Date: Thu, 4 Mar 93 06:23:12 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #269 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 4 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 269 Today's Topics: Alternative space station design Apollo Missions (Recollections) Apollo Moon Missions ? Aurora (rumors) (3 msgs) Bullets in Space Freedom refueling Invention of transistor a bootleg project? Is Columbus sunk? Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Mars exploration Plutonium terror (was Re: Alternative space station design) Safety of flyby & aerobraking for large payloads at earth SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Spaceflight for under $1,000? Space Scientist SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 3 Mar 93 03:19:13 GMT From: Pat Subject: Alternative space station design Newsgroups: sci.space Besides, RTG's are a little silly for near earth ops. Solar arrys work real good. Solar dynamics, look even better. If you need high power density, then fly a RAC. the soviets are selling topaz's. 100 kw in a package the size of a desk. Of course..... AIAA Alert. Gammma Rad ALert. Don't fould up the CGRO alert. move over greenpeace, here comes the people who waited 10 years for orbital science packages. pat ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1993 16:48:04 GMT From: "Bruce F. Webster" Subject: Apollo Missions (Recollections) Newsgroups: sci.space In article gerhard@mikas.llnl.gov ((Michael Gerhard aka Elmo P. Suggins)) writes: > > Anyone else with good memories? > > I watched the Apollo 11 landing with a group of friends (we were all high-school students) at Alan Scrivener's house. I can still recall the electric jolt I felt when the words "Houston--Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed." came over the set. At that moment, I felt that I had stepped into the future which (as an avid SF fan) I had been reading about since 3rd grade. We stayed glued to that set for hours, waiting for and then watching the first man set foot on another sphere than Earth. In spite of Vietname, race riots and assasinations, we felt almost boundless optimism, that a door had been flung open into the universe. How agonizing it was to see the door slammed shut, and only half-hearted (and half-a**ed) efforts since then to re-open it. In 1969, I fully believed that I would, as an adult, have an opportunity to go into space; now I seriously question if my _children_ will. I had never been so proud of being an American as when Apollo 11 landed. I wonder if I've ever been as proud since. ..bruce.. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce F. Webster | Shall I start a BBS? Do I dare to try to teach? Chief Technical Officer | I shall take my palmheld portable and Pages Software Inc | and hack upon the beach. bwebster@pages.com | I have heard the networks passing packets #import | each to each | They have no traffic for the likes of me. | -- Jeff Duntemann ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 2 Mar 93 08:44:00 GMT From: Roland Dobbins Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ? Newsgroups: sci.space TT> TT>From: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Thompson) TT>Newsgroups: sci.space TT>Subject: Apollo Moon Missions ? TT>Date: 25 Feb 1993 01:23:36 GMT TT>Message-ID: <1mh72oINNdu8@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> TT>Reply-To: tjt@Jpl.Nasa.Gov TT> TT> I am ignorant, I admit it. My memory has failed. Can someone ref TT>tired brain cells, and tell me (us) which Apollo mission to the Moo TT>last one? There couldn't have been too many. TT> TT> Mille Mercis TT> TT>--- TT>------------------------------------------------------------ TT>Timothy J. Thompson, Earth and Space Sciences Division, JPL. TT>Assistant Administrator, Division Science Computing Network. TT>Secretary, Los Angeles Astronomical Society. TT>Member, BOD, Mount Wilson Observatory Association. TT> TT>INTERnet/BITnet: tjt@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov TT>NSI/DECnet: jplsc8::tim TT>SCREAMnet: YO!! TIM!! TT>GPSnet: 118:10:22.85 W by 34:11:58.27 N TT> Apollo 17. I believe that Gene Cernan was the last human to walk on the surface of the Moon. Missions were planned through Apollo 21, but funding was cut due to Vietnam, etc. --- . Orator V1.13 . [Windows Qwk Reader Unregistered Evaluation Copy] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Mar 93 15:35:13 GMT From: Bob Combs Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space Is there a confusion about the advantage of speed? I don't think it is to necessarily get accross the target quickly, but to get _to and from_ the target quickly. The SR-71 was never acknowledged to overfly the USSR, although it is supposed to have overflown Korea and other countries. The SLAR allowed recon to be done hundreds of miles inside Soviet territory without overflying, collecting from international airspace. After the Gary Powers incident, I understand policy changed to prohibiting overflights of the soviet landmass. The speed also allowed the evasion of unfrienldy threats. -- Bob Combs ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 13:32:15 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: >>That is not a credible suggestion. Early U-2 flights were done at >>65,000 feet, and SR-71 missions were at around 85,000 feet. Aurora >>would very likely be flying at operational altitudes of over 100,000 feet. >I was answering these guys who wrongly said that the noise was >not a problem. Well, they were not wrong to say that. There is no reason to believe that noise is a problem when one of these aircraft is at an operational altitude. >Of course, if nobody hears the plane, the problem disappears. Exactly. >However, where is the proof that Aurora can reach these altitudes ? Heh. "proof"? The whole point in its existance would be as a follow-on to the SR-71, which routinely flew at 85,000 feet and higher while over target areas. >It seems that it has (if it exists) a new kind of engine. Certainly. >There are rumors of liquid methane and "Pulsed Detonation Engine". >Up to what altitude can this engine work ? The whole POINT of these "exotic" propulsion systems is to allow a vehicle to regularly operate at very high speeds and altutides. >>Why is it extremely audible in the Los Angeles area? >>Because it is on a LANDING profile. It comes in off the Pacific, >>decelerating and reducing altitude for a landing in the Nevada desert. >The distance between Los Angeles and Tonopah, where Aurora is said to >land, is about 280 miles. If Aurora were 100,000 ft up over Los Angeles NOPE. It would not be that high. More like half that, or maybe less. >(no noise) There HAS been "noise" on quite a few occasions. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 13:33:35 GMT From: Dean Adams Subject: Aurora (rumors) Newsgroups: sci.space pyron@skndiv.dseg.ti.com (Dillon Pyron) writes: >>The Blackbird flies at Mach 3-3.5, and "hypersonic" starts at Mach 5. >You missed the sarcasim points! "Hype"rsonic. Sorry, I just wanted to be sure. :-> >>Apparently there must not always be that many options, otherwise >>they would never have been bringing in in over L.A. so often. >Do we really know how often that was? There have been times where the booms took place on a regular weekly basis. >Every flight? Every 10th, 100th, 1000th (right)? It would take a certain Special Access Program clearance to know that. :-) >>to use for that very role is the new E-8 J-STARS, which stands for Joint >>Surveillance Target Attack Radar. These aircraft carry SAR and Doppler >>radar systems for locating mobile ground targets such as Scud missile >>launchers... >If I may clarify, SSR, by itself, has not been useful. Combined with other >inputs, it becomes part of a powerful synergism.But, my understanding of SSR >(note by my sig that I am now "out of my league") is that it takes multiple >images to produce truly useful information. That all depends on the "SSR"/SLAR in question. The type of Synthetic Aperture Radars normally used on SR-71s, TR-1s, etc. are able to produce what are "near photographic quality" images. >More to the point, why spend billions on a single sensor platform? >That would be like taking only Ektachrome 64 to DisneyWorld! Well, the cost these days to build (and *launch*) platforms such as an Advanced KH-11, Lacrosse, or heavy ELINT bird is something close to a Billion a copy. Why? Because they give us some very useful capabilities. Information and intelligence are valuable (and expensive) commodities. ------------------------------ Date: 02 Mar 93 11:23:26 GMT From: Ryan Potts Subject: Bullets in Space Newsgroups: sci.space On Feb 28 17:16, Frank Crary of wrote: > (By the way, the rifleman wouldn't fly backwards under the > recoil, as is often thought: The linear momentum transfer is > quite small and the shooter's final velocity would be under 1 > m/s (3.6 km/hr). The angular momentum, however, is very > significant: If he fired the rifle from the shoulder, he'd > wind up spinning at something like 50 rpm...) But isn't o2 needed to aid in the combustion of the gunpowder in the round? :) Ryan ------------------------------ Date: 01 Mar 93 20:52:08 From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Freedom refueling Newsgroups: sci.space JH>Allen, could you (or perhaps Dennis Newkirk) post a description of just how the Russians refuel Mir? It's not immediately obvious to me that they do a refuel. I'm not saying they don't, I'd just like someone to actually what they do before we all take it for granted. The Russians have refueled a Salyut station from a Progress with no one on board the Salyut, so I would assume that indicates an automatic refueling capability. ___ WinQwk 2.0b#0 --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 13:38:15 GMT From: "robert.f.casey" Subject: Invention of transistor a bootleg project? Newsgroups: sci.electronics,sci.space,rec.radio.amateur.misc According to the PR folks at AT&T, the invention of the transistor was the collimation of many years of well planned research. Another story has it that that the actual project that produced the invention was a "bootleg" project, that some researchers did after hours hidden from their bosses. Management said to not work on that project, as they thought it had no merit. The researchers hid the setup and equipment in a storage closet on a cart, and dragged it out after the boss went home. They got the damn thing to work, and even made a "home" movie describing the results and showed the transistor operating under test. Footage of this can be seen in a series of phone company history films, where history was "rewritten". Or so the story goes... ------------------------------ Date: 01 Mar 93 22:27:10 From: David.Anderman@ofa123.fidonet.org Subject: Is Columbus sunk? Newsgroups: sci.space BH>What's the message here? If Clinton kills Fred, Columbus is sunk? I suspect that Columbus could be sent into a 51 degree orbit in case of no America station being available. ___ WinQwk 2.0b#0 --- Maximus 2.01wb ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 03:04:42 GMT From: Pat Subject: Jupiter and Venus followons (was Re: Refueling in orbit) Newsgroups: sci.space Actually Bill, I would Posit, that the Discovery Series are The follow Ons to Mariner/Voyager/Pioneer. Mariner really started off as a series of Light fast missions to single targets, they just got a little ambitious in voyager, but I think?????? they all used pretty mcuh the same vehicle bus. Magellan, I think used the the Mariner Mk II bus, but it's so far different from the original mariner series as to be a whole new spacecraft. Galileo, is one of a new series of spacecraft. big, heavy,expensive and once ina lifetime. pat ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 06:59:55 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: Mars exploration Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar2.180048.28093@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes: > But with the higher risks to the mission such simulation of reality > entails, and the high cost of *any* mission to another planet, VR > telepresence seems unlikely to play a major role in forthcoming > missions. Yeah, but what about this idea of Fred Singer's (in the proceedings of the first Case for Mars meeting, ed. Penelope J. Boston, Univelt,1984), to control some rovers from Mars orbit? Now all you have to do is get people into Mars orbit... ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 1993 08:26:53 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Plutonium terror (was Re: Alternative space station design) Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar2.185600.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes: > >Puzzling. Posters on sci.space are the only people I have run into >who are afraid of the Christic Institute, a group that has been >*notably* ineffectual in protesting the use of space RTGs (and met >with at best mixed success in their other endeavors). Here is Jon, >with Doug Mohney joining him, saying that the CI is something to worry >about. > Bill. The christic institute nicely fulfills the Usenet STRAWMAN need. They form a boogeyman, where everyone can say it's their fault and not that maybe the engineering is bad, or that their is a lack of off the shelf low cost technology to make these projects possible or that their is not enough money to fund projects at their current design methodology. People don't have to challenge core assumptions when they blame the CI. > >> but they made a significant effort >> to block the Ulysses and Galileo launches. Why give them an even better >> forum with RTGs that will be low orbit for decades? > >They made a half-baked effort to stop Galileo which didn't stand a >chance in court. The following year they folded up like a wet noodle >when Ulysses was launched. > ANd besides, maybe the CI might have a point when it comes to LEO radio nucliedes, in high concentration, that are vulnerable to any cessation in flight ops. Look how freaked people got when a russian rac crashed in canada. Imagine if SKYLAB had carried a RAC, instead of solar cells. Even MIR uses primary solar. The russians got quite a bell ringing from that canada incident, and that was duringthe evil empire. pat. >Bill Higgins | Sign in window of >Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | Alice's bookstore: >Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET | "EVER READ BANNED BOOKS? >Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV | YOU SHOULD!" >SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS | Gee, I hope it doesn't become > | *compulsory*. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 08:22:47 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Safety of flyby & aerobraking for large payloads at earth Newsgroups: sci.space,rec.arts.sf.science,alt.sci.planetary In article szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: >In a future solar system of large-scale space industrialization, >what are the costs and benefits of using the earth >for gravity assist and aerobraking of large payloads? >What should be the policies concerning these flybies? ...oh dear. As Frank Crary will undoubtedly shortly post, while he and I and an associate were teaching the (student initiated, we're not professors 8-) Spaceflight and Spacecraft Design course we did at UC Berkeley, our friend Jon Welte (now at a planitarium in Chicago? and doing astronomy thereabouts) casually mentioned aerobraking asteroids at earth orbit as a way to reduce delta-V requirements for asteroid captures. This being halfway through the semester, the students had all gotten somewhat of a clue about the space environment and the various things that had fallen on the earth before. There were a few seconds of shocked silence, then (I believe it was Frank) said "Asteroid Aerocapture?" in a wonderfully incredulous voice, Jon said "Uh, never mind...", and at about that point I said something like "Did you just seriously suggest that we...???". He bought the pizza after that class. [but seriously... bad idea. the issues involved, including atmospheric variation, asteroid stability (it could break up during aerobrake, you know), and determining the aerodynamics of a tumbling asteroid (or do you want to stabilize it, Nick?) are probably left for bad science fiction. I seriously doubt it can be done safely at all...] -george ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 19:16:58 GMT From: fisher@skylab.enet.dec.com Subject: SOLAR gravity assist? Yup. Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb26.162338.12296@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: >It seems to me that for a launch from Earth's orbit, you are going to >need so much delta-v to get that close to the Sun that you'd be better >off to use it in some other way. After all, we're talking about >killing enough orbital velocity to get within a few (relatively >speaking) kilometers of the surface of the Sun. There is also the >problem of the Sun's atmosphere eating up anything you gain by this >maneuver (due to atmospheric drag on the way past the Sun). I wonder if the originator of the idea thinks that for a given delta-V he is visiting 2 planets, so while he may not be requiring less delta-V in order to get to Pluto, he maybe is using less total delta-V to visit the two planets. > >I'm afraid my intuitive answer is that this is a net Lose. Do we >think that intuition is really far enough off in this case that we >need to actually ask someone to run the numbers? Even if what I suggested is true (and I don't claim to have any intuition at all on this), my guess would be that it looses because one spacecraft has to be designed to survive such an enormous range of environments. It's probably easier and cheaper to send a different probe in "each direction". Burns ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 08:42:08 GMT From: George William Herbert Subject: Spaceflight for under $1,000? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1029361.20054.16196@kcbbs.gen.nz> Russell_Mcmahon@kcbbs.gen.nz (Russell Mcmahon) writes: >Pegasus is nominally capable of putting a man into space but getting >him (her) back would be difficult. Cost is several million dollars US >per launch although this could probably be reduced to well under a million >dollars if not done "properly". Whether anyone would want to volunteer >for a one way poorly engineered trip into orbit is another question. As previous research and designs (mine 8-) indicate, this is indeed just on the ragged edge of possible. Pegasus can fly a person, space suit, associated systems, controls, guidance, and thruster packs for attitude control, some delta-V, and re-entry burn to an equatorial orbit with enough fuel to rendezvous with something else. It can fly a person to say Mir orbit with enough fuel to re-enter again: something from Mir would have to come pick him up for rendezvvous, though. It can't fly anything with a person inside to Freedom and get it down again, Pegasus just doesn't have that payload capacity. An earlier paper of mine describing a Pegasus launched capsule capable of Freedom rendezvous was based on an incorrect value for the payload of Pegasus to that orbit, and a slightly optimistic heat shield design. With the re-engineered heat shield, and the right payload numbers, you can't reach Freedom. The extended Pegasus with 450-500 kg payload that I keep hearing about will be able to do that mission with a good margin. FYI, a Pegasus launch these days is around $13 million dollars, and I estimated that the capsule would probably cost around $12-15M, so the total ride cost is about $25-28 million dollars. Not cost effective compared to say a Soyuz at current pricing, but a lot cheaper than Shuttle or the PLS systems NASA was playing with. Orbital Sciences did not cooperate in these studys. I don't think they want to consider man-rating the rocket. [and I am not sure I blame them] [If people are interested, I can post the earlier paper. I don't have a revised one ready yet, though I keep promising Henry Spencer I'll do it (sorry again, Henry 8-( ] -george william herbert Retro Aerospace ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1993 08:05:05 GMT From: "Frederick A. Ringwald" Subject: Space Scientist Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.research.careers In article davidlai@unixg.ubc.ca (David Lai) writes: > I'm interested in becoming a space scientist, like those who work for > NASA. I want to know what qualifications I need. Do those scientists who > work for NASA are all Ph.D.s? Is there any recommendations for what > degrees to get? Thanks! An absolute commitment, a tremendous amount of hard work of high quality, a great deal of talent, and a generous portion of luck are what are required these days, in addition to a Ph.D. A Ph.D. is no guarantee of getting a job as a space scientist, since the space field is in a very depressed state. I should know, since I got my Ph.D. recently. My thesis is a veritable tree-killer at 287 pages; not a record, but pleasing in that every time I look at it again, new science pops out. TOMORROW I am emigrating to England for a research fellowship in astrophysics. This was after a 9-month job search of excruciating proportions, involving sending 45 applications and making 15 short lists, often at prestigious places such as Harvard, Oxford, STScI, and Chicago, so the problem was probably not me, since every last one of these jobs had over 100 people applying for them. Two offers were made, and I felt very lucky for them! A Ph.D. is NOT of a guarantee of employment in most physical sciences these days, even obviously and immediately practical ones such as solid state physics. Things are bad all over. You might have heard that there is a "shortage" of scientists, but you can stop believing these rumors right now: many of them can be traced to a badly-mistaken NSF report, written before the end of the Cold War and the current economic slowdown, which didn't do a very careful analysis of the job market, anyway. Then again, if you really, REALLY want to become a space scientist, go ahead and get your Ph.D. After all, Jesse Greenstein managed to get a job in astronomy during the depression of the '30s. Just be sure, very sure, to dedicate yourself to becoming really, REALLY good at whatever it is you do. There might be jobs, for only for exceptionally talented people. There is certainly no market for mediocre people, and there will not be, any time in the foreseeable future. Some fields are better than others, although it's not easy to say much about this that's sensible. Specializing early has its advantages. It's certainly the way to get ahead in academia. (That and PUBLISHING.) Specializing allows you to learn more about your particular topic, and become better at it - but it's too bad if interest in your topic cools off, which can happen rapidly and unpredictably. Having a broad background has its advantages, but there is little demand for a jack-of-all-trades-and-a-master-of-none. Then again, it is a good idea to acquire genuinely useful and marketable skills, such as programming, numerical analysis, and instrumentation skills. Just don't let them be distractions from whatever your 'thing' is. The current job market is such that getting a Ph.D. degree should not be viewed as an end in itself, as it has been traditionally in the humanities. You should want that Ph.D. primarily because it gives you the chance to immerse yourself in a whole bunch of really neat knowledge for several years. Disdain for high wages is helpful, too, and if you don't come in on Saturday, don't bother coming in on Sunday. If the only reason you want a Ph.D. is as a means to an end, such as a secure, permanent job exclusively doing research in space science at over $40k/year right out of grad school (probably more in industry, but they're hurting, too), you might be disappointed. And be warned. This evening I had dinner with an exceptionally talented and imaginative theorist, who's doing his Ph.D. thesis on using wavelet analysis to analyze the large scale structure of the Universe. He's having serious problems getting a job, having sent out over 20 applications without a nibble. So, he'll have to stay in grad school an extra year, so he can keep looking. He's 32 already, and has two young daughters, so his wife is not too pleased about this and its financial implications. (She's just submitted her Ph.D. thesis in Spanish. Solving the two-body problem is not easy, but neither of them have gotten anything!) Good thing he has his own research grant (under the NASA Graduate Student Research Program, thanks very much, folks), otherwise I don't know what he'd do. I don't know what he's going to do next year, if he doesn't find a job. I suggested he start looking at industry jobs where he could use what he knows about wavelet analysis, since it's all the rage in machine vision and pattern recognition. He could get a cosmology paper or two out on the side, which would make his company look good, but of course it wouldn't be what they'd be paying him for. What's most discouraging is not that he's one of the most intelligent people I know, and a nice guy, too, all too rare in this field. It's that he's doing the first application of a hot technique to a hot topic, and getting interesting results. In other words, that generous portion of LUCK is more important than one might care to admit. Of course, if this little rant of mine is enough to dampen your interest in becoming a space scientist, then forget it. You have to be rabid to do this. I think it's downright irresponsible that some senior scientists in comfortable positions are still actively encouraging young people to go into science. More than enough will do so of their own accord. It just isn't right to make promises and filch away someone's youth and give nothing in return. Then again, if you knowingly and willingly don't mind losing your youth for the very real possibility of nothing in return, then fine: you should be given the best education and the best opportunities available, and who knows, maybe something will come of it. Maybe. But you don't really get nothing. During those long, lean years of grad school, at least, you will be doing space science, and that makes you a space scientist. And of course it is absolutely essential to keep dreaming those dreams! (My first task at my new job will be to write proposals for telescope time for next semester, the deadlines for which are coming up at the end of the month. I should soon hear whether or not my satellite proposals for this year have been accepted; the forms for HST time are intense! People complain that proposal writing is time-consuming - and it is - but I enjoy dreaming on paper, especially with the bonus that sometimes they come true...) Fred Ringwald as of tomorrow: Department of Physics Keele University Keele, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG England Internet: FAR%STARLINK.PHYSICS.KEELE.AC.UK@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk It'll certainly be interesting being an American astronomer in England. I hope I won't have too much trouble with the language. Speaking of dreams, I simply must go into London for the BIS lectures. I'll post what I find, as I've not yet seen anything in sci.space from the world's oldest existing space group. ------------------------------ Date: 3 Mar 93 14:10:38 GMT From: "Allen W. Sherzer" Subject: SSF Resupply (Was Re: Nobody cares about Fred?) Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > If that happened it wouldn't be a space program, it would be > a jobs welfare program for space engineers and technicians. >Of course some argue that that is exactly what it is... :-( Indeed. But unless we make some changes you seem unwilling to make it will never be otherwise. Space the NASA way is simply too expensive to be anything but a small jobs program. > As it is a space program, a responsible accounting methodology is > to sum its operations costs and divide by payload mass flown. >Here I disagree. NASA is not FedEx-in-space, it is a development >and research agency. About 40% of NASA's budget is devoted to operating space transport services. That makes it FedEx-in-space. Since it is competing with services which could be provided by the private sector and the activity is not research, NASA should account the costs in the normal way so that our tax $$ can be wisely and efficiently spent. >This is also why I think the high-end numbers >for STS cost per pound to LEO are nonsense, they amortise all >of NASA's (space) operations to orbit delivery Not so. The cost given is the total anual Shuttle costs divided by ten or so flights a year. This gives Shuttle every possible break. >when a lot of the >R&D is going to take place independent of missions actually flown, Agreed. It therefore seems wise to insure that NASA pays as little as possible for those services. Not only does this allow more research to be done but it also promotes space activity by lowering the cost. >as NASA is not a company it is not required in a strict sense to >charge those costs to operations. Maybe not by government regulations but NASA's failure to do so hurts all of us a lot. It would be a very good idea to change it. >In practise it is, for example, impossible to ascertain what fraction >of say CNN advertising revenue and taxes generated thereby are due >to 1960's development of launchers... Irrelevant. The value of past research can't justify wasting money today. >Further, NASA also alleviates potential expenses, for example >at 1-2 million dollars per life, alleviating potential deaths >from a single hurricane justifies a significant fraction of NASA's >annual budget Also irrelevant. It doesn't justify wasting money today. >far from convinced that the free marketers have a better solution. Nobody is saying that every activity NASA engages in is better done in the private sector. That however doesn't mean that there isn't a lot better done in the private sector. >Yup, sometimes you just have to muddle along and do the best you >can... I prefer to work to change the system; that can be done and will have far more impact. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves | | aws@iti.org | nothing undone" | +----------------------104 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+ ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 269 ------------------------------