Should expensive sats be transported by truck across US?

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12glory/

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

In article 08556ffa-6dbe-48e3-9b8d-e321f4a320a0
@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says...

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12glory/

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

I'm only aware of Galileo's antenna and I'm *not* convinced that NASA
was entirely forthcoming when telling the public the likely cause of the
deployment failure. Engineers I know who worked for Harris (the antenna
manufacturer) tell horror stories of what NASA did to "their" antenna.
The cross country rides on trucks was *not* the worst of the horror
stories.

The following PDF talks a bit more about another possible cause of
Galileo's antenna failu

http://www.smallsat.org/proceedings/...8/10/sscx5.pdf

From above:

For example, it has not been widely recognized that the
Galileo high-gain antenna was substantially modified
from its TDRSS predecessor. Thus, ten successful
TDRSS deployments have no relevance on the Galileo
deployment success or failure. The most significant
change of the Galileo design (from the deployment
reliability viewpoint) was a requested change from a Ushape
groove for antenna ribs on the TDRSS antennas
to a V-shape groove for Galileo. Intuitive analysis
indicates that a round-cross-section rib in the V-groove
would experience more point pressure and more lubrication
removal, than a rib in the U-groove. It can be
further speculated by extrapolation that a JPL-modified
antenna might have failed as well on the TDRSS mission
and that the original TDRSS design would definitely
have better chance of functioning properly on the
Galileo mission given its special circumstances.

Based on their dealings with JPL, the same engineers I know like to
refer to JPL as "Just Plain Lucky". Obviously, they weren't impressed
with how JPL interacted with them on a professional level.


Also, note the launch vehicle in the article you cite. Taurus uses
solid stages which surely cause quite a bit of vibration. You'd think
if the satellite has been qualified to launch on top of solid stages, a
truck ride isn't going to hurt it.

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011

On 13/01/2011 2:14 PM, wrote:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12glory/

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

Flights can be pretty rough as well.

Sylvia.

On Jan 16, 3:06*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/01/2011 2:14 PM, wrote:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12glory/

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

Flights can be pretty rough as well.

Sylvia.

well with the cost of a sat why risk it?

On Jan 16, 10:03*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:06 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/01/2011 2:14 PM, wrote:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12glory/

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

Flights can be pretty rough as well.

Sylvia.

well with the cost of a sat why risk it?

Because you can't build them in place?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

no but the cost of transporting them is a minor cost of the entire sat

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

One would assueme they're using an air ride trailer which are much smoother
than regulat trailers and are routinely used to ship commercial electronics
displays etc around the country. Also, there's a big difference between how
a piece of rack mounted equipment is built for these displays versus spaced
based euipment that must survive the vibration spectrum experienced on the
booster and inside the shroud during launch.


Val Kraut

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 09:08:49 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:


trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

I'm only aware of Galileo's antenna and I'm *not* convinced that NASA
was entirely forthcoming when telling the public the likely cause of the
deployment failure.

Didn't the failure report specify that *repeated* trips cross-country
(due to Challenger and the demise of Shuttle-Centaur) and much longer
time spent folded in-flight (due to VEEGA) caused the Galileo antenna
failure? It wasn't just the one delivery trip from manufacturer to
KSC.

Brian

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:14:23 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12glory/

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

Because if you plan for it, the risk is actually no worse by road than
by air. The only problem I'm aware of with truck transport is
Galileo's antenna failure, but that is a very specific situation
(Galileo was delivered by truck, Challenger blew up, Galileo went back
by truck to the manufacturer to be beefed for the IUS/VEEGA flight,
and then trucked back to KSC, but nobody added lubrication.)

By the way, rail is probably safer/smoother than either truck or air,
but look what happened to the next Soyuz. Accidents happen.

Brian

On Jan 16, 7:41*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Jan 16, 10:03*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
" wrote:
On Jan 16, 3:06 am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/01/2011 2:14 PM, wrote:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/12glory/

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

Flights can be pretty rough as well.

Sylvia.

well with the cost of a sat why risk it?

Because you can't build them in place?

no but the cost of transporting them is a minor cost of the entire sat

Another response from "Non Sequiturs Are Us"...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If private industry sank $424 million into a single sat they would
likely transport it by air. How much extra would it cost? 30 grand?

In article ,
says...

trucks can be tough rides since earlier sats were damaged by long
distance trucking why arent they flown across country?

One would assueme they're using an air ride trailer which are much smoother
than regulat trailers and are routinely used to ship commercial electronics
displays etc around the country. Also, there's a big difference between how
a piece of rack mounted equipment is built for these displays versus spaced
based euipment that must survive the vibration spectrum experienced on the
booster and inside the shroud during launch.

Especially if that launcher is using solid stages. You think a truck
ride is rough? Try riding on top of a large solid rocket booster!

Jeff
--
"Had Constellation actually been focused on building an Earth-Moon
transportation system, it might have survived. The decision to have it
first build a costly and superfluous Earth-to-orbit transportation
system (Ares I) was a fatal mistake.", Henry Spencer 1/2/2011