as hard as we can to make it happen 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8 jc 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 



PAO Lynn Sherr (ABC) 

SHERR (ABC) - I guess these are for Harold, first of all has the 
crew been told, second of all, will this in any way affect the 
EVA's. 

DRAUGHON The crew has not been told. And the EVA's are on 

for tomorrow as scheduled. I've got a list of when the pertinent 
activities are going to be happening tomorrow and I'll give those 
to you later on. 

PAO Third row on the isle, Tom O'Toole. 

O'TOOLE Mr. Brandes, you said the orbit suggests an 8 to 15 

second burn. The crew reported seeing with the wrist camera, the 
burn taking place for what they thought was for 30 seconds. Can 
you reconcile those two numbers for us. 

BRANDES We have reviewed the video, that was taken by the 

crew, and let me add that, that's very helpful in the fact that 
we were able to get that, and had NASA turn that procedure 
around, and create that information has been most helpful. What 
we can see is that the spacecraft, PAM combination was visible, 
for a period of approximately 30 to 40 seconds as we timed it, 
several times. What is not clear is the duration of the burn, 
from that picture. And we have obtained, again with NASA's 
expedited help, we have obtained copies of that - tapes, they've 
been given to McDonnell Douglas, and they're being used as part 
of the failure investigation. I think they'll be helpful. 

p AO We'll take one more question here, then we'll go to 

the Kennedy Space Center. Back here towards the back, on the 
right. 

ANITOLEAS (German radio) — You had trouble with the IUS rocket 
earlier. You have trouble with the PAM now. Do you expect that 
this will bring more clients to the Europea Areon rocket. I 
understand that the WESTAR 6 was originally meant to fly on the 
Areon and you booked Shuttle because you thought it would be 
safer* 

BRANDES I hope not. 

PA0 We'll go to the Kennedy Space Center now for 

questions. 

K §9, . Walk up as I call on you and give your name and 

affiliation when you ask your question. 

LAWRENCE - (Chicago Sun Times) ~ I have two questions. One, is 
there any possibility of using the four hydrozene thrusters to 
change the orbit? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8 jc 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 
BRANDES Hydrozene - 

LAWRENCE The question is, wis the price of PALAPA B about 

the same as WESTAR? 

BRAMDES Well the first question you asked was, is it 

possible to fire the hydrozene thrusters. The answer is yes, 
however, the amount of propeilant on board the spacecraft, is no 
where near adequate to raise these spacecraft orbits to 
synchronous altitude. You, and so that while that capability 
exists to use the thrusters, there's no, not adequate fuel to, as 
I say, to get the orbit anywhere near what we need. We also have 
an apogee motor on board, that's presumably usable, but it also 
has insufficient capacity to, that was needed to get in 
synchronous orbit with a proper perigee stage burn, and clearly 
cannot substitute. Now what was the second question? 

LAWRENCE Second question was the cost of the machine? 

BRANDES The WESTAR and PALAPA spacecraft, there are 

difference between the two spacecraft, but I think in the sense 
of what your asking, they're small and so the cost are 
approximately the same, Yes. 

LAWRENCE Around $35 million dollars. 

BRANDES I don't recall the exact number. 

LAWRENCE Let me follow this, my earlier question. If the 

power board, thruster power board was brought to bear. Could the 
satellite be maneuvered into an orbit where it could function, 
even though it couldn't reach a geosynchronous orbit? 

BRANDES The Spacecraft can function, can operate in the 

orbit it's in, but it can't provide a useful mission, and the 
same*- I know today, I don't know of any mission that it could 
serve, using the hydrozene fuel either. 

STEAD (Baltimore Sun) - Does anyone there know if the satellite 
was fully insured or do they know what the insurance, the name of 
the insurance company, or do they also know if the insurance 
people will take any part in this investigation? 

BRANDES Well I can only say, that to my best understanding, 

the mission was insured, but I do not know the details. That was 
a matter between the Indonesian government, (garble) and tell. 
The telephone company and the insurance people, but I do believe 
that they had insurance on the mission. But I can't, I'm not 
aware of the details of that insurance arrangement. As far as 
insurance people participating in an investigation, that would be 
really up to the customer. And we certainly would have no 
objection. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jc 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 

SLADE (Mutual Broadcasting) - For Glynn Lunney. Glynn you have 
four PAM's scheduling for the rest of this year, the first one in 
June, could you say at this point that if this investigation goes 
on very far it won't impact that June flight. 

LUNNEY As matter of fact, just for completeness, we have 

one earlier than that, on a delta, on a galaxey spacecraft in 
May. But it's probably too early to tell whether the failure 
analysis that is now started is going to result in affect on 
those schedule, Obviously everybody in the system, would hope, 
and would work very hard to prevent that from happening, but it's 
just simply too early to tell whether the conclusions will be 
such that we'll have to adjust those schedules. We'll wait and 
see. 

KSC We have one or two more questions, 

LETTMAN (Detroit News) For Mr. Ordahl, or whomever else is best 
qualified. We heard a report that the fuel from these two PAMs 
came from the same batch. Is that true, if it is, does it 
suggest a defect in that batch of fuel, if it doesn't, is there 
in general hypothesis, to cover both of these failures? 

ORDAHL No, actually as far as the propellant is concerned, 

it's poured on a single batch for each PAM motor, so there's 
really not commonality Of this specific propellant between 1 
motor and another. And we really have no particular pypothosis, 
as far as any commonality between these two motors. They are, 
for all practical purposes, were very similar in terms of the 
data, production acceptance test data, all the manufacturing and 
quality insurance data, and they all met all the specification 
requirements, so we have not been able to find that common thread 
at this time. 

TURNELL (BBC) - We were told the crew has not been told of this 
second failure, is the intention not to tell them until after the 
MMU for obvious reasons? 

DRAUGHON No, there's no intention like that at all. The 

intent was to have something factual to tell them before we told 
them anything, and that is all the intent was. The crew was put 
to bed around an hour and a half, or 2 hours ago, and up until 
that time, I didn't think we had an factual enough story to tell 
them exactly what had happened. So we didn't bring it up. They 
didn't ask. Had they asked or requested information, then we 
would have told them what we did know at the time. They did not 
ask and I didn't volunteer it. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4:30 pro PAGE 1 



MIKE MEECHAM (Gannette News Service) You mentioned that the 
orbits they've been put into are similar. How close are they? 

BRANDES well the orbits are similar, in terms of the 

physical location of the spacecraft in these orbits, I just don't 
know. I would imagine that they are not particularly close. The 
orbit definition is similar in terms of apogee and perigee, but I 
don't know the exact displacement or distance of one spacecraft 
from the other. 



PAO I understand we have one more question from 

Kennedy, then we'll come back to Houston. 

QUERY Are we to assume that those rockets offer no 

danger to Challenger? 

PAO Would you repeat that question, please? 

QUERY Are we to assume, once again, that the Palapa 

orbit offers no danger to the Challenger? 

BRANDES That is correct. We've looked at that orbit and it 

is no problem at all to the Orbiter. 

PAO We'll come back to Houston now for - - 

JAMES SLATE A point of clarification, you say that you have the 
spacecraft, and you have its orbit, do you have a spacecraft that 
is talking to you? Have you interrogated it, and are all the 
systems functional? 

BRANDES Yes, that is correct. 

p AO Ok, we'll come back to Houston now for questions. 

Let's start on the aisle here, the second row. 

DAVE JACKSON (Time Magazine) When was the last time, how many 
days ago, were the PAM's and the satellites inspected by the 
contractors? Arid when was the last time that somebody with NASA 
looked at them? 

BRANDES Well, the spacecraft go thru an elaborate test 

program, certainly at our facility. They're brought down to the 
Cape,, to Kennedy Space Center, they're mated, they're further 
tested there, they're then mated to the PAM assembly by ourselves 
and McDonnell Douglas people working together. Then they go thru 
a processing period, taking that combined assembly out to the 
vertical processing facility, and then out to the Shuttle pad. 
At each step there are certain tests made, not by our people, and 
the Mcponnel Douglas personnel test the PAM. These are largely 
electrical tests and then finally we check out the system in the 
Orbiter bay, prior to launch. So all of those tests were normal, 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4:30pm PAGE 2 



and all the processing was normal. There were no significant 
abnormalities that I'm aware of. 

PAO Would you wait for the mike please. 

QUERY What day was that done, how many hours before 

the lift off? 

LUNNEY Couldn't be matter of hours, because we had the 

doors closed for some time. I can't recall exactly, probably the 
last time people had acess was a couple of days before the 
launch. 

BRANDES Might have been 2 or 3 days, yes. 

LUNNEY And that's normal. 

PAO Roy Neal, NBC. 

NE AL Some years ago, there was discussion of using a 

separate rocket system, teleoperator , I think it was, to send the 
Skylab into higher orbit. Now we're involved in what could be a 
rehearsal for a rescue mission for a satellite. And in this 
case, it would seem that you perhaps have a couple of satellites 
in need of a rescue. Is it possible to put that kind of thinking 
together and come up with some learned conjecture on the fact 
that these satellites could live under such a system, and would 
NASA be prepared to support the customer to that extent? 

LUNNEY Roy, what might be done with those satellites will 

take a little while to sort out. Perhaps nothing will be the 
answer. First thing I guess that will have to be established is 
who they belong to and what if anything they might want to ask 
NASA to do about it. We haven't even speculated or anything what 
that might be. But here you have two live satellites in low- 
Earth orbit, which are perhaps accessible by the Shuttle, pehaps 
not. But it's too early for us to technically look at that, and 
I think we would have to have some clear reason and we'd also 
have to understand what the financial arrangements for such an 
undertaking might be. So all of that is still too early to tell. 

NEAL Would it be possible? 

LUNNEY Well, we don't even know. I mean its possible, but 

I don't know whether it't technically feasible in that there 
might be things onboard that we would be concerned about in the 
safety since, for example, that we just haven't had time to think 
through. So it's too early to tell and the satellites, to return 
to the point I was making at the beginning, the satellites don't 
belong to NASA, they belong to somebody else. And if somebody 
else wants us to do something with them, or at least consider 
doing something with them, then that discussion will need to be 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 



held. But as I also said at the beginning, NASA tries to offer 
the customers whatever we can do to help them in their jobs. So 
if someone thinks that will help, and they want to talk to us 
about it, we would be happy to talk about it. 

R0Y That's what I said, how far is NASA willing to go 

to support the customer if such a project were possible? 

LUNNEY We do not sign blank checks, Roy, But we would be 

willing to do whatever is reasonable and whatever arrangements 
would want to be made with anybody who wanted to represent them. 

PAO Jules Bergman, ABC, 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) I know it's early and perhaps speculative 
but what went wrong? You had two rockets here. Both of them cut 
off early. Both of them produced similar orbits. Did the exit 
cones fall off, break off? Did the thrusters, nozzles come off 
or what? 

ORDAHL It's a very speculative answer I would have to make 

at this time if I tried to answer that question. 

BERGMAN what is your best guess? 

ORDAHL If I was going to make a best guess I would say 

that there would probably have been some problem with the nozzle 
of the motor. The fact that it terminated would indicate -- and 
essentially snuffed would indicate that the pressure in the motor 
dropped abruptly, snuffing out the burning and to do that 
requires an increase in the opening into the motor. 

PAO Back here on the second row. 

MALCOLM McCONNELL (Readers Digest) A followup on my first 
question. You said that the cradle assembly had been used 
before, is this the first time that a cradle assembly which has 
flown in space has been used to launch a spacecraft and also, was 
there any flight dynamics data update through that cradle to the 
spacecraft immediately before launch? 

ORDAHL We have used — I haven't checked all the records, 

but we have used the cradles before. In other words, we have 
used ref light cradles before. Now what was the other part of the 
question. I'm sorry I missed that. 

McCONNELL Was there any flight dynamics update to the onboard 
spacecraft computers immediately before deployment? 

ORDAHL No, no. 



PAO 



In the second row. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4; 30 pm PAGE 4 



GEOFFREY LEAVENWORTH (Time Magazine) Mr. Brandes, is there any 
part of that satellite which could be safely grappled by the arm 
or is that — ? 

BRANDES The satellites were not designed with any 

requirement or sense of being recovered so there are no special 
measures taken to have places to grab ahold of them. 

LEAVENWORTH So in your opinion, is it impractical to think of 
the shuttle retrieving these satellites on a future mission? 

BRANDES i think that, I think I'd really be just 

speculating on that. That's in front of us to even think about 
and it is a matter that will occur to people and we would look 
into but I would have nothing to say on that at this time, 

PAO up here in front. Lynn Sherr. 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Could you go back to your NORAD statement 
earlier. Is the, is what they're tracking one object or two at 
this point? Do you believe the PAM, in fact, separated the same 
way as the Westar or is there some other 

BRANDES Yes, we believe the PAM separated. We have 

telemetry from the spacecraft that indicates that. The tracking, 
understand that the tracking information we get has, you know, 
has varied as they refine their predictions and gotten more 
sightings. The last I heard was that there were three objects 
that they were tracking that were in the vicinity. Well three 
objects and one large object that they felt was a spacecraft. 
And in that orbit, we have received telemetry from the spacecraft 
so it confirms that one of those objects is the spacecraft. I 
would presume one other is — 

SHERR Do you believe the second one is the PAM? 

BRANDES Yes is the PAM, would be the PAM separated 

motor. 



PAO Take one more up front. Olive Talley. 

T ALLEY Glynn regarding NASA's efforts to cooperate with 

the customers on all this matter, would you consider allowing 
both Palapa and Westar to launch other satellites in the future 
either at the same price rate that you gave them now or would you 
try to give them, speed up a chance or try to fit them into a 
tight schedule to give them another chance to deploy another 
satellite earlier than maybe they had planned or anything like 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jd 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 5 



LUNNEY The answer to that, I guess, is that we would try 

to do whatever was reasonable to do to service them. If however, 
I mean there's a whole set of a variety of complicated proposals 
that might be made. Some of them might be acceptable, some of 
them might not be acceptable and we are also, as a matter of 
fact, trying on our side to run this thing as businesslike as we 
can in terms of whatever we offer one customer would then have to 
be offered to all customers and would we be satisfied with doing 
that and if so, then we should. So, I think a lot would depend 
on exactly what people asked for and what they wanted. I know 
that, although maybe there's some hardware available, there 
generally is not a set of extra spacecraft and rockets laying 
around so to speak available for flight. Although there might be 
and if there were and we were asked, we were certainly bend every 
effort to try to work them into the schedule as early as possible 
in recognition of this problem. 

PAO Right here on the left. 

JIM BARLOW {Houston Chronicle) The Western Union people said 
their satellite, PAM, and launch cost them about 53 million and 
when you threw in their engineering work and ground facilities it 
was 75 million. Could you provide similar figures for the 
Palapa? 

BRANpES No I couldn't because I just don't have access to 

all those numbers, 

PAO Paul Recer . 

RECER Have you got all the data that you're going to be 

analyzing to determine the cause in hand now or do you expect to 
get some more and if so from where and will this data possibly 
include some photographic information? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 

BRANDBS I think we have most of the data that is useful for 

us to get frorc the, from the Spacecraft in orbit. We received, 
and the kind of data we get from them simply confirms that 
something didn't happen and therefore eliminates various 
hypotheses. I think that, I don't want to speculate too far on 
where the investigation will go but I think the investigation 
will obviously use all of the history data on the motors and 
anything related to that. As I mentioned earlier, the NASA tape 
of the, of the ignition and burn I think will prove to be 
extremely useful and that will be subject to further analysis I 
would guess that, that we probably have the data and it's a 
question of thorough further analysis and investigation of it. 

l h0 r ' d l^e to take a break here and ask if anybody 

has any questions of Harold Draughon relative to today's 
activities and if not, I think we'll take about 2 more questions 
on this one and wrap it up. Roy, did you have a question. 

N ^ AL 1 was going to say how about tomorrow's activity 

which Harold was prepared to give us. 

PAO Okay. 

MBAI » t think a lot of us need that 

PA0 . A* 1 right, why don't we do that, Harold, why don't 

you give us a run down on what's going to happen. 

?n^S22tf - 0k ?£i -! ou f 2 lk ? had ' ln g^eral, expressed some 
interest m sensitivity and the scheduling of the activities 
tomorrow and I didn't have time to get these events in local time 
but I do have them in mission elapsed time and it's a fairly easy 
conversion, I'll get these to the PAO people and they can get 
u? p J?? u 0r ali of vou afterwards but I'll just hit 4 or 5 of the 
highlights. The airlock egress, everything's going on schedule 
tomorrow are a MET of 3 days, 23 hours and 25 minutes. The 
checkout flight on EV1 which is the short flight is at 23 hours 
and 55 minutes. The first long range transl&oion is at 4 days 
and 25 minutes. That's out to 300 feet. The first T-pad dockinq 
which is to the C-cell or the box up in the front of the bay is 
at 4 days and 55 minutes. The MMU dolf or taking off that 
particular MMU is 4 days and 1 hour. MMU prep for the second one 
is 55 minutes after that at 1 hour and 55 minutes and the second 
long range translation is at 4 days, 2 hours and 15 minutes with 
another docking at the C-cell by the other crewman at 2 hours and 
45 minutes. That's followed up by some simulations of some of 
JtL 8 o™ E»2 "Pair tasks in the MEV at 4 days and 3 hours and 
then some MFR or manipulator foot restraints where one of the 
crewmen gets into the foot restraints on the end of the RMS and 
does some work at 3 hours and 45 minutes. I've got, that's about 
a third of the line items that I've timelined up for you and 
we'll get you copies of that. I've also got for your perusal the 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH.CFT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 2 

PET or the time for coverage for Goldstone, Mila and Hawaii which 
are the 3 TV stations and I'll make that available to PAO for 
you. But in general, the activities tomorrow are just as you 
were briefed by John Cox prior to the flight. We have talked 
about, and I know Randy and I have mentioned in previous sessions 
over here about 3 tasks that have been added to the EVA, The 
first one is the camera repair of that forward starboard camera 
delta that's having a problem. We're going to take it off the 
bulkhead on the first EVA, at the end of the first EVA, bring it 
inside, change it out with an identical camera inside, put the 
thermal cover back on it, Put it back in the mount. Take that 
whole mounted and assembly back outside during the second EVA and 
put it back on the bulkhead. They're going to fix the little 
thermal curtain on the cinema 360 and velcro it back down and 
we've had a problem that I believe Randy talked about on the mass 
spectrometer. There is a capability for the thing to point along 
the X-axis or along that minus z axis of the vehicle, it will - 
chey have two ways that they use it. One is they go on a scan 
pattern to look at both those areas. The other one is to hang it 
in one of those positions and leave it there and collect 
contamination kind of data. It will only, it will work in the 
ratchet mode or it'll work straight up but it won't go in the 
plus X direction. The engineering people have looked at that and 
the customer believes that what the problem is with that is a 
microswitch that's not making, that microswitch is right on the 
end of the box and the crewman is going to try to adjust that 
thing just a little bit in the EVA. If so, we'll be able to run 
the other part of the experiments that that customer is 
interested in* That's pretty much it as far as the plans for 
today. The other activities for tomorrow, the activities other 
than the Palapa today were some cinema 360 work inside the cabin 
while the deploy was going on. some additional work in the 
middeck with that wide angle camera and a heat pipe experiment 
was activated and another GAS can started its activation today. 
So it's just pretty much ops normal. The vehicle's behaving just 
beautifully. There's very little to talk about at all as far as 
the Orbiter system performance it's been exceptional. 

PAO Okay do we have questions. Jim Bollo. 

JIM BOLLO The gentlemen from Hughes and from McDonnell. Are 
you in the position now to exonerate NASA of any of these 
problems with the communications launches? 

BRANDES Could you repeat the question please? 

BOLLO Are you in a position now to exonerate NASA of any 

of the problems with the loss of the two satellites? 

BRANDES We have never felt that there was anything other 

than a normal deployment by NASA from the Shuttle so we have 
never been in a posture of suspecting any problem in that area. 



STS-41-B CH ANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 3 

To our knowledge from all the data, everything was perfectly 
normal. 

PAO Chris Peterson, KTRH. 

PETERSON (KTRH) Do PAMs come equipped with telemetry packages 
that would allow the ground to take a look at what's going on 
during deployment and if so, why didn't we get any on these 
flights? 

ORDAHL We did not have telemetry on either of these 

particular flights, in direct answer to your earlier part of the 
question, there is a telemetry system that can be employed. It 
was used on one of the earlier missions on STS and has been used 
on a number of the PAMs when flown on the deltas. It is actually 
a customer option as to whether he flies telemetry or not. The 
texemetry system is a, of course, is an item of weight and it's a 
tradeoff for him in terms of hydrazine or other payload weight 
budgets. " *' 

PA0 Okay, we'll take a concluding. 

PETERSON Follow up. Would this not be reasonable to assume 

that it might become standard equipment as a result of these two 
deployments. 

ORDAHL I think I'll have to leave that for the future and 

we 11 see, but clearly it can be a desirable thing in a case like 
this clearly. 

PETERSON What would NASA's position be on that? Would it 

not be a lot more comfortable for NASA Management to know that 
you'll see what's going on in those spacecraft. 

LUNNEY. Yes it would. I don't want to say it's our 

position but obviously it would be comfortable for us to know it 
was there. However, in addition to putting the package on you 
have to find a receiver to copy it. These injections, of course, 
all occur at the equator where we tend not to have much in the 
way of tracking stations as you know. So besides putting this 
transmitter on, arrangements would also have to be made for some 
coverage of some kind by a receiver so in addition to the 
performance penalty that Chuck Ordahl discussed there's also the 
question of some expense associated with accomplishing that. So 
I think it's, as Chuck said a little earlier, just see how that 
will turn out but that will certainly be a consideration I'm sure 
in this investigation. 



p A<> Okay, we'll take a concluding question from Jules 

Bergman. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8je 2/6/84 4:30 pro PAGE 4 



JULES BERGMAN (ABC NEWS) Glynn, I'm afraid this one is for 
you. Although NASA's responsibli ty legally ends when the 
satellites ace deployed from the payload bay, is it not a greater 
national responsibility in terma of the U,S. pride being at stake 
and along that line, should NASA not preinspect - going back to 
the factory if necessary - the cargo, even the motors it 
carries? And is that practical? 

LUNNEY Well, there are, it's probably inpractical, 

Jules, We considered long and hard when we got into this STS 
business as to whether we should become actively involved in the 
customers development of hardware. We find ourselves in the 
position, national pride or not, that it is not our money, 
okay. It is the other persons money, it's his hardware. It's 
the customers money, it's the customers' hardware, it's the 
customers' requirements, it's the customers 1 schedule, it's the 
customers' arrangements - whatever they all might be in his own 
country - for service etc, and all of these things are very 
difficult for us to have much insite into and therefore it is 
difficult for us to be very active in the decision making in his 
program* It is also very awkward to almost, but not completely 
impossible, for an outside noninvolved agency to productively 
assist and aid in the development of somebody else's hardware. 
That, by all of our experience, that does not work very well and 
I expect by most other people's experience it does not work very 
well. Free advice is generally not well received and it's also a 
problem of advising people to spend their money on something that 
they might not want to do. So, we went through all of that, we 
really did and consciously decided consistent with what has been 
done in ELV programs and very consistent with the desires of our 
customers that we structure the relationship that I tried to 
describe earlier and, so far, that has served everybody well, It 
is a moot question as to whether NASA having been involved this 
would hav* turned out any differently or not. One should not 
always make the assumption that we can make things right. We've 
actually been known once in a while for that not to happen that 
way as you know, Jules. So, that in itself is no guarantee that 
it's going to be perfect. So I think all in all the right kind 
of balance has been struck but again, as I tried to describe at 
the beginning, we're involved in a new activity, We're involved 
in an activity where external people, in this case an external 
government, is putting a service in space with their own funds 
for their own purposes and we would provide any help that they 
ask for but as a general rule, they bring the hardware with the 
help of the contractors - American contractors in this case - to 
the flight and they make their decisions. We stand ready to 
assist all we can but in the final analysis, it's their call. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p8jf 2/6/84 4:30 pm PAGE 1 

BERGMAN All right. If I came to you tomorrow and said I 

have two PAM equipped communications satellites, would you launch 
them aboard a Shuttle at this point. 

IAJNNEY Well, that's an academic questions, Jules, because 

the manifest is booked with customers who have already been to 
see us a long time ago and they are lined up. I think what we 
are going to find is not that kind of question but we're going to 
find that the communication satellite industry, as it has done in 
the past with launch vehicles, will look into both individually 
here in the terms of each company and then as a group will look 
into what transpires and they're going to be satisfied with the 
outcome of it before they continue to fly. That has been our 
history and I expect that it will continue to be and there is no 
such imaginary person with 2 things ready to go tomorrow and we 
couldn't put them ahead of the others who have been in line up 
until now anyway. 

p AO I think that wrap it up. Thank you very much. 



END OF TAPE 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 1 

£ A0 Good afternoon, my name is Jim Kukowski, we have 

here at our Change-of-Shif t Briefing following the EVA period, 
Jon Cox who's the EVA Flight Director and Jon we'll move directly 
to you for your summation. 

cox Thank you very much. I think as you all saw today 

on TV, some pretty spectacular pictures, you could tell that our 
first EVA of this flight turned out be quite spectacular. We had 
a lot of new equipment. We had a new verison of the suits that 
the crew used and the Manipulator Foot Restraint that you saw 
manuevered around the cargo bay and the MMUs, those Manned 
Manuevering Units that were just absolutely fantastic today. All 
that equipment seemed to work especialy well, it was better I 
think than everybody had hoped for, it was a super day. The crew 
got off this morning to a nice, early, fresh start, I think as we 
began prep they were probably almost on the order of an hour or 
an hour and 1/2 early and they managed to stay ahead all day. As 
we got into the EVA itself, Bob had some problems with the foot 
restraint and so we readjusted some of the order of the tasks of 
the day, but by the time we finished the day, we'd worked all the 
items back in again that we'd reshuffled and I think if you mark 
off on the old checklist, we did all the things we had planned to 
do and we picked up those extra tasks that we added for the crew 
to do. We even thought that the camera delta had been left 
outside .because we told them to leave it out there, and lo and 
behold it showed up in the airlock at repress time, and I don't 
know how it got in there, but the crew picked it up as they 
Closed the door. So we're quite please, the EVA did run a little 
bit longer than the timeline, but about as long as we expected it 
to go. We had planned for about a 6 hour EVA, and 5 hours and 55 
minutes is what we ended up with. We had timelined, oh 45 
minutes to an hour less of activity in knowing that we were 
probably a little over-ambitious on that. I think all in all the 
day was quite a spectacular. We took a significant step today, I 
think, in demonstrating some more capability of the Shuttle 
program and its ability to be able to service satellites. And 
especialy to prepare for flight 13, which we'll be working on in 
flight April, in April. With that I'll take questions. 

P A0 All right, we'll go to the questions here first at 

JSC. Walt for the mike please, if I don't identify you by name, 
please identify yourself. And let's start with Craig Covault of 
Av Week. 

CRAIG COVAULT (Aviation Week) Jon, I'm not entirely sure what 
kind of difficulty Bob ran into with the MFR initialy that forced 
the wave-off of his work on the MFR. 

C0X . The way we did the wave-off is he got behind having 

some difficulty with the foot restraints over at the FFS when he 
was servicing the manipulator getting it ready to fly. And also 
getting the tool boards out, he was having, again, some more 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OP-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 2 



trouble with the foot restraints. We did do, did ask the crew to 
do a check, which I have not heard the results of yet, about 
checking his boot sizes and all that. He felt his shoe was not 
fitting in the foot restraints properly, well by the time he 
worked on that for quite awhile, he got himself behind and what 
we tried to do for the MMU flights is time that so that it works 
properly with the sunlight, so we had him not do the MFR so he 
could get over and catch the MMU flight which was the primary 
part of the flight and priority task of that EVA. So we got him 
onto that and then Bruce picked up the MFR work. 

COVAULT Yes, but on the foot restraints though, I thought 

he was having trouble with the SESA foot restraints, not the foot 
restraints over by the FSS. 

COX He reported trouble with the SESA once, we had the 

opinion that he was probably having trouble with all of them, 
because he began to report at the end, when we asked him about 
it, in fact he didn't know if it was the toe clearance or the 
width of his feet or the heel, so we asked him to do a check on 
the foot restraints that's in the airlock and see if we could get 
a better idea of what that was. 

COVAULT Did you hear him make a call about the stantion not 

coming down on the MFR initially. 

COX I don't recall a comment to that effect. It seemed 

to work fine, if you watched it in use it did ell the right 
things. Bruce was using it quite liberally, he was swinging it 
back and forth and using it as a work site like it's designed to 
be. 

PAO Lynn Sherr, ABC. 

LYNN SHERR (ABC) Jon, was there any TV taken of the 300 or 320 
foot translation that Bruce made, and were there some tape 
problems or something? I couldn't quite figure out what was 
going on there when they were not on live. 

COX The reason we weren't live, there was TV taken of 

the whole thing, it'll be dumped, the parts we did not see live, 
will be dumped. 

SHERR When? 

COX Oh, probably thru the night and tomorrow. 

SHERR Nothing before then? 

COX We'd have to check the coverage, I don't know 

exactly when they'll all be in, but that's the plan, to get that 
all cleared off and returned. And then we have to have the crew 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 3 



up and cueing the tapes and all that sort of stuff so we can get 
it down, 

SHERR Ok, the other thing is was Bob cheated out of his 

MMU time at all? It seemed as if he had a shorter time in the 
MMU then Bruce did, 

COX It looked like we were headed that way, just 

because we were running a little bit late on the timeline, but I 
think by the time we got finished, Bruce was still over at the 
SPAS working, I think Bob ended up the same amount of propellant 
as Bruce did, so he flew for just about the same amount of 
time, I didn't take a mark on start to stop time, but he did as 
flying as Bruce did, 

PAO We may be dumping some of that TV tomorrow, we 

don't have a schedule right now, we'll let you know. Third row, 
here, 

LEE DIDED (Los Angeles Times) Did you see, 2 quick questions, 
did you see anything in the MMU activities today that would 
anyway affect your plans for the Solar Max Operation, anything 
that would inhibit you or change your planning or anything. 



COX Not a thing, it was as good or better than we ever 
hoped for, 

DIDED Ok, that's fine, thank you, 

PAO Question here from Carlos Byars, 



CARLOS BYARS (Houston Chronicle) Bob had problems with foot 
restraints and several different things out there, and apparently 
was really having to wrestle to get some tool, either get tools 
in the racks, get tools out of the racks, or I'm not sure, but 
may the rack had grabbed him by the angle by that time. What was 
the cause of all this, or do you simply know yet, what the, 
because Bruce's activities seemed to go pretty slick, Maybe he 
was sweating those things a little bit more that we didn't know 
about, but Stewart was having some problems, 

COX I think we caught ourselves in further checking the 

way the timeline had been developed in preparation for this 
flight, one of the things that was done to save a little time was 
to change the way you mount the tool boards on the MFR, That was 
one of the late changes here just before flight. Somebody asked 
did Bob ever go thru that procedure in the water tank to try 
that, and the guess was maybe he had not, and what you had to do 
was install the tool bugs upside down from what you normally 
do. I think he was trying to install them the other way, and 
that added to the foot problems just got him further behind. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9ja 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 4 



BYARS Yes, I know there was a comment in there about 

having him try them from the bottoms and his response was, well, 
its never worked that way before. 

COX But you notice it worked, 

BYARS But it did work, Ok, I'll let him explain that to 

you all when he gets back, 

PAO I have a question from Jules Bergman, ABC. 

JULES BERGMAN (ABC) Jon, the crew sounded noticably fatigued 
from about 1/2 way on thru the EVA and also is the fan noise so 
great inside the helmet that they had to shout that much? 

COX The shouting was primarily done by Bob, and that 

was a vox sensitivity problem that he was having. When he talked 
in a normal tone of voice, he couldn't trigger the vox, so he was 
having to yell. So that's why you heard the yelling, Bruce was 
talking in a normal tone that we're used to listening to. They 
did a little check at the end by swapping comm modes and found 
out that in the other comm mode the sensitivity appears to be 
better, and so we will probably have them operate, swap with EMU 
1 or Bruce on the B system and Bob on the A system for the 2nd 
EVA, or at least that's what we're thinking about right now. As 
far as the fatigue, they all sounded in my opinion, pretty 
chipper and happy. As a matter of fact I thought it was about 
1/2 way thru the EVA that Bob began picking up and sounded 
running full force. So I didn't perceive the same thing you may 
have. 

BERGMAN So its a faulty vox problem at best, or at worst. 

COX Right, I think that's all it was, 

PAO All right question from John Wilford, New York 

Times. 

WILFORD Two questions. I don't understand why Stewart 

would have troubles with the foot restraints and McCandless 
wouldn't. Those boots must be roughly the same size and they 
were using the same restraints weren't they? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1;30 pm PAGE 1 



COX Yes, and that's why we asked them to go ahead and 

check. They are differnt boots, we think they are all the same 
size, but we asked them to go ahead and check that. 

WILFORD And the other question is, could you talk about the 

RMS activities. Did you have any problems when they were 
working, hanging there from the RMS, did you accomplish all your 
objectives then? 

COX We did not take the force measurements at the MEB 

site, we felt that we had enough data from all the work that 
Bruce did there, and if you saw him, he was sort of jumping and 
pushing against the arm, to give it a good evaluation, or a good 
shakedown, as a work site. The one site, that is most like the 
13 case, and the one that is better stress on the arm, was to 
take the force measurements out of the longeron, which has the 
arm almost fully extended. We did do those. And the numbers 
that we received, were almost, and not in all cases, they were + 
and - X, Y and z numbers, but in most cases they were 1 1/2 to 2 
times larger, in other words you had to push harder to make the 
arm give, in other words, it worked as a more stable platform, 
then we had planned. 

PAO Gentlemen in the back. 

MCCONNELL (Readers Digest) Would you characterize the overall 
crew reaction to you when they were told this morning about the 
failure of the Palapa firing. 

COX I wasn't there when they were told that. So, I 

know they couldn't been happy about it. 

MCCONNELL You have no, you didn't hear anything further about 
it? 

COX No I wasn't there. 

MCCONNEL Thank you. 

PAO Young lady - - 

JONES (National Space Institute) Both Stewart and McCandless 
commented on a jutter, sensation when they we're flying. And I 
think Bruce at some point, gave his own diagnosis, but I didn't 
catch it. What was the diagnosis of that shutter. 

COX That was a little bit of a, some sort of a force 

isolation or something that he was getting when he made a + X 
translation and his guess was, that it was related to a CG 
affect, since every crewman's going to fit into this just a 
little bit differently, into his, little bit of a toggling 
affect. We went up with the recommendation to change the control 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 2 



mode and try it again. We did not get any feedback of whether 
that improved it or not, but I suspect that it may have. 

PAO Gentlemen in the back. 

SMITH (Channel 26-Houston) How would you appraise the morale in 
Mission Control and up on the Shuttle now, after the success of 
the spacewalk, compared to the difficulties you had earlier in 
the mission? 

COX I know today, everybody was very up, and very 

happy, and couldn't help but be. As far as compared to the 
others, I've only been in spottily, you know, when we had EVA 
related task, so I couldn't give you a total characterization but 
what I have seen has not been a real happy group but today it was 
very up. 

p AO Have a question from Jerry Hannifan in the back 

from Time and after that question we'll go to KSC and then we'll 
come back here. Jerry? 

HANNIFAN (Time) Would it be correct to say that Bruce and Bob 
were working in an atmosphere of say that one would find 
equivalent of 12 to 14 thousand feet on a mountain top, where 
pressure is concern, psi? 

COX You know you have to work that on the 02 partial pressure 
game and they were running at 4.3 pure oxygen. That's pretty 
high. The cabin right now is running for example at a little 
over 3, just about 3 psi partial pressure, so, the actual oxygen 
concentration that they had - exposed to was higher than what the 
cabin is which is a high-altitude case. They were probably 
closer to sea level than a high mountain as far as the oxygen 
they had. 

PA0 Okay. We're going to go to KSC, following that 

we'll go to Marshall, then we'll come back here, so let's have 
the questions now from Kennedy Space Center. 

REG TURNELL (BBC) Bruce McCandless was discussing at one time 
whether or not he should bring a trash bag back into the airlock, 
what was this trash? 

cox The reason he wanted to bring the trash bag back in 

was his cuff checklist had fallen off, a little screw had come 
loose, he saw it drifting off, caught it, stuffed it in the trash 
bag, that he was using at the worksite, when he did the main 
electronic box task. Where he would stuff extra trash from that 
job. He wanted to keep his checklist so he brought the trash bag 
back. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 3 



SALESTEAD (Baltimore Sun) - A follow up to question a few moments 
ago on the shaking and rattleing of the MMU, I didn't fully 
understand your answer, and was this occurring when McCandless 
was in a particular attitude, or when he, when a particular set 
of thrusters were firing, or just when did he encounter this 
problem? 

cox Let me characterize this a little bit, Bruce is so 

familiar, he can probably, he is probably more sensitive to the 
way those thrusters perform than anybody else that will ever fly 
that. I don't think Bruce commented, I mean, Bob commented at 
all to that affect. But when Bruce did fly it, he felt some 
little jittering, when he made + X translations. We made a 
recommendation for Bob's translation, that if he felt something 
like that, to change his control mode, either go to attitude 
hold, or switch from one control system to another. But we did 
not get any more feedback from Bob, that he needed to do that, or 
that he had sensed it. I don't think we have an explanation for 
it, other than the fact that it just may be some extra pulsing on 
the net. And that may have been the result of a CG offset, is 
what Bruce had speculated. 

SALESTEAD Which way is +x. 

COX That would be pushing you forward. 

LEWIS (Chicago Sun Times) - How far did Bob go out? Do you have 
a measurement of his farthest distance, and then I have one more 
question. 

COX They both went just slightly over 300 feet, I think 

Bruce went about 315 or so feet on his and Bob ended up about 
305, or so, Something like that. 

LEWIS Could you summarize briefly what they did 

accomplish in rehearsal for Thursday's flight. 

COX Well in rehearsal for Thursday's flight, they give 

the MMU a good checkout. And the different tasks that we'll be 
doing on Thursday, we'll be docking with the rotating SPAs, which 
is a simulation of the solar max, rotation which we'll be using 
on flight 13, so we made sure that the MMU performed like we 
expected it to perform so that when we go up now, and do the 
rotating docking exercise on the next EVA, we won't have any MMU 
questions in there. It will be how the (garble) aspects 
worked. Further looking down the road, towards the solar max 
repair flight, the checkout of the manipulator foot restraints, 
gave us a lot of confidence, in the fact that is a very good work 
site. Looks like the EVA task that we've hoped to perform from 
that worksite, will work out fine, in changing out the equipment 
on that satellite. That was kind of the bottom line of what we 
learned today. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jb 2/7/84 1:30 pra PAGE 4 



MEECHUM (Gannette News Service) Can you tell us what 
temperature extremes, the suits had to adjust to, when they were 
out there? Give us an idea what they were. 

cox I sure wouldn't have anything off the top of my 

head. They can't be any different than what the Orbiter is 
exposed to when you're looking at deep space, you see 
temperatures below 200 degrees, when you're looking at the sun, 
you see very hot temperatures. When you're facing the earth you 
see something reflecting back at you in the order of 0 degree 
fahrenheit. It's that kind of a spread, but I couldn't give you 
the an exact number. 

BOYLE (Timpton Conservative) - Do you have any times for undock 
to dock of each of the MMU's? 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jo 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 1 



COX No, I didn't log this times, It would be hard to 

see because there is nothing in telemetry that will let you know 
when they are docked or not docked. That would be something the 
crew would have to log onboard since we didn't have continuous TV 
of those activites. And they don't do that, 

FRANK HUCENDA (Today) Two questions. One, how did the SPAS 
perform during all that, and the second is are there any timeline 
changes now in the next two days? 

COX The SPAS was basically off. The only experiment 

that was left on during the EVA, was the heat pipe, and then we 
did activate the mass spec while the troubleshooting activity was 
going on to see whether the fix had taken or not. So SPAS 
performed exactly what it was supposed to do today, It did 
appear that the fix on the SPAS was a very good fix. It wasn't 
exactly what we were looking for. We were looking to trip a 
microswitch or to reset the setting on it, maybe a tenth of a 
millimeter or 2 tenths of a millimeter. We probably got a little 
bit more than that so what they are doing now is they are going 
through an exercise of moving the mass spec pointing and 
watching, with each command, how much of a motion they get. It 
seems that they can position it where they want but they sort of 
have to calibrate the command sequences that they have to use to 
get there. We were doing that over the last TDRS pass, As far 
as activities the remainder of the flight, at least looking 
towards tomorrow, we'll be doing a water dump and recharge on the 
MMUs and we're going to probably, I mean on the EMUs and instead 
of filling the EMUs once, we'll go ahead and fill them twice to 
assure that we have cleared out any particulates or contamination 
that we, that I think has been briefed to you before on the 
bladders of the EMUs, I might mention along that line, we did 
have a little caution and warning system were it did show on 
Bob's suit just right at the end of EVA, just as he was going 
into the airlock, a sublimator pressure enunciation. We went 
through the standard procedure we do. That is a message that you 
can typically get when you have an ice built up on the 
sublimator. He went through the exercise to go ahead and melt 
the ice and then return the water flow and that cleared it so 
that was about the only thing we did pick up out of the EMUs go 
as far as the alarms went. But anyhow, we are going to be doing 
that water dump thing, and the SPAS people, now that they're back 
with a functional warning capability on the mass spec will be 
updating their timeline to get back to a more nominal sequence of 
events for that activity. 

KSC There are no other questions from JSC, KSC. 



PAO All right, we are going to go to Marshall for 2 

questions and then we'll come back here, Marshall? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 .1:30 pm PAGE 2 



TOM KNIGHT (WAFF TV) John the, now that camera delta has ended 
up back inside the cabin, are there plans to go ahead and repair 
that and return it to its position. 

cox There was a message being reviewed in the room as I 

left, tells the crew about what the different steps are to go 
ahead and change out that camera with one of the in-cabin cameras 
and then perform a checkout on it. I suspect by the time we get 
finished this evening that message will probably be on board for 
the crew to work with tomorrow. Was there something else? 

KNIGHT Yes. I wanted to ask you also, I noticed Bob, once 

he reberthed with his MMU, there was a period of time there he 
seemed to be in position. Was he having some difficulty 
releasing himself. 

cox No, I don't think it was a problem releasing, I 

think he was just having trouble finding the latches. You have 
to be flying backwards in the blind trying to make the latches 
behind you. We just noticed he took 2 or 3 approaches to get 
into there and as soon as the latches hit it locked up and he was 
home. 



JIM ADAMSON (Channel 31) I was just wondering if during the 
EVAs because they were out there with no umbilical, if 
technically then both Bob Stewart and Bruce McCandless would be 
considered temporary satellites then. 



Why not? 



COX 



I wouldn't call them that, but - 
MARSHALL There are no further questions at Marshall. 

All right, we'll come back here to JSC. Olive, 



PAO 
UPI. 



TALLEY What about the cinema 360? Did they get the 

thermal blanket fixed and covering that up? 

cox I never asked, We took one quick pan by it and it 

looked like they might have but the angle we were at you couldn't 
tell. Since they got everything else done, I suspect they 
probably got over there but there's some questions that we are 
going to either ask them tonight or put up on the teleprinter. 
We'll find out all those little things like that. We did go 
ahead, my comment to the cinema 360, since we got off the 
timeline, we got their photo coverage out of sequence a little 
bit and so we did not get the MMU free flight. We'll go ahead 
and pick that up on the second EVA. We did get all the MFR 
work. There was two tasks we were trying to get. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 3 

p AO This gentleman here in third row. 

DAVE JACKSON (Time Magazine) I noticed during McCandless's exit 
from the cargo bay, what looked to be shooting stars in the 
background followed by a flurry of dust. What was that we were 
seeing? I mean they were really going very fast in the distance 
past. 

cox I noticed at the same time Hoot commented that they 

had been seeing that at every sunrise so I don't know what it 
was, your guess is as good as mine. 

JACKSON Okay. Can I ask another question too. This ice in 

the suit you mentioned, is that, I don't understand where that 
is. is that outside or inside the suit? And why - 

cox There is a cooling package right up on the top of 

that backpack that they have, the (garble) , the sublimator. The 
way you keep cool in there is you circulate water, and the heat 
exchanger that you use is really a device where you expose water, 
to a vacuum. It freezes, makes a little ice layer and then as 
you pass water through that device it cools and then has an 
exchanger that cools with the air. So the airflow itself is what 
is getting cool and that's what makes you stay cool. 

JACKSON And was that ice built up then on the outside of 

the suit? 



cox No, no. It's underneath all that thermal. 

JACKSON Oh okay, thank you. 

PAO Gentleman, 



ANITOLEAS (German Radio) Once the astronauts attach to the SPAS 
satellite, are they meant to stop the rotation with help of the 
MMUs or are they just only going to attach themselves. 

9 0X J Tnev just going to attach themselves. The RMS 

is intentionally spinning that satellite with a motor driving 
system and everything, and it doesn't prove anything to see if 
you can fight against the RMS and stop it's motors or what not. 
That seems to be of no purpose. We want to really see, the job 
that you have to do there is approach the satellite, time 
yourselves so that you catch the trunnion pin where you want it, 
and then rate match it and then go on in and dock. And that's 
the training task that we've been working with for each of these 
crewman, and then we want to see how well that has been done. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 1:30 pra PAGE 4 



ANITOLEAS But it's the spin rate of the solar max, what they, 
they would stop the solar max and would they try to bring them 
into the space shuttle cargo bay only by help of the MMU or with 
the shuttle itself to send maneuvers to bring them closer to it? 

C °X For the flight 13 case, the crewman will stop the 

satellite, hold it still and then the Orbiter will fly over and 
grapple it with the RMS. There is a grapple fixture on it. And 
then go ahead and put it down in the cargo bay with the RMS. 

ANITOLEAS Final question, once these extravehicular 

activities (garble), are you still planning to come down to 

Kennedy on time or do you still have any ideas of prolonging it 
one day? 

cox I think everything is looking perfectly nominal for 

end of mission. 

p AO We'll go to Chris Peterson in the back there. 

PETERSON Can you address camera delta. Are we going to get 

a good healthy camera back? 

COX Well, we're hoping the folks figured out the 

malfunction properly and that the camera swap will do the job. 
We'll know once they run through that procedure that we'll be 
uplinking to them. 

PAO Carlos Byars. 

CARLOS BYARS (Houston Chronicle) 

PAO Sorry. 

BYARS Yes, I'm still Carlos Byars, I'm still with the 

Chronicle. 

PAO Sorry about that. 

BYARS On the, I think (garble) commented earlier that we 

were seeing some funny things on TV. The picture would break up, 
or it would get fuzzy and go away and then come back, and we know 
you were not using TDRS during this for various reasons. Could 
you tell us what was going on, were you having some other camera 
problems or was it somewhere in the system between there and 
here? Or did you all Simply not see what we were seeing? 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jc 2/7/84 l»30pm PAGE 5 



cox I think you probably just watched more steady TV 

then you probably normally are used to watching and normally 
signal strength goes up and down or look angles get a little bit 
different. We lose the picture and it comes back up again. You 
go through it. You were using the GSTDN sites to pick up the TV 
today and we have key holes across those sites and we have holes 
between sites and what not. I think you were just seeing some of 
that. 



*** 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jd 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 1 

BYARS One other question, Bob had some problems , I got 

the feeling that he had a problem, when he was getting back into 
the airlock, or after he got back into the airlock, do you recall 
anything along that? 

cox That was that sublimator pressure. 

That was the sublimator thing? 

cox *es, it was the only message that had been 

annunciated to anybody all day, and since he was all finished he 
just jumped in the airlock. 

BYARS Ok . 

PAO Lynn. 

SHERR (ABC) John, just 2 quick ones. First, why didn't we see 
more helmet camera pictures, and second what was the maximum 
speed either man reached in the MMU today, can you say? 

COX Maximum speed? 

PA0 They don't have odometers onboard, do they? 

cox No, the way it's estimated is with the radar and 

the radar did not work real well on Bruce "s flight, we had a 
rough time getting it to lock on. So the estimations there were 
kind of poor. I think we got on the order of a foot per 
second, On Bob's, I remember some 8 tenths and 7 tenths and 
those type numbers that came up. 

SHERR Ok, the other question was the helmet camera. Why 

didn't we see more from Bruce's helmet camera? 

Cox We did select it a few times earlier. That helmet 

camera is kind of a nice thing, which you'll notice we don't 
really expect it to have great pictures, it does a neat job when 
you are far away from the Orbiter, but it doesn't point the same 
direction you're always looking, so if you are looking here, the 
camera's probably looking over here. You can look down and be 
working and the camera's looking over here, so it doesn't always 
give you a very good field of view. I think we switched it a few 
times, but found that it wasn't worth staying with. 

PAO Jules Bergman, ABC. 

BERGMAN You have the whole thing, Jim. 



PAO 



Thank you. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SH I FT BRIEFING p9jd 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 2 



BERGMAN Jon, what are the highlights left for Thursday's 

EVA and based on what you've seen so far do you have any doubts 
at all of any kind about the Solar Max rescue mission. 

COX No, I'll answer that last part first, I think that 

this was great confirmation that the plans that have been made 
for the Solar Max flight, as far we can tell by everything that 
was reasonable to test and demonstrate, all worked beautifully, 
so that was super, I think the highlights for the 2nd EVA for 
Thursday, #1 you get almost continuous TV coverage of it because 
we will not be flying this V-bar attitude that we were in today, 
it will be a fixed attitude, so we'll have very good Ku-band 
comm. That will be refreshing to be able to watch an activity 
from beginning to end. The other thing is you will see a fairly 
dynamic activity rather than watching a crewman slowly fade off 
in the distance and then return, you 1 11 be watching this approach 
to the rotating satellite, dock with it, go back again. Each 
crewman will be doing that on Thursday's EVA, And then towards 
the end, if you're an MMU-af f ectionato, you'll notice that 
towards the end there's about an hour of special tests that Bruce 
is going to fly in the MMU. Probably won't be highly dynamic, 
but you'll see a lot of manuevering around the bay with the MMU. 

PAO Criag Covault, Av Week, 

COVAULT A couple of quick ones on a couple of engineering 

topics, one of which you've already touched on with the radar. 
How did it compare with your expectations going into it? 

COX We don't still understand why we did not get a good 

lock on Bruce's translation. It worked as we expected it to for 
Bob's, It acquired at about the right time, then we lost lock at 
about 70 feet as we came on in, and I think that was almost the 
exact number that we had when we did the work with the SPAS on 
flight 7. 



COVAULT Ok, and the 2nd one. Did Bob get his SCU umbilical 

problem cleared up there ok? 

COX At the end? 

COVAULT Yes. 

COX What he had done was got himself tangled, so he 



unhooked and hooked and then couldn't get an indication that he'd 
swaped power so, there is a little procedure that you go thru to 
swap power, or kill, power and wait so many seconds, turn it back 
on and see if everything works right. It's a display problem you 
have on the actual systems that you're kind of faked out. You 
don't know whether you've got the power back or not. 



STS-41-B CHANGE-OF-SHIFT BRIEFING p9jd 2/7/84 1:30 pm PAGE 

PAO There being no more questions, thank you Jon Cox, 

EVA Flight Director, thank you. 

END OF TAPE 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOha 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



PAO Good morning, I'm Jim McCoullogh, Deputy Director 

of Public Affairs for NASA and I'd like to welcome you here this 
morning ♦ We've ask you to come here this morning because we have 
a significant announcement about economic development in space. 
Before we get into the substance of the press conference, 
however, I'd like to explain our format. This morning we've got 
speakers in two places, here and St Paul, Minn, and we have 
reporters in five places. They are here in this room, in St 
Paul, at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, at the Johnson 
Space Center in Texas, and at the Marshall Space Flight Center in 
Huntsville, Ala, And for some of you people here today, if this 
seems like a television show and unfamiliar format of a press 
conference, I should explain that, NASA does this regularly in 
connection with the Shuttle program - linking our Shuttle 
Centers. We've just begun this here, so, I guess the Washington 
Press Core will have to become accustomed to it as we go along. 
We will first hear from the two speakers here in Washington and 
then the speakers in St Paul, Then for the question period, we 
will begin here in Washington and move to St Paul, Kennedy, 
Johnson, and Marshall, in that order, I thought maybe we would 
perhaps take six questions in each place to ensure that each site 
has an opportunity to participate and if we have any more time 
and any more questions after that we will start the round-robin 
again. The two people with us here in Washington today are Mr, 
James Beggs the Administrator of NASA and Mr, Lewis W. Lehr, 
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 3M. We would like to 
start now with Mr, Beggs. 

BEGGS Thank you, Jim, and good morning. We're delighted 

to be with you this morning, on this, what we consider to be a 
very important new initiative for both the agency and for 
industry as well. In the state of the union address a few weeks 
ago, the President directed NASA to develop a permanently manned 
U.S. Space Station within a decade and to work to encourage 
private sector initiatives in space. Today we are delighted to 
announce that 3M of St Paul, Minn., has decided tc begin a long 
term research program aimed at producing commercial products in 
space and doing research in space. The company will invest time, 
resources, and talent, in what I believe, will turn out to be a 
very considerable, and we hope and trust, a very productive 
effort. We here at NASA are very impressed by 3M, being an R&D 
organization, we always admire those who are widely known and who 
have invested over the years in research and development programs 
in search of new products, and for the innovation and excellence 
in American industry. 3M is indeed a leader and we are pleased 
and proud that they have decided to become a leader in space 
initiatives. Moreover, I'm confident that the entry of one of 
the nation's largest nonaerospace companies into the economic 
development of space will hasten the day that American industry 
will be comfortable with their research and manufacturing 
facilities in space and just as reliant on them, and perhaps they 
will become just as productive as their R&D facilities on 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOha 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 



Earth, NASA, of course, stands ready to assist these 
initiatives, just as we always have. In the memorandum of 
understanding with 3M, we have agreed to work together to develop 
a plan to explore the space frontier for potential commercial 
applications and materials processing. We anticipate this 
process will be completed in time to permit 3M's first 
experiments to fly aboard the Space Shuttle later this year. The 
company's experiments will deal with organic crystalline 
materials and the preparation of thin films that could have 
application with fields of electronics, imaging energy 
converging, and biology. We have entered in somewhat similar 
understandings in other areas of research with other companies in 
the past and they have turned out to be very fruitful. Our 
understanding with 3M will lead into new areas of research 
concerned with chemistry and processing materials and that is why 
we welcome 3M enthusiastically and we hope that we will have a 
long and profitable relationship. As a first step, we have 
agreed that 3M will send 10 of its top scientists to visit the 
five NASA centers conducting materials research to exchange 
scientific and technical information with NASA scientists and 
engineers. 3M scientists will visit Marshall, Johnson, Lewis, 
Langley, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We are very 
confident these visits will be mutually productive, 3M has 
proposed the establishment of a series of advanced research 
institutes to coordinate between the government and industry and 
the academic world to do basic long-term research experiments 
which could lead to viable commercial products and specific 
disciplines. The idea has a great deal of appeal to us and we 
will work with 3M in trying to bring that into being. In 
addition, we will seek the approvals necessary to create a 
special advisory group to advise NASA on how it may best promote 
commercial uses of space. To be a leader in any area of high 
technology development a company must get in on the ground floor 
because it takes years of research to translate R&D into useful 
commercial products for the market place. 3M*s decision to enter 
what is a new arena for the company indicates that it is serious 
about using space for this purpose and we wish it well. I 
congratulate 3M on its foresight and imagination. The President 
has given the signal that industry has been waiting for. He has 
indicated that government will support a space interest structure 
to enable industries both large and small to move into space 
quickly, decisively, and with confidence. X * m delighted that 3M 
has decided to join. As Shakespeare wrote in one of his many 
comedies which were directed towards almost every area of human 
endeaver, emulation has a thousand sons, and while 3M is the 
first, we expect that there will be many others who will follow 
them. We are confident that they will be equally fruitful and 
profitable for both NASA and the private sector. I'm confident 
that the partnership of government, academia, and private 
industry that has maintained our leadership in space for 25 years 
will continue to ensure that leadership in the years ahead. 
We 1 11 work together to make sure that we bring the benefits and 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE pXOha 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 



the research back down here to Earth to benefit all mankind. And 
now it's my very great pleasure to introduce Mr. Lewis W. Lehr 
the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 3M. Thank you verv 
much. Mr. Lehr. ' 



LEHR Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Beggs. it really 

is a pleasure and an honor for me to be here with you today in 
helping to make this announcement of NASA's and 3M's joining 
forces in the exploration of space for scientific purposes. What 
NASA brings to this partnership is certainly well known. You've 
taken men to the Moon and back and only yesterday we witnessed 
the first untethered walks in space. You are highly recognized 
as an agency with a vision for the future. 3M, in turn, has been 
called a company with a bias for action, a broadly based company 
known for scientific innovation and the successful 
commercialization of its technologies. Most of the world, 
however, knows us best for our scotch-brand tapes. But, the 
scientific community also knows 3M for its expertise in specialty 
chemicals, surface chemistry, precision coating, and in materials 
research. 3M also brings to this joint endeaver a conviction 
that space science can be applied constructively for humanity 
through industry and commerce. 3M is a company where close to 25 
percent of its revenues each year come from products that have 
been introduced within the past 5 years. To maintain that kind 
of performance, we are constantly looking to the future. 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhb 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 1 



LEHR We recognize that now is always the proper time to 

start building for the future, and 3M is convinced that now is 
the time to make significant investment to basic research and 
industrial investment in the future of space. The time is right 
because the space program that has been mainly governmental is 
now entering a new phase, A phase that will bring a major 
increase in the utilization of space for industrial purposes. 
The success of this Space Shuttle program and President Reagan's 
strong desire to open space to industrial activities have 
combined to stimulate a great deal of private sector interest. 
We look forward as do many others to the completion of a manned 
Space Station some time in the next decade. Meanwhile, we expect 
to have 3M experiments in space beginning this August. A team of 
scientist at 3M center in St. Paul, is already preparing for such 
experiments. There aim is to move rapidly toward the day when 
manufacturing processes in space can be harnessed for the good of 
people everywhere. This is one part of our involvement. Another 
part is the proposed establishment of advanced research 
institutes. 3M will be pleased to take a leadership role to 
coordinate future scientific experiments in space in cooperation 
with NASA. 3M's idea is to create new ways through which 
industry, government, and academia can be represented as 
decisions are made for space research in chemistry and materials, 
in engineering, in physics, and in biosciences. To work with 
NASA, in evaluating this proposal, I am naming as 3M liaison, Dr. 
Christopher J. Podsiadly, Director of 3M Science Research 
Laboratory, Dr. Podsiadly, is also the person in charge of 3M's 
first experiments in space. I am personnaly pleased with this 
program and consider it a tribute to our talented 3M scientific 
community that our company can help in this way. A number of our 
people have played a part in bringing about today's announcement, 
we expect that their innovative approach to the future will 
contribute to 3M's continuing flow of new and useful products and 
technologies for people everywhere. Thank you. 

PAO Before we switch to St. Paul, a message arrived 

here, this morning, and Mr. Beggs would like to' deliver. 

BEGGS I'd like to take just a couple of minutes to read a 

letter that came over this morning. It begins: Dear Jim, Both 
in my State of the Union address last month and my state on 
National Space Policy of July 4th of 1982, I made the expansion 
of private investment involvement in space a major objective of 
the United States Government. The Congress endorsed this thrust 
in 1983 committee reports from both houses. Recognizing the 
potential benefits offered by commercial space endeavors, this 
administration has taken steps to encourage private enterprise to 
take advantage of opportunities to create new industries and new 
jobs, lower product cost, and improve the balance of trade. We 
aee the chance for technological progress which may dramatically 
enhance treatment of diseases, make major advances in electronics 
and computers, develop lighter and stronger metals, and enjoy 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhb 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 2 



important new advances in communications. Therefore, I was 
delighted to receive word of NASA's first major cooperative 
program of basic materials research in space. Less than 2 weeks 
ago, I asked that we significantly step up our development 
efforts in space for the benefit of all mankind. Now 3M becomes 
the first majot American corporation to respond to that 
initiative. For 25 years NASA has advanced human experience on 
the frontier of space with its knowledge of science and 
technology. Now it will be moving into an unfamiliar role that 
of prime player of the economic scene as it enters in 
partnership with private firms, large and small, to develop the 
economic potential of space. 3M's decision is the finest 
tradition of the object of real spirit that helped this nation 
grow, and reach the pinnacle of technological leadership. But 
its commitment is not an easy one. It requires a substantial 
investment of human and financial resources and a great deal of 
faith because the outcome and benefits are uncertain. I extend 
my best wishes to all who gather in celebration of this new 
partnership and look forward to periodic reports on your 
progress. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan. We're very appreciative of 
that. The President has, of course, been a great supporter of 
this program, he continues to be vitally interested in it, and as 
you can tell by his letter, he is pleased and l»m sure will 
continue to follow the progress we make in our new endeavors 
working with the private sector to develop new products and 
services. Thank you. 

PA0 We are about to switch the origination of this 

press conference to St. Paul. When we go there we're going to 
hear from a Dr. Robert M. Adams who is 3M's Senior Vice President 
for technology services, for Mr. Issac Gillam, who is the 
Assistant Associated Administrator of NASA* s office of space 
flight, which has our, contains our division for commercial 
development. And special treat this morning, Astronaut Bonnie 
Dunbar will be there also. Now we're ready to go to St. Paul. 

ADAMS Good morning and welcome. You have already been 

introduced to my fellow panelist here. I want to extend a 
special welcome, however, to ike Gillam, to Dr. Dunbar, and of 
course, I'm very pleased to have Dr. Podsiadly on this platform 
With me. We're speaking to you from 3M Center which is not only 
headquarters for 3M world wide operations, but it is also the 
place where we do most of our research and many of our 
administrative activities. Most people don't associate 3M 
company with the space program. We're not an aerospace 
company. But we have supplied many products in the past to NASA 
contractors. For example, 3M was there when the docking 
materials were needed for the first rendezvous in space. 3M was 
there when astronauts set foot on the Moon for the first time in 
the form of the f luroastromers which we make and which tolerate 
some extremes in temperature tolerance. And 3M is in space 
today, we have a ceramic fiber which provide the heat 3hield 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE pXOhb 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 3 



material for the protection of the Shuttle during reentry. We 
have imaging processing equipment to read signals from outer 
space. Here at this 400-acre site that surrounds us here in St. 
Paul, we have about 11,000 employees. And approximately half of 
them are engaged in research development and engineering. Now as 
we look to the future we believe that all of us will have our 
horizons broadened by what we're announcing today. This is where 
3M's first space experiments are being prepared by a team of 
research specialist. The experimentation scheduled for our first 
Shuttle participation, possibly as early as August of this year, 
will be of two types, as you've heard, relating to the growth of 
organic crystals and development of thin films. Particular areas 
of interest are the prospects of growing crystals from organic 
materials that cannot be crystalized on Earth. On Earth we have 
the pull of gravity, in space we have the advantage of 
microgravity and of course a perfect vacuum. We're also 
interested in the development of thin films, with nobble physical 
and chemical properties. From this work will come a base of 
information about the processing of organic materials in that low 
gravity, almost clean-room environment. We believe this type of 
research has protential applications In many fields. Memory and 
imaging media, electronic products, energy conversion, and 
biology. All areas in which 3M already has considerable 
expertise. 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhc 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 



ADAMS This kind of space research is new to industry. It 

will ensure that we are poised and ready for operations in space 
when the space station is ready, and given the rapid pace of 
technological change today, we have to be ready, The 
possibilities are exciting, consider for example, the impact on 
our present living with the development of industrial plastics 
just in the last 40 or 45 years, or the impact of the transistor 
since 1947, or the impact, if you will, of 3M's own development 
of video tape in 1956, and of course, the impact of satellite 
communications since 1960. Now working with Dr . Podsiadly, as 
Principal Ivestigators on our first team of space researchers are 
two scientist from the physical science section of that lab. 
They are Dr. Mark Debee and Dr* William Egbert, Members of their 
team are already designing appropriate apparatus for the various 
experiments that will be conducted. We look on space 
experimentation as an exciting new venture and I rather hope that 
all of our research, development, and engineering people are as 
excited about that prospect as I am. And now Ike Gilham can tell 
us more about what the future holds for us, Ike. 

GILLAM Thank you, Dr. Adams. It's a pleasure to be here 

in St, Paul to represent NASA on the occasion of this special 
anouncement by 3M. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 
1958, NASA's Magna Carte, the National Space Policy announced by 
the President in July of 1982, and the space program initiatives 
announced by the President in his recent State of the Union 
Message are derived from the basic premise that civil space 
activities of the United States are conducted to achieve 
scientific, political, and economic benefits for the nation. As 
the President indicated in his message, the first 25 years of our 
national space program has had a primary focus on exploration. 
The Space Shuttle provides us with the initial tool to increase 
substantially our level of exploitation of this new frontier. 
This tool in combination with the new initiatives for cooperative 
activities between government and industry and in the coming 
years a space station provides us with the intrestructure which 
will allow us to make significant steps in the explotation of 
space and keeping with that basic premise that I spoke of 
earlier. The 3M Company in announcing its intention to 
participate in the exploitation of this new frontier by working 
with NASA to explore jointly, areas of space research with 
potential commercial applications is a landmark in our efforts to 
begin that era of exploitation. Mr. Beggs has stated earlier 
that we at NASA welcome the initiative, we are please that 3M has 
agreed to work with NASA on this project. An old proverb states, 
that a journey of a thousand miles begins with only one step. We 
in NASA believe that this one step is the beginning of a journey 
that can result in substantial benefits to 3M, to the nation and 
to mankind. We are pleased to have the opportunity to work with 
3M in the development of a plan for basic research with potential 
commercial activities, commercial applications, to exploit the 
space frontier. One of the pleasures that I have in working with 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhc 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 



NASA, is that of meeting and working with interesting and 
outstanding people such as Dr, Podsiadly, and our next speaker 
Dr. Bonnie Dunbar, Mission Specialist Astronaut with the Johnson 
Space Center. Dr. Dunbar. 

DUNBAR Thank you, Mr. Gillam. It's a pleasure to join the 

representatives of 3M and NASA in the announcement of this joint 
endeavor. I represent just one element of the NASA team, that 
part which will have the opportunity to operate materials 
processing experiments in space and Space Shuttle crews. Since 
1981 the Space Shuttle has served the commercial community in a 
number of uses, satellite deployment, Earth observations, and 
materials processing in space. The fleet will soon add Discovery 
and Atlantis to Columbia and Challenger. Basic research in the 
processing of materials using a micro-gravity environment began 
relatively early in our program. Several experiments were part 
of the Apollo-Soyuz Project and later the Skylab program. It was 
this early research work, utilizing some appropriately trained 
astronauts, which helped to lay the foundation for industrial use 
and for the potential of commercial products. Therefore, we are 
very pleased that 3M has decided to join with NASA in this joint 
endeavor and we can attribute to them the same farsighted, 
visionary characteristics that these other companies have. The 
Astronaut Office is composed of nearly 80 Pilot and Mission 
Specialist Astronauts, Astronauts who trained to operate a very 
unique transporat ion vehicle. Space Shuttle crews are also 
inter-disciplinary. Pilots and Mission Specialists are composed 
of scientists and engineers from a range of backgrounds. We also 
crosstrain. And materials processing is one of the areas that we 
become very familiar with. We are not mereley passive observers, 
but become involved in the evolution of a payload, training for 
as long as a year for each particular flight. We sometimes 
participate in operational design, but we hope to provide the 
customer with insights gained from flight experience. Now in 
some cases, the project engineer or scientist representing the 
company may accompany the payload. These individuals are called 
Payload Specialist. Two flew in the European Spacelab last fall; 
and one will fly with a commercial payload in mid-1984. We look 
forward to the possibility of flying a 3M project and understand 
that someday a 3M Payload Specialist may join us. We in the 
Astronaut Office chose our occupation because of our belief in 
the forward destiny of mankind and because of a vision. That 
vision is also shared by 3M. From Shuttle to Space Station to 
our next goal, we from the Astronaut Office welcome you aboard. 
And I would like to hand the potium now back to Washington and 
Jim McCullogh. 

PAO We'd like to begin the question and answer portion 

of this right now. Two additional persons are joining us for 
this, in St. Paul, Dr. Podsiadly, who Mr. Lehr mentioned is 
available for questions and here in Washington Dr. Lester Krogh 
who is 3M's Vice President for Research and Development. As I 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhc 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 



recognize you, please state your name and affiliation. We'll 
take questions here in Washington now. Bring the mike over here 
please. 

THERESA FOLEY (Satellite Week) Mr, Lehr, could you give us an 
idea of how much money 3M is planning to spend on this project. 
Perhaps if you're going to be increasing it year by year, how the 
levels will go up? And when do you think you will see a return 
on investment? 

LEHR Did you want to handle that, one Dr. Krogh? 

KROGH The best way to describe what we plan to spend in 

space is to give you some idea of what we've spent in the last 5 
years in research and development. We've spent one and a half 
billion dollars in that 5-year period. With that money we 
planned^ to build technologies for the future along with 
developing the products which those technologies give us access 
to. A small percentage of that will be spent now in space, the 
new frontier if you like, new experiments, new dimensions to 
experimentation, which are in the main stream of the programs to 
develop technologies that we have going on now. if they're 
successful, we'll increase our expenditure. And if they're 
really successfull, we may be manufacturing in space some time in 
the next decade. 

FOLEY Could I pin you down on that a little more closely, 

you said a small percentage of 1.5 billion over 5 years, what 
type of percentage are you talking about, 5 or 1 or 10? 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhd 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 1 

KROGH We normally spend about 10 percent of our research 

and development budget in long range and intermediate ranqe 
research. * 



? A0 We seem to be having a microphone problem here and 

if the technicians will check it we'd appreciate it. Another 
question from Washington, please. Please state your name and 
affiliation when the microphone gets to you. 

LEONDARD DAVID (Spaceworld Magazine) I'd like to asked Mr. 
Beggs, in relationship to these research institutes, how do these 
differ from your proposed centers of excellence as far as micro- 
gravity research? 

BEGGS They don't differ from what we have talked about 

over the last several years in established centers excellence 
throughout the NASA centers as well as the centers of excellence 
that we have typically operated with in the Universities. What 
3M has proposed, as I now understand it, is the setting up of a 
disciplinary approach to bringing together the industry, NASA and 
academia in looking at the areas that they are interested in, 
materials processing, the organic crystals and that kind of thing 
and it's a very interesting idea to us. What they are proposing 
is really an extension of what we've been doing for some time and 
I think it has merit in that it will assist us and bring into our 
picture in a closer way the industrial side of it. 

f A0 Question in the back row and then we'll come up 

here next. 

(Voice of America) To any of the gentlemen from 3M, what are 
some of the commercial products you anticipate from the venture 
and when can we expect to see them on the market? 

PA0 That's addressed to anybody. Who would like to 

take that? 

3M It's really premature to say when we might have a 

commercial product but let me give you some ideas the kinds of 
things we're thinking about. Let me give you some ideas the 
kinds of things we're thinking about for the future. 3M is in 
memory media and is also in many kinds of imaging materials and 
those are based on inorganic materials today. We believe there's 
a strong possibility that organic materials in crystalline form 
could be the next generation of products and I would suspect that 
we're looking at something like 7 to 10 years, perhaps as long as 
15 years before those would become commercial. 



PAO 



Another question here. Right behind you. 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhd 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 2 



BOB BURKHART (Journal of Commerce) Mr , Beggs, what is the 
ownership of the results of these experiments in space? Who owns 
them and who can use them and are they licensable? 

BEGGS The policy that we are following now and which 

follows closely the current thinking on Federal Policy is that if 
a company spends it own money in developing something it is their 
intellectual right, it's one of their rights and it belongs to 
them and is patentable by them. If there is government money 
spent in pursuit of that or in conjuction with or in partnership 
with the patent that results can be licensed to the company which 
is the partner of the government in the pursuit of that 
particular bit of technology. At the same time, in that case we 
reserve a royalty-free license for the products if they are used 
by the government, that is the purchase is made by the 
government. We are also, and I might add this gratuitously, you 
didn't ask this part of the question, with respect to the other 
patents that we, and intellectual property rights that we develop 
in the pursuit of our R&D program, we will also license that on 
an exclusive basis* If the company or the organization that 
licenses agrees to reduce that patent to practice or reduce the 
technology to practice and market the product and they can 
thereby benefit. Again, we reserve royalty-free rights to it for 
the government use of it. But that is in order to enable the 
development of our technology in the fastest possible way to 
commercial products in the market place and we believe that 
that's the best way to do it because certainly if a company is to 
spend the money in doing the research and to spend the additional 
money in reducing to practice and making commercial products, 
they deserve to make the profits for a period of time on an 
exclusive basis because we all know that if that's done the 
market place benefits and, in the long run, the whole industry 
will benefit by reason of the new technology developed. And I'm 
very pleased that the Federal Government if moving in this 
direction because I think it's the best way to make use of our 
technology and the fastest way so as to overcome the problem we 
have had visa vie some of our foreign competitors in getting 
technology moved in the fastest possible way into the market 
place. 

PAO Don Kirkland back there please and then we'll come 

back for Theresa. Oh, here. Right here. Here we go. Thank you. 

DON KIRKLAND (Scrips Newspapers) Dr. Beggs, I'm curious, are 
other commercial corporations negotiating with NASA for similar 
deals like 3M and if so, who are they? 

BEGGS We have active discussions with, where 's Ron 

Phillips, I think about 20, is that right, Ron, other companies 
in various areas. I'd just assume not disclose the names of them 
since those negotiations tend to be easier if they are not 
conducted quite completely in the public forum but we'll be 



3M CORP/NASA PRESS CONFERENCE plOhd 2/8/84 9:30 am PAGE 3 

announcing some more I am sure. As you know, Don, we have, oh I 
guess, a half a dozen agreements with various companies which 
have been signed up under the Joint Endeavor Policy and we're 
pursuing, we will pursue more activities of that type so that we 
can fly them free of charge on the Shuttle while they are in the 
experimental phase. What we are doing obviously with these 
things in one respect is to develop the market for space and 
we're very pleased by what has been accomplished to date, I 
mention all the time our agreement with McDonnell Douglas and 
Johnson & Johnson which is moving very well, in June of this 
year we will fly the first of what I hope will be a long series 
of astronauts, payload specialists as Bonnie Dunbar pointed out, 
who come from the private sector. That'll be Charlie Walker from 
McDonnel Douglas. 

PA0 I'm going to take 2 more here then move to St. Paul 

and then we'll come back. I think there'll be time. First 
Theresa Foley and then we'll switch back into the corner here. 

THERESA FOLEY (Satellite Week) How many free flights on the 
Shuttle are you getting under the MOU and can you tell us about 
the first experiment? What kind of carrier will it be on? Will 
it be in the middeck or in the payload bay? Will it have a lot 
of astronaut interaction with it? 

3M If I can answer that, there are 2 scheduled now. 

One will be in the middeck and one will be in the bay itself. 

FOLEY On the same flight? 

3M Hopefully, don't know for sure. 

FOLEY Okay, and then how many free flights under the MOU? 

3M Two. 

FOLEY That's all. 

3M Two so far. 

BEGGS we do this, if I can add to that, Theresa, we do 

this on a - as you know, on a space available basis so it's not 
totally predictable on which flight they will go. As we manifest 
them in as the flight develops and as the space becomes 
available. But I'm sure that as this agreement progresses that 
we will be flying more than that in an experimental way. But 
that remains for the future and we look at each experiment and 
each proposal in it' own light. 



*** 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 1 

PA0 I would like to remind people along the loop that 

our sequence here is, questions from Washington, and then we'll 
move to St. Paul, then we'll move to KSC and then we'll move to 
JSC and then down to Marshall. I had, I was going to allocate 6 
questions per place, to get started here, we've passed our 6 in 
Washington, but I see two more out there and, I guess I see three 
out there. I'm going to move on now to the other places, and 
then we'll come back and wrap it up here in Washington, if 
you're ready now in St. Paul, we'll switch there for questions. 

STEVE SMITH (St. Paul Dispatch) To Dr. Podsiadly here in St. 
Paul, can you describe in lay terms, more explicitly the nature 
~C experiments that you are preparing new for the initial 
Shuttle flights? 

PODSIADLY well at this point in time as already been 
mentioned, we have experiments for the middeck which are in the 
area of organic crystalline material. And ore that we would like 
to get into the payload which would be a thin film experiment, 
using one of their get-a-way specials. We haven't finally 
defined exactly what materials will go at this point in time, and 
so until we really decide, I can't really say anymore on those 
right now, 

LOCJ COLT (Minneapolis Star and Tribune) - For anyone that might 
be able to answer this. How soon might a 3M payload specialist 
go, and have any be identified as likely candidates to go up on a 
Shuttle mission. 

3M Well it's a little early to name specific people. 

I think we've got a lot of eager volunteers, they'll have to get 
in line, however, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Lehr has asked to be 
the very first. I don't, I think it's too early to answer that 
question. 

C0LT "hat about from NASA's standpoint? How soon would 

they be ameanable to having a payload specialist from 3M to go up 
on a flight? ^ 

??? G ?. AU rl 9 ht ' 11 ll - We have the capacity in any 

flight to fly as many as eight astronauts, and generally speaking 
we, on most of our flights, we are putting 5, a crew of 5 in, so 
there is room on many, many flights to fly, an individual who can 
work on a specific experiment, during the course of that 
flight. Of course, we want to be assured that he will do useful 
work in space, or have a useful purpose while he is a member of 
the crew, and so we are going, we would look at a proposal from 
3M in that light. That is, that the indivdual flyee has a reason 
to go, and if Mr. Lehr wants to fly, we would want to know what 
he's going to do up there. But other than that, I would say that 
we can accommodate any number of individuals, and I might say in 
that regard, we expect some time next year, that is 1985, to be 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 2 



flying some private citizens with us, who also have a reason to 
go up. We'll be discussing that in public here in the near 
future, as a matter of fact, we have a rule now pending to 
initiate that action. So there's no real restriction. We're 
going to fly a lot in the next few years. We'll fly perhaps 7 or 
8 times this year, and maybe as many as 12 next year, so next 
year we'll be flying once a month, so we can accomodate people, 
individuals who have, have that reason to fly on many, many 
flights, over the next 2 or 3 years. Plenty of room. 

COLT So it could be as early as next year, (garble) 

BEGGS Sure, sure. 

JEPP HEARNS (WPCN Television) For Mr. Lehr, what's the long 
term revenue potential, for 3M? What's it going to mean in 
dollars and cents for the company over the long term? 

LEHR I don't think I could quantify that. When we begin 

a research program, we have all kinds of speculations about what 
the end results will be , usually some are accurate, some are not 
quite so accurate. In my opinion though, all this really is, and 
I shouldn't use the word all, but what this really is, is a new 
environment which can demonstrate different results as a result 
of research efforts that we have had ongoing for years and years 
and years. We're putting new materials in a new climate. And 
out of that we expect to see changes in the results from those 
that we have seen here on earth. We can't predict what will 
happen, but we certainly believe that there's such a difference 
in the environment, that new things will happen, and it's like 
the rest of our research, we really don't know what it will lead 
to, but if we don't take that step forward, we'll never find 
out. 

HEARNS To see some payback for what your doing. 

LEHR Well you sound like the chairman of 3M asking that 

question. I think you've heard Dr. Krogh make statements of 
perhaps 5, 10, 15 years. But again, because we can't really 
define what will happen, we can't explain to our shareholders, 
when they will get an additional return for this. But we 
certainly believe that it's a good investment for the people in 
our company, for our shareholders, for NASA, and for people in 
the world generally. 

HEARNS Thank you. 

DAVE ANDREWS (KSTP Television) This is for Mr. Beggs in 
Washington. If the private participations in space research 
should grow as you hope it will, and especially with the space 
station mission, is NASA considering looking at the possibility 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 3 

of private industry, underwriting, the cost of our space 
operations at any point in the future. 

e? G 5?i , We'll I think we are anticipating the day when the 
bnuttle will be a self sustaining program, that is, from the 3 
classes of customers that use the Shuttle, the military, the 
commercial sector, and the government itself, and foreign 
activities, using the Shuttle. I think the investment this 
country has made, however, in the Shuttle and in the Shuttle 
space station interface should be considered in the same way that 
we consider investments in the primary transportation 
intrastructure of the nation, as we all know, the highways, the 
airways, the air ports, to some extent, the railroads, and the 
inland waterways, are constructed and the capital cost covered by 
the Federal Government, in the anticipation, that once that 
intrastructure is in place, it will enhance, and improve the 
commerce and of course the standard of living, and the ability of 
our people to move freely around the country. And I think what 
we are doing in establish this same intrastructure in space, is 
to provide the same opportunity for both business and eventually, 
I believe, the public, to move freely in this new environment. 
What we have established here, I think is a very versatile 
system. It will be with us for, that is the present generation, 
will be with us for the next 25 years or so. And then we will 
probably go on to the next generation. But in the Space Shuttle, 
and space Station combination, we expect from an operations point 
of view, eventually, the private sector will be contributing a 
significant percentage of it's cost. But the capital cost we 
will consider to be an investment by the country, in a very 
important activity, to facilitate commercial and other 
development. 

ANDREWS Just a quick followup, in the initial stages, 

especially with the 3M venture, are there any payments being made 
initially by 3M to NASA for participation. 

LEH ? ^ . No - No* we don't require that of anyone, who joins 

us in these kind of activities. 

PA0 U . St. Paul, I'd like to take it back here to 

Washington, and switch it to KSC, we're running out of time, on 
the bird. Can you go to KSC now, please. 

?? C £ A ?^ 0kay ' we have several questions, Al Sealstead from 

the Baltimore Sun first. 

SEALSTEAD This question is for Mr. Lehr. sir, at the risk of 

7 6 lAl* 1 J ke to 90 back to Teres a Foley's original question. It 
is difficult to understand the extent of 3M's plans for this 
project without getting some idea of how much money you're going 
to invest in it. Now, perhaps you can't be percise, but are you 



3M CORP/NASA PRSS CONFERENCE plOhe 2/8/84 9:30 am Page 4 

talking about