Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 05:00:21 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #359 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Thu, 25 Mar 93 Volume 16 : Issue 359 Today's Topics: Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation Aurora spotted ? Clueless Wingoisms Compound catadioptric Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope Sale - cheap DC-X Earth Stop Rotating!? Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo (2 msgs) HST detectors Life in the Universe Skysurfing from Orbit SSF Redesign.... temperature of Lunar soil Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power? 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: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 19:24:01 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Asteroid Laser 'Drill' Speculation Newsgroups: sci.space In article <3_713_6352babfe68@Kralizec.fido.zeta.org.au> ralph.buttigieg@f635.n713.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Ralph Buttigieg) writes: > hte> Note that any hardware capable of doing a manned lunar mission is also > hte> capable of doing a short manned visit to a near-Earth asteroid (given > hte> beefed-up life-support for a mission lasting a couple of months)... > hte> There was a proposal to do this with the Apollo 18 hardware... > >Do you know what asteriods they were thinking of visiting? I know some minor >planets require minimal delta V to get to. But I thought round trip times >for an actual rendezvous were rather long, longer then a couple of months It's been a long time since I saw mention of this, and I retain no details. (As I've commented before, it is damnably difficult to find information on missions that were proposed but not flown.) However, the crucial fact you are missing, I'm pretty sure, is that this proposal did *not* have to minimize delta-V; it had lots to draw on, given a system designed for lunar landings. The obvious way to do it -- there may be better methods -- is to launch outward at modest velocity for a relatively long cruise phase, meet the asteroid well before its Earth encounter, do a *big* burn to match its orbit, spend a few days on the asteroid, and then do a modest burn to alter your trajectory to intercept Earth at about the same time as the asteroid's closest approach. The S-IVB would suffice to get you into cruise trajectory, both stages of the LM would be expended in the big burn, and the CSM engine would do the work for the final burn. Since the LM would be used only as a propulsion system, considerable weight could be saved by stripping it of all unnecessary equipment. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 22:26:14 GMT From: "Robert J. Niland" Subject: Aurora spotted ? Newsgroups: sci.space PHARABOD@FRCPN11.IN2P3.FR writes: : 2) There is at least one inconsistency: if Aurora were that excellent, : why does it need to fly at rather low altitude and supersonic speed : over the Los Angeles area? "Airquakes" seem not pleasant. Common sense : suggests that Aurora has some major flaw or drawback, otherwise it : would avoid these airquakes. That assumes that the airquakes are due to compression shock waves from supersonic flight. One of the rumors surrounding this (or these) black aircraft is that the propulsion is a shock wave rider, using explosions of fuel behind (external to) the vehicle. Another rumor is that the thing (or one of the things) is unmanned. A space-age buzz bomb. Regards, 1001-A East Harmony Road Bob Niland Suite 503 Internet: rjn@csn.org Fort Collins CO 80525 CompuServe: 71044,2124 (303) 223-5209 ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 00:38:00 GMT From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov Subject: Clueless Wingoisms Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article , szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes... >wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov writes: > >Since any return on investment would come from public funs, this is >only private sector money in a trivial sense. The big problem I'm >pointing out here is that your mindset is overwhelmingly divorced from >any need to meet people's voluntary wants and needs in the marketplace. >The source of your funding, and even more so the fact that you have >been deluded into believing it is "commercial", shows how such a >clueless vision of the future can be perpetuated. > > What in the world do you mean by this? The private sector that I am speaking of here is a Coal Company in my home state. Did someone from NASA molest you as a child? Do you know even what trivial means? The fact that I got this money from a company that is totally divorced from any government contract is simply a re-affirmation that there is interest outside of the narrow stream for what we are doing. This is what I have been talking about of late Nick. I don't know why I even bother answering you and in the future I won't. Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 09:56:20 +0200 From: dima Subject: Compound catadioptric Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope Sale - cheap Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.space,sci.environment >From dima Tue Mar 23 09:46:13 MSK 1993 "ALTER" - COMPOUND CATADIOPTRIC MAKSUTOV-CASSEGRAIN TELESCOPE High transmission coating, precise worm gear clock drive, quartz electronic drive system, regulatiable illuminated reticle, manual slow motion controls. PARAMETERS: Clear aperture, mm 150 Effective focal lenght, mm 1500 Guide clear aperture, mm 60 Guide effective focal lenght, mm 1500 Finderscope, mm 10*30 Visual magnification rang 30-360 Resolving power, arc-second 0.8 Format film, mm 40 Periodic error, arc-second 7 Weight (case including), kg 29 ACCESSORIES: Photo-adaptor M42*1 Eyerieces: 31 mm, 18 mm 3x Barlow lens IF you have more information, we can to send you Instruction manual for it by fax. Price - 1090$ + transport (post) costs. Made in RUSSIA. Our address: RUSSIA, 119021, Moscow, L.Tolstogo st. 22/5 "SCAN" E-mail: dima@skan.msk.su tel: 095- 246-25-93, 425-74-14 Belov Dmitry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 93 19:13:30 GMT From: Rex Jolliff Subject: DC-X Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1oirp0INNftj@zephyr.grace.cri.nz> srgpjrm@grv.grace.cri.nz (John R. Manuel) writes: =Are there any articles in Aviation Week, or somewhere similar, about DC-X =that someone can refer me to? I'm curious to see the design of the thing =and in particular, how it will manage re-entry and still be re-usable. Feburary 3 1992 issue (p55 i think) is an article on the project. included is a sketch and picture of the (incredibly small) 12000 lb thrust motors. It looks nothing like I pictured it. Rex. -- Rex Jolliff N7PCF (rex@otto.hn.com, ...!jimi!otto!rex) Teleguide/Hospitality Network |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Your In-Room Casino Cash Source| this article are my own and in no way $$$$$$$$$$ | reflect the opinions of my employers. ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 93 18:24:45 GMT From: Brad Pennock Subject: Earth Stop Rotating!? Newsgroups: sci.space In davidlai@unixg.ubc.ca (David Lai) writes: >Hi netters > I'm faced with a strange question. What will happen to the >climate, magnetic field, plate tectonics, and us if this happened?? >Any comments or suggestins? David. There is a good argument about the stopping and restarting of the Earth's rotation in Carl Sagan's book "Broca's Brain." In it he gives a detailed account of what would happen (not pretty) and basically refutes the account of Joshua's witnessing the Sun stopping in the sky (i.e. the stopping of the rotation of the Earth, and it's later restart)...but then again, God can do anything =) :wq ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 93 23:34:26 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: > The first mention of Titan-Centaur I can find is the 1968 debate over > whether Viking should be an austere Titan mission or a more ambitious > Titan-Centaur mission. > >I thought the original Viking concept (then named Voyager!?) >was for a _Saturn_ launched mission, with a seriously massive >lander? ... "Viking" has always referred to the more modest post-cutbacks version. The original Voyager project was indeed a super-Viking, launched in pairs on Saturn Vs. The debate of which I speak revolved mostly around whether there was going to be any sort of orbiter as part of the Viking mission. It was resolved in favor of the more ambitious mission, with the orbiter, which required Titan-Centaur. -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 93 12:19:23 From: Steinn Sigurdsson Subject: Flight time comparison: Voyager vs. Gallileo Newsgroups: sci.space In article <23MAR199319483269@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@kelvin.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) writes: In article , henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes... >Galileo was going to use the heaviest booster combination the US >had -- Shuttle plus Centaur. There was one thing the planetary probes before the Shuttle era had that Galileo didn't have - an alternate backup launch vehicle. In the 1960's and 1970's, NASA always had a backup in reserve when they were developing their latest rocket. For example, ... Ah well, no worries, in the future there will be the DC-1 to launch from, won't need any backup launchers, might as well terminate existing systems now to fund it and terminate all other launcher development (such as it is...) ;-) | Steinn Sigurdsson |I saw two shooting stars last night | | Lick Observatory |I wished on them but they were only satellites | | steinly@lick.ucsc.edu |Is it wrong to wish on space hardware? | | "standard disclaimer" |I wish, I wish, I wish you'd care - B.B. 1983 | ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 93 19:36:47 GMT From: Steve Willner Subject: HST detectors Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1o8g2rINNfas@access.digex.com>, prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > I think HST used a line CCD array, instead of a CCD matrix, because that > was all that had been space qualified. of course, HST sat on the shelf > 5 years waiting launch, but that's a whole nother flame war. You may be thinking of the digicon detectors in the Faint Object Spectrograph. (There are no "line CCD arrays" on HST, as far as I know.) Technological maturity was one issue in the selection, but the main one was lower read noise. The Wide Field/Planetary Camera undertook a CCD development program. It uses an array of four chips, each 800 pixels square. For a while, these were the most advanced CCD's available, though they have now been superseded in both format and read noise. -- Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 Bitnet: willner@cfa Cambridge, MA 02138 USA Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu member, League for Programming Freedom; contact league@prep.ai.mit.edu ------------------------------ Date: 24 Mar 93 00:01:44 GMT From: "Blair P. Houghton" Subject: Life in the Universe Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.space,talk.bizarre In article kriman@acsu.buffalo.edu (Alfred M. Kriman) writes: >On pg. 302 of _Adventures of a Mathematician_ (Charles Scribner's Sons, New >York, 1976), Stanislaw Ulam quotes Fermi: > "Where is everybody? Where are the signs of other life?" Is it really important to us? We sit here, naked, eating fish and cocoanuts, watching the sun set over the lapping waves, and arguing the nuances of the gods. Perhaps it is just as well that Xardoz Columbus has passed without noticing, or not yet departed, or stopped at an eastward constellation, mistaking them for the East Aldebarides. Galactic economics will be dominated by the struggle for control of infinitesimal matter in an infinity of space. Anyone reaching us is sufficiently equipped to proclaim themselves our masters. Is it necessary to inject that certain horror as a wastrel fear into what is otherwise an idyllic existence? --Blair "Pass the bananas." ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 93 22:41:32 GMT From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov Subject: Skysurfing from Orbit Newsgroups: sci.space : > Robert Magee (Robert_Magee@mindlink.bc.ca) wrote: : > : I could use a little data on re-entry for a short story I am laboring on. : > : 3) How deep into the atmosphere must the shuttle descend before the wings : > : generate sufficient lift to provide control? : In article <1993Mar22.162704.28845@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, kjenks@jsc.nasa.gov (Ken Jenks [NASA]) writes: : > "Entry Interface" is at 400,000 feet. Keith Mancus (mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote: : Ken, doesn't "Entry Interface" (which [does] indeed occur at 400,000 ft) : refer to the first touch of atmosphere, which causes deceleration to begin : in earnest and heat shield temperatures to rise? I don't think you get : any aerodynamic *control* via control surfaces until you are significantly : lower. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. That may be true. Actually, we've never tested it. The aero surfaces don't even try to do anything interesting until much lower, so we don't really know how low we'd have to be to start getting some control authority. We wouldn't want to get into some weird tumble at 200,000 ft. All we've ever done at 400,000 ft is to stick with a boring 40-degree angle of attack, with no attempts to manipulate the control surfaces. But it sounds like a good Develomental Test Objective (DTO). -- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (713) 483-4368 "NASA turns dreams into realities and makes science fiction into fact" -- Daniel S. Goldin, NASA Administrator ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1993 21:07:08 GMT From: Andy Cohen Subject: SSF Redesign.... Newsgroups: sci.space *** Forwarding note from HBAKER --TMISMAIL 03/22/93 14:37 *** From: HUGH BAKER A note to try to keep you apprised of the happenings on redesign/cost reduction effort by the Program. Friday afternoon, Bob Moorehead held a Level II All Hands here at Reston and teleconed it to the Center LII Offices. The subject was the results of the LII redesign/cost reduction activity that the program has been engaged in over several weeks. Elements of this activity have been in the study stage under the auspices of the Engineering Design Council for a few months, so this is not completely brand new thinking. With the Goldin letter to change some of the driving top level requirements on the Station, it was possible to make some of these ideas real. The results and recommendations for a slimmer, trimmer Space Station Freedom were briefed to the Shea Team on Friday morning. It is reported that the presentation was well received. First of all, virtually the entire SSF redesign used existing designs. Some may require relatively minor modifications. The redesign accomodates the International Partners without requiring them to undergo costly redesign. On the latter, our activity at Reston had their full support and participation, which the Shea Team has not had to date (and may not have). The Goldin letter groundrules changed that had the most effect on the decisions here were the ones having to do with making the Station man-tended instead of permanently manned, slipping the man-tended date requirement about a year, and reducing the design-to life of the Station from 30 to 10 years. There were beneficial effects from other groundrule changes as well. The result of the changes leave us with a Station with no port truss (may be scarred for growth option), no HAB module, two IEA/PVAs for 37 KVA of total power (15 KVA to users), no ACRV, and one two-loop TCS radiator. It will take 9 assembly flights to reach a sustainable MTC, and three flights to accomodate the Internationals. Unless growth option is started, NASA's costs for assembly are finished at MTC because the Internationals pay for their assembly flights. The result of this is that total costs come down considerably, and the annual cost to MTC are also significantly reduced to less than $2B/year, but the exact amount is still being worked. I understand that direction from the Administrator's office is to consider the SSF redesign as part of the Shea Team, and some of the cost restrictions have been relaxed to permit that to happen. Operations costs limitations were also part of the groundrules (about a 50% reduction from $2B/year to about $1B/year. Interestingly enough, one of the things that got us into trouble on operating costs is that we did not take credit for the 28% of the operations costs that the Internationals reimburse us. MOD has developed a new approach that will probably accomodate that. The approach includes consolidation of operations centers, reduced training, single fully staffed shifts, etc. The MOD approach is less well developed than the redesign. Numerous management changes are also under consideration such as combining Level I and Level II (again proposed), the potential for combining some Shuttle and Station function and requirements, "relaxation" of S&PA requirements, and others. On the relaxation of S&PA requirements, this deals with such things as contamination, factors of safety, fault tolerance, the interpretation of fracture control requirements, etc. Most of these have to do with what may be overly conservative approaches to implementation and interpretations. For example, one contractor is adding a 1.2 factor over the SSF required FOS, and is using elastic strain of an elastic ("spring") member to define "failure." The fault tolerance argument gets back to whether we still have to meet the FOS of 1.4 after the second failure, or can we meet simply a 1.0. We are working with the teams that have been established here to work these. I know most of you are hard into design reviews, but we would like to discuss some of the proposed changes with you before they become baselined. This week the SSF Reston redesign teams are engaged in individual efforts and costing. We reconvene next week. The Internationals stated this morning that they will agree to participate in the Shea Team only is a list of conditions is met, among them that one of the three concepts to be considered is a SSF derivative, but not necessarily the one the Program has developed. The note is already longer than I'd intended, but I think this is info you should have. If you have any questions or comments, please let me know and I'll try to answer them. Hugh OK.....let the flames begin.... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1993 20:39:27 GMT From: Henry Spencer Subject: temperature of Lunar soil Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Mar23.153008.19023@pmafire.inel.gov> russ@pmafire.inel.gov (Russ Brown) writes: >Since the measurements were only made in the top few metres of the >regolith, and those, of necessity, were all made during transients, the >1.3K/m extrapolation is probably of little value. I agree that the extrapolation is of little value. Indeed, there are hints in the data that the rate of increase is falling as depth increases, but it's impossible to be sure with such scanty data. Note, though, that the measurements were not made "during transients". (I'm not quite sure what that is meant to mean, but I suspect the intent was "during visits".) The sensors were part of the ALSEP packages that were left on the Moon; the measurements covered a number of months. (This is why we can separate day-night variation from steady-state temperature. The day-night variation is zero at the depths in question.) -- All work is one man's work. | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology - Kipling | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry ------------------------------ Date: 23 Mar 1993 15:25:37 -0500 From: Pat Subject: Why use AC at 20kHz for SSF Power? Newsgroups: sci.space In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: >In article <1oicaq$7o6@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: > Im sorry stein, I think you don't understand the difference between engineering test beds and operational mission platforms. When you want to try something new, you expect anywhere between a 5% - 30% risk of failure. Look at the original Redstone and Atlas Launchers. they were blowing up at a phenomenal rate. You don't sign contracts to put up a package on an untested platform, or uncertain platform. On operational platforms, you expect no more then 1-3 % risk of failure or serious underperformance. THe reason the Saturn V was so successful was in most senses it was a very off the shelf launcher. I would have been very pleased to see NASA conducting engineering test launches of platforms that ran a 20KHz secondary bus, but to place a $40 Billion dollar program at jeopardy to such a risky technology for such few gains is just stupid. Design it instead to accept the technology as things grow. They could have designed in redundant AC Busses. Put in Switching to feed 60Hz/400 Hz, and as 20 KHz improves, then switch the 400 hz to 20Khz. Sure there is a weight penalty, but on the other hand you gain so much flexibility and redundancy. | |Pat, NASAs primary purpose, as I understand it, is to do the |leading edge innovation, not to wait for someone else to do it. Absolutely and what do you think the HARV program is. or the Swing wing test program, or the supersonic test program. But I don't see them scheduling other programs to depend on HARV availability. These are one off test vehicles. |As I recall their primary purpose is to find out how best to |get objects and people into orbit, secondarily to put such Then explain the shuttle. |objects and people up there as the US government wants them |to and thirdly to tell others (in the US) how to. | Somehow, I doubt most people are interested in learning how to increase risk in their products. | ... | | Space engineering should develope and fund those areas it has to, not | serve as a pet slush fund for every pet boondoggle that comes ou;of someones | ear. Who funds Closed and semi-closed life support? NASA, Why? because | they need it. IF the Air FOrce were to, that would be a boondoggle. | |Gee, I suppose the Navy isn't allowed to either. | Stein, by your reasoning, the first Submarine the Navy builds should carry Ballistic missiles, Gas Cooled Nuclear reactors, closed cycle life support, and be built from composite materials with Boron supports. The electrical gear should be 50KHz, and the comms systems have all been fiber optics. | Stein, you get so fascinated with someting being new, you forget the | utility value of money and the risk reduction. The DOE national labs | should be testing High Frequency power, NASA should only leap on this | when MASS becomes a crisis, and fat as FRED is, it wasn't necessary. | |NASA should research all areas that appear to be relevant to finding |the _best_ way of getting to and operating in space. If the Labs or |other agencies had done work on 20kHz AC power distribution then NASA |should look at it, if not, and they have reasonable cause to think |it might be of use then NASA should have the leeway to investigate it. |Same with materials, propulsion technologies, battery technology |and even food processing. | Investigation is significantly different from keying vital programs to a technologies success, with no driving reason. | ... | | |NASA has a lot of plans beyond SSF, none are funded and all |are speculation until the US government sets a plan. Hell, currently |NASA technically doesn't have a plan for SSF - they are waiting for |another government approval. | a What plans are these? |They use what is available, no one package can justify developing a |new system unless the existing systems won't do at all - that does |not mean the current system is optimal. Oh, and it is not a good idea |to always wait until you _need_ to deploy a new system before doing |any development on it. | Exactly. and that was the problem with 20KHz. Lewis i am sure has done some interesting work with it, but by no means was it ready for flight. | | No stein. THe time to place new systems is after you have developed | the technology and worked down the risk factors and understood | the system implications under all circumstances. | |You just don't get it, you're never going to have the technology |and low risk factors and you certainly won't understand the |implications because no one ever deployed it because they have |accountants looking over their shoulders who think Harvard business |school depreciation schedules are natural law. | You must have never worked in any design shops. Accounting is a pain in the ass, for any engineer, but cost is a major criteria in any design. Reliability and performance are two others. Lot's of stuff gets designed in that's new, but it's kept off the critical path map. Look at the problems the shuttle had. The tiles were new technology, and the problems delayed the program for years. Had they gone with less risky materials, and placed tiles in non-critical areas with the option to replace and upgrade, the shuttle might have been flying years earlier. | | Because aluminum is better understood in the Vacuum environment. | Gee Stein, why aren't you bellowing for an all composite station? | Ab inito, if htey weren't doing this, why then no-one would....... | |By your argument the composites would never have been developed |because aluminium would always have been sufficient - so much |for the DC series then. Of course the development costs on the |DC composites have already been sunk by DoD and NASA which get derided |for wasting money while MD is applauded for applying this new yet |well understood technology... | Do you know anything about the developement hsitory of composites? Do you know how they were integrated into aircraft systems? Do you know anything abou;the experience base developed before they started building all composite wings? | | It's not posturing bullshit, it's contemptous dismissal of an idea | that is plainly ridiculous and a absolute waste of my tax dollars. | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |In other words you only want research into systems that you know |will work ahead of time... | No, but i want to see engineering performed on systems that have a low risk qqqquotient. You must not know much abou;engineering to understnad the difference. | | Sorry, Stein, nobody accounts for anything with more then a | 25 year lifespan. If you need a 100 year payout, you are | looking at technological obsolesence. | |Some people do. Some technological development has lead times |far longer then 25 years - of course in an accountants world |those technologies don't exist. | You name anything where they account with longer then 25 year paybacks? Lots of technologies take decades to develope, that's why they aren't placed into operational systems. | | Nasa doesn't look into new alternatives without worrying about | immediate return for projects. Every program manager works | |They should. Yes, they should. They desperately need an independent engineering developement group. | | hard at risk reduction on his particular program because if the | program goes south, he's out of a job. A major complaint I and Henry have | about NASA is they don't have an ongoing engineering research and | testing program. | |Well, how could they, they have to show return on all their programs |and god help them if one should actually not pan out, they'd get fried |for wasting your tax dollars on such obviously ridicilous ideas... | Technically, no NASA program has a ROI. rather they have a sink budget. they are allocated money, with a theory of expense. Wether it pans or peaks, is irrelevant. There is no Dollar return on any science package, because they aren't in the revenue business. rather then flame, why don't you write congress and urge that NASA get an independent hardware developement program office. | It is the purpose of every project to succeed. and gratuitous slurs | about the Royal society are un-needed. ANd if you knew more about | history then about stars, you'd know the brits were very big on | tying innovation to existing technologies. | |Oh, really, how long did it take for them to get a return on |electromagnetic induction? Did they manage to scrape in under |the 25 year deadline. Of course if the silly sods had just invested |the salary they paid Faraday in an interest bearing account they'd |be rolling in it now. | ANd of course, if they had built the Navy counting on Induction motors to hoist all the sails, we'd be speaking spanish or French. Do you know that the British navy poured almost a 100 times as much money into Babbages Difference engine for no result as the Royal SOciety poured into John Bull's Steam Engine? Guess which one changed the victorian world more. Some things are just too ambitious for the state of the art. > ... > >I suppose now is a bad point to bring up the recent series of >papers by some relativist friends of mine on time machine design... >probably not cost effective anyway, they should be out there writing >accounting software. > You seem to have a real hang up about cost accounting. Do you balance your checkbook or budget your expenses? This full speed ahead, and damn the expenses mentality, Has mortaged our nations future, and crippled NASA> The GAO, did a re-audit of the shuttle, and based upon the amount of money poured into shuttle developement, we are spending 1.5 Billion dollars/ flight. There is now serious talk in congress about sinking the STS entirely. If so, it's because nobody gave a damn about life cycle costing, and political realities. > > Then if most devices are hand built, then don't usse that as an excuse for > your petty argument. > >The point was that since they're handbuilt it is relatively easy >to make use of whatever is available, switching to a 20kHz power >supply is not that big a deal if that's what you get. > Of course, Fans, Motors, switches and all that non-sexy power hardware is not hand built, and would have to be for the space station. That is a big deal. > > Gee stein, I hate to say this, it must hurt your perfect little > world, but Boeing's commercial market is probably 2 orders of magnitude > larger then NASA. NASA spends about 1-2 billion/year on hardware, > >Hot damn, Boeing's turnover is $trillion? I never appreciated they >made up 15% of the US economy... > Boeings revenues. are probably not more then 15 billion, but they are now sharing that market with Lockheed, McDac, Airbus...... The COmmercial aviation market is probably 100 Billion. Look at the size of airports, the number of passenger miles and think. Chicago O Hare is as big an entity as KSC, and think how many large airports are in the US alone. PS. Aviation is a fairly large segment of the US economy. Larger then you think. Dallas, Wichita, Seattle and St Louis make aircraft a substantial part of their business. > Boeing probably sells 15 Billion / year on aircraft. > >Which, funnily enough is about the size of NASAs budget > But Nasa, only buys maybe 10% of that annualy as flight gear. > NASA buys about 10-12 rockets/ year. Boeing sells 2-300 aircraft > per year. > Believe me, THese guys have their own markets. Some things they > glom off NASA and AF programs, but this one they don't need to. > And besides, stein, if 20 KHz was so hot, why aren't any other > nasa programs pursuing it? > >Oh, they've learned by now not to try anything new. > Cute. > > Gee stein, advocating terrorism. Poor occupation for an astronomer. > >It's a historical allusion. Refers to the fact that post-war >Germany and Japan modernised their plant and became rapidly >competitive, while for example Britain was stuck with outdate >plants. > Which do you think is cheaper. Building plants and buying machine tools in the midst of total devastation, or just buying and upgrading machine tools. The problem was american and british companies failed to invest. That's stupid management. ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 359 ------------------------------