Teal Ruby flew.... (long)
steven j forsberg
Conventional wisdom seems to be that project "Teal Ruby" never got off the
ground. However, while looking at some other issues I think I've stumbled
across some information that indicates that the TRS (teal ruby satellite)
is indeed whizzing around up there, and that the MIB have been chuckling up
a storm.
To start with, I've always been somewhat questioning of many analyses of
the Lacrosse (radar imaging) system history. My research has lead me to
believe that the technological base didn't exist for this system in time
for its supposed first launch in 1988. (messages on this can be found in
the Federation of American Scientists pages, or pulled up on Dejanews). I
now think that my position might be vindicated.
Most people seem to think that USA-34 (1988-106B, #19671) was the first
launch of a Lacrosse radar imaging satellite. I now believe that it was
actually a Teal Ruby (infrared) satellite. (though, as I will discuss
later, the name 'Lacrosse' might be part of a miscalculation.
For starters, the TRS was designed to fit snug as a bug in rug in the
shuttle with another experiment system, CIRRIS ( cryogenics and
multi-spectral stuff). They were originally slated to go up on STS-62
before the Challenger went "boom". It has been believed that the TRS
program was subsequently scrapped, but me thinks not. I think they just
delayed it and put it up with STS-27 (an Atlantis DoD mission) on December
2, 1988.
As an interesting tidbit, Col. Mullane and LtCol. Ross were supposed to be
the mission specialists for the original CIRRIS -- and both of them showed
up on STS-27, without any intervening flights IIRC. Thus, the guys may have
just been milling about smartly during the shuttle hiatus waiting for their
mission.
Background: apparently STP-80-1 was redesignated as AFP-888 in late 1983.
This may indicate that a "space test project" was to become a full fledged
"air force project". I have virtually no doubt that AFP-888 is indeed the
TRS. The bird is described in documents as a 2.4 x 2.4 x 0.7 meter
"basically" square shape. Its dry weight is 1940 kg. It also has a 6 hour
recording ability for RAP (record and playback) operations. The primary
sensor (after which the bird is named) is called "Teal Ruby". It is an IR
telescope with a multispectral mosaic focal plane. It was designed to test
the state of the art in target detection and data reduction.
Better yet, I've seen documents that discuss orbital data for the bird. It
said that the satellite was shuttle launched but that its original launch
data was not to be released. The document mentioned: period 99.6 minutes
inclination 72.5 degrees and perigee 741 kilometers. Although the launch
date was not released, it was heavily implied that it was prior July of
1990.
CIRRIS, as I said, was designed to fit in the shuttle with the TRS. Also
known as AFP-675, it used the ESS (experiment subsytem) to do research all
along the spectrum. I won't bore with details of the experiments, but it
weighed in at 5080 kilograms. As above, data from CIRRIS is beginning to
'leak' out (or be quietly released in its own little circles). Once again,
it is indicated that CIRRIS indeed flew on the shuttle, though its exact
operatioms date was classified, it was prior to July 1990. It was listed as
operating at around 300 kilometers, which sounds good for the shuttle bay
to me.
This is very interesting. Documents are starting to show up indicating
that both TRS and CIRRIS went up on a shuttle flight (prior to july 1990).
It appears to me that this is probably true. They were designed to be flown
together after all, and all that money that had been spent. I think that a
very good candidate was that USA-34, the DoD satellite launched by STS-27
on Dec 02 1988, is the TRS. The planned flight was postponed by the
post-challenger hiatus, but went up after things were cleared up.
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the RAE satellite table handy(and
haven't found it on line!). Is USA-34 indeed at a 72 degree 741 kilometer
orbit?? IF not this bird, then which one?
As I said, I thought 1988 was too early for a great space based radar
system, but work in IR and MSI is well ahead of that for active radar. Yet,
TRS has been mucho speculated upon as a 'cancelled' project that never
flew. I tend to think, however, that it was a 'cancelled' project that DID
fly, and I'll go into this seeming contradiction in a message to follow
shortly.
regards,
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
sfor...@prodigy.net Wizard 87-01
phil...@nospam.phoenix.net
steven j forsberg <SFOR...@prodigy.net> wrote:
: Conventional wisdom seems to be that project "Teal Ruby" never got off the
: ground. However, while looking at some other issues I think I've stumbled
: across some information that indicates that the TRS (teal ruby satellite)
: is indeed whizzing around up there, and that the MIB have been chuckling up
Last thing I heard from it, the payload that was supposed to fly on the
Shuttle was committed to a (non-environmental controlled) storage
warehouse at Norton AFB (?) California.
: For starters, the TRS was designed to fit snug as a bug in rug in the
: shuttle with another experiment system, CIRRIS ( cryogenics and
: multi-spectral stuff). They were originally slated to go up on STS-62
: before the Challenger went "boom". It has been believed that the TRS
: program was subsequently scrapped, but me thinks not. I think they just
: delayed it and put it up with STS-27 (an Atlantis DoD mission) on December
: 2, 1988.
Quite correct that it was supposed to fly with another pallet - AFP888 and
AFP675 were supposed to fly together on the first Shuttle mission from
Vandenberg AFB.
: As an interesting tidbit, Col. Mullane and LtCol. Ross were supposed to be
: the mission specialists for the original CIRRIS -- and both of them showed
: up on STS-27, without any intervening flights IIRC. Thus, the guys may have
: just been milling about smartly during the shuttle hiatus waiting for their
: mission.
A lot of mission specialists were swapped around at that time - they were
not dedicated to a particular payload. Look at the history of 51-D/51-E at
the time to see crews that were swapped around between radically different
payloads.
Jerry Ross has gone on to be a big EVA developer, Mike Mullane retired and
wrote a children's book (among other things).
: Background: apparently STP-80-1 was redesignated as AFP-888 in late 1983.
: This may indicate that a "space test project" was to become a full fledged
: "air force project". I have virtually no doubt that AFP-888 is indeed the
(As I understand it) that was just to define a payload (Shuttle or
otherwise) that consisted of various experiments. AFP888 was an IR
telescope plus several other experiments.
: TRS. The bird is described in documents as a 2.4 x 2.4 x 0.7 meter
[snip]
: sensor (after which the bird is named) is called "Teal Ruby". It is an IR
: telescope with a multispectral mosaic focal plane. It was designed to test
: Better yet, I've seen documents that discuss orbital data for the bird. It
: said that the satellite was shuttle launched but that its original launch
: data was not to be released. The document mentioned: period 99.6 minutes
: inclination 72.5 degrees and perigee 741 kilometers. Although the launch
: date was not released, it was heavily implied that it was prior July of
: 1990.
It had an interesting history - was supposed to be launched on the Shuttle
but had some work done on launching it from an expendable. It was supposed
to be launched from the West Coast and some work was done to design an
East Coast launch. But it did not fly on the Shuttle - if it was
redesigned and flew from an expendable (Vandenberg or Eastern Test Range)
it could be in orbit.
: CIRRIS, as I said, was designed to fit in the shuttle with the TRS. Also
: known as AFP-675, it used the ESS (experiment subsytem) to do research all
[snip]
: operatioms date was classified, it was prior to July 1990. It was listed as
: operating at around 300 kilometers, which sounds good for the shuttle bay
: to me.
It could have been launched on an expendable as well.
: This is very interesting. Documents are starting to show up indicating
: that both TRS and CIRRIS went up on a shuttle flight (prior to july 1990).
: It appears to me that this is probably true. They were designed to be flown
: together after all, and all that money that had been spent. I think that a
: very good candidate was that USA-34, the DoD satellite launched by STS-27
: on Dec 02 1988, is the TRS. The planned flight was postponed by the
: post-challenger hiatus, but went up after things were cleared up.
You might note that there were Manned Spaceflight Engineers (Air Force
astronauts that flew on 51-C and 51-J) assigned to both AFP-888 and
AFP-675 but they (of course) did not fly and went on to other areas. That
could be interpreted to mean that the interest in the payloads was greatly
reduced.
Lots of payloads are built and tested and never make it into space.
--
Charles D Phillips
<mailto:phil...@c-com.net>
Check the Recycling And Hazardous Waste Disposal web page at:
<http://www.academ.com/houston/recycling>
steven j forsberg
> Last thing I heard from it, the payload that was supposed to fly on the
> Shuttle was committed to a (non-environmental controlled) storage
> warehouse at Norton AFB (?) California.
Yes, I saw that report as well. But it is quite possible they had more
than one on hand when the program was cancelled. Spacecraft are often
bought in twos and threes to certain specs to generate economies of scale.
This would especially be the case if there had been plans for a
constellation of birds, where a planned rapid succession launch schedule is
at hand.
True enough, this could quite possibly be coincidence.
>
> : Background: apparently STP-80-1 was redesignated as AFP-888 in late
1983.
> : This may indicate that a "space test project" was to become a full
fledged
> : "air force project". I have virtually no doubt that AFP-888 is indeed
the
>
> (As I understand it) that was just to define a payload (Shuttle or
> otherwise) that consisted of various experiments. AFP888 was an IR
> telescope plus several other experiments.
>
AFP888 had more than just the "Teal Ruby" sensor. It had a couple of other
'experiments' on it as well (one being an ion thruster, a far UV telescope
IIRC, etc.) I think one of the causes of confusion is that "Teal Ruby"
properly applies to only the one particular subsystem on the spacecraft
(though the bird is sometimes refffed as the TR-- Teal Ruby satellite)
> : TRS. The bird is described in documents as a 2.4 x 2.4 x 0.7 meter
> [snip]
> : sensor (after which the bird is named) is called "Teal Ruby". It is an
IR
> : telescope with a multispectral mosaic focal plane. It was designed to
test
>
> : Better yet, I've seen documents that discuss orbital data for the
bird. It
> : said that the satellite was shuttle launched but that its original
launch
> : data was not to be released. The document mentioned: period 99.6
minutes
> : inclination 72.5 degrees and perigee 741 kilometers. Although the
launch
> : date was not released, it was heavily implied that it was prior July of
> : 1990.
>
> It had an interesting history - was supposed to be launched on the
Shuttle
> but had some work done on launching it from an expendable. It was
supposed
> to be launched from the West Coast and some work was done to design an
> East Coast launch. But it did not fly on the Shuttle - if it was
> redesigned and flew from an expendable (Vandenberg or Eastern Test Range)
> it could be in orbit.
Then what is USA-34? Do you think it is a "Lacrosse" imaging radar
system? I was surprised to find orbital data listed. The launch date was
specifically called classified but prior to 1990. These elements did not
seem to be "projected" or anything like that. And they are specifically for
AFP888/TRS. I wonder, where did they come from if the thing didn't fly?
>
> : CIRRIS, as I said, was designed to fit in the shuttle with the TRS.
Also
> : known as AFP-675, it used the ESS (experiment subsytem) to do research
all
> [snip]
> : operatioms date was classified, it was prior to July 1990. It was
listed as
> : operating at around 300 kilometers, which sounds good for the shuttle
bay
> : to me.
>
> It could have been launched on an expendable as well.
CIRRIS went up (possibly 'again') on shuttle mission STS-39. This was the
first 'unclassified' classified DoD shuttle mission. It should be noted
that it went up with a bevy of other MSI experiments. Thus, it would make
sense if you were launching a new IR system to carry along CIRRIS to do
calibration and on-orbit checkouts and data comparisons etc. Indeed, on the
STS-39 mission it appears to have done this for the USA-70 satellite
(MPEC). I doubt CIRRIS went up on an expendable, it is specifically
designed for the shuttle Experiment Support Subsytem. This thing was
supposed to launch near Challenger, but they kept it until 1991 without
using it? It seems that it would have been superceded by then. A big
confusing factor is that the ESS things are specifically designed to have
various subsets of experiments put on and off. Tracking them is a pain....
>
> : This is very interesting. Documents are starting to show up indicating
> : that both TRS and CIRRIS went up on a shuttle flight (prior to july
1990).
> : It appears to me that this is probably true. They were designed to be
flown
> : together after all, and all that money that had been spent. I think
that a
> : very good candidate was that USA-34, the DoD satellite launched by
STS-27
> : on Dec 02 1988, is the TRS. The planned flight was postponed by the
> : post-challenger hiatus, but went up after things were cleared up.
>
> You might note that there were Manned Spaceflight Engineers (Air Force
> astronauts that flew on 51-C and 51-J) assigned to both AFP-888 and
> AFP-675 but they (of course) did not fly and went on to other areas. That
> could be interpreted to mean that the interest in the payloads was
greatly
> reduced.
As it would be, if the decision was to launch just the one, quit the
design and deployment of the rest of the planned series. As far as the
launching people were concerned, it was up and they were done.
>
> Lots of payloads are built and tested and never make it into space.
>
True enough, but I'm starting to see data that makes me wonder about at
least one of the TRS birds.
regards,
------------------------------------------------------------
sfor...@prodigy.net Wizard 87-01
Cass54
At the risk of seeming cranky, and without having the luxury of identifying
these sources, I offer the following:
CIRRIS did fly on STS-39, April 1991. It was not a satellite, so there was no
way it was going to be put on an ELV without someone spending a ton of money.
There was only one Teal Ruby: it was a promising program that took some
(approved, but ultimately fruitless) left turns during its development. "The
customer wanted a Volkswagon and we gave him a Cadillac." It got very
expensive.
I haven't physically seen it in storage at Norton, but I've been told it's
there, bagged and useless.
P-80-1 was cancelled in 1981, then resurrected in a new configuration -- "same
bus, different guts" a year or so later.
The Air Force MSEs (payload specialists) working Teal Ruby moved on to other
work before 1986. One MSE was still involved with CIRRIS up to its flight:
then-Maj. Rob Crombie, who actually served as a backup crew member (to a NASA
mission specialist).
It's tempting to link the NASA astronauts to specific payloads, but in the
two-year hiatus between Challenger (and the cancellation of 62-A) and the
launch of STS-27 is plenty of time to train on a different program. Maybe two
different ones.
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying I don't buy this.... :)
Michael Cassutt
steven j forsberg
> CIRRIS did fly on STS-39, April 1991. It was not a satellite, so there
was no
> way it was going to be put on an ELV without someone spending a ton of
money.
>
Which was my point exactly.
> There was only one Teal Ruby: it was a promising program that took some
> (approved, but ultimately fruitless) left turns during its development.
"The
> customer wanted a Volkswagon and we gave him a Cadillac." It got very
> expensive.
Hmmmm. You call it a 'program' but say there was only one. I've never seen
any authorative count of how many TRS were built, and as I said it would
not be that uncommon to build 2 or 3 to the first basic specs. I'm not
saying that the "program" didn't get cancelled, but they could have put up
one already built as a one time "experiment".
>
> I haven't physically seen it in storage at Norton, but I've been told
it's
> there, bagged and useless.
>
I've read the report, and there is apparently one at Norton that is going
to be yanked apart to study the effects of long term ground storage.
However, as I said, who is to say that only one satellite was built? If it
was originally intended as a major continuing project.......
Of course, this still leaves a question: USA-34 is up there whirling
around. What was (is) it? What satellites meet the orbital data I saw?
(need to find a good satellite table....). As far as I know, no one called
USA-34 a "Lacrosse" until the launch of USA-69 (on a titan). Then a bunch
of people said, "well, that must have been what they launched on that
secret mission back yonder...". I'm not saying anything definitively (in
this business, who can :-) ), but I'm going to keep my eyes open for
certain.
regards,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
sfor...@prodigy.net Wizard 87-01
Captain Nerd
In article <199806191904...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Cass54 <cas...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>At the risk of seeming cranky, and without having the luxury of identifying
>these sources, I offer the following:
>
>way it was going to be put on an ELV without someone spending a ton of money.
>
>(approved, but ultimately fruitless) left turns during its development. "The
>customer wanted a Volkswagon and we gave him a Cadillac." It got very
>expensive.
I don't know about CIRRUS, but I was on the software development
team for the downlink data analysis side of Teal Ruby, and we
were briefed once by a suit who said that they went through some
70% of their spare chips just building the first focal plane.
Something about the chips being so delicate that gluing them
down crushed the elements. I have no independent confirmation
for that, nor for anything else in this post.
>
>I haven't physically seen it in storage at Norton, but I've been told it's
>there, bagged and useless.
>
>P-80-1 was cancelled in 1981, then resurrected in a new configuration -- "same
>bus, different guts" a year or so later.
>
>The Air Force MSEs (payload specialists) working Teal Ruby moved on to other
>work before 1986. One MSE was still involved with CIRRIS up to its flight:
>then-Maj. Rob Crombie, who actually served as a backup crew member (to a NASA
>mission specialist).
>
>It's tempting to link the NASA astronauts to specific payloads, but in the
>two-year hiatus between Challenger (and the cancellation of 62-A) and the
>launch of STS-27 is plenty of time to train on a different program. Maybe two
>different ones.
>
>I guess this is a roundabout way of saying I don't buy this.... :)
>
>Michael Cassutt
Teal Ruby died in 1988. I worked on the software for E-Systems
in Falls Church VA from September 1984 till January 1987, when
work was suspended. I was planning to ask to join the field
support team in CA, whenever Teal Ruby was launched, but when
the Shuttle flights resumed, we were told that the Secretary
of the Air Force said, paraphrasing, "You're not going to launch
that bird on any of my Shuttles," which killed all further work.
I saw the P-80 (later P-888) pallet with the TR telescope, a
couple of times in '85. If there was more than one, they hid
the things really, really well. No, there was only the TR that
was going to be launched, and a testbed gimbal/arm setup for
testing the positioning system.
As for not killing a project after spending outrageous sums
of money, this is the Government we're talking about, here!
It happened all the time, still happens, and will happen from
here on!
Cap.
--
===============================================================================
= Mail: cpt...@acces.digex.net Web: http://www.access.digex.net/~cptnerd =
= "By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes" =
===============================================================================
Cass54
> Hmmmm. You call it a 'program' but say there was only one. I've never
seen
>any authorative count of how many TRS were built, and as I said it would
There are lots of programs that built no hardware at all, much less spacecraft.
>However, as I said, who is to say that only one satellite was built? If it
>was originally intended as a major continuing project.......
I guess I didn't make myself as clear as I should have: the people I know who
worked on the program said that only one vehicle got built because the whole
program ran into cost overruns....
> As far as I know, no one called
>USA-34 a "Lacrosse" until the launch of USA-69 (on a titan). Then a bunch
>of people said, "well, that must have been what they launched on that
>secret mission back yonder...". I'm not saying anything definitively (in
>this business, who can :-) ), but I'm going to keep my eyes open for
>certain.
No one called USA-34 a Lacrosse because that code name had not appeared in the
press as of December 1988. First reports, as I recall, called USA-34 an
advanced Keyhole, but it was soon identified as an imaging radar system, and
several months prior to the launch of a similar payload on Titan.
MC
JAY RESPLER
steven j forsberg wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the RAE satellite table handy(and
I do.
> haven't found it on line!).
It's not. You can get similar info (except classified sats) from NASA
OIG "SATELLITE SITUATION REPORT". You can find a link to OIG at:
VSOHP <http://www.satellite.eu.org/sat/vsohp/satintro.html>
> Is USA-34 indeed at a 72 degree 741 kilometer> orbit??
RAE lists it as 56.97 deg, 98.32 min pd., 662-697 km.
You can find links to current elements for some of these sats at
VSOHP listed above.
--
Regards,
Jay Respler
--
JRes...@surfnj.net
Sky Views: http://njsurf.com/skyviews/
Satellite Tracker * Early Typewriter Collector
Freehold, New Jersey
Gavin Johnston
Cass54 wrote
>> As far as I know, no one called
>>USA-34 a "Lacrosse" until the launch of USA-69 (on a titan). Then a bunch
>>of people said, "well, that must have been what they launched on that
>>secret mission back yonder...". I'm not saying anything definitively (in
>>this business, who can :-) ), but I'm going to keep my eyes open for
>>certain.
>
>No one called USA-34 a Lacrosse because that code name had not appeared in
the
>press as of December 1988. First reports, as I recall, called USA-34 an
>advanced Keyhole, but it was soon identified as an imaging radar system,
and
>several months prior to the launch of a similar payload on Titan.
The STS-27 payload was identified pretty quickly after launch. The January
1989 issue of Spaceflight News (which had a late December '88 publication
date) identified it as "a device called Lacrosse". As for Teal Ruby, I
think it remained on the shuttle manifest for about another year.
--
Gavin Johnston.
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering,
University of Glasgow.