Date: Mon, 15 Feb 93 05:08:20 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V16 #183 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 15 Feb 93 Volume 16 : Issue 183 Today's Topics: "Late 'L5' Society (3 msgs) anonymous IS accountable A response from Anonymous (2 msgs) Clinton Email Address Earth: (Was "A response from Anonymous") hilarious (2 msgs) HST repair mission ICE Ship (2 msgs) leading-edge anonymity (2 msgs) Old Tech, why do we need new tech? Pictures of Mars wanted SSTO - SDI Budgets (Was SSTO news) SSTO news 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: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:29:20 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: "Late 'L5' Society Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb13.221806.2035@lub001.lamar.edu> lumensa@lub001.lamar.edu writes: >In article <1993Feb13.173344.27488@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary >Coffman) writes: >> The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US. > >Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The >National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies >Institute. We're still kicking. I thought "swallowed" was the operative word with respect to L5 and NSS. At least the chapter structure still exists. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 18:37:01 GMT From: Tom A Baker Subject: "Late 'L5' Society Newsgroups: sci.space @lub001.lamar.edu writes: > >(Gary Coffman) writes: >> >> The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US. > >Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The >National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies >Institute. We're still kicking. That turns out not to be the case... NSS and L5 merged around 1985, and retained the NSS name. It is a collection of "chapters" around the country (at least one in Mexico) that "promote the eventual establishment of a spacefaring civilation". It tends to focus on educating the public. Space Studies Institute is the late Gerard O'Neil's organization (may his beloved soul rest in peace) out of Princeton University in New Jersey. It is an engineering concern that pushes for space colonization, and does fantastic work in mass drivers and other nuts-and-bolts designs we'll need up there. Still very overwhelmingly alive. Both deserving your support! (<- my opinion) --------------------------------------.-------------------------------------- Net - tombaker@world.std.com __ | National Space Society is a nonprofit uucp - uunet!world!tombaker / \ / | public organization dedicated to BIX - tombaker / O / | promoting the eventual establishment AOL - TABaker@aol.com / \__/ | of a spacefaring civilization. ______________________________________|______________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 1993 18:38:47 GMT From: Jon Leech Subject: "Late 'L5' Society Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb13.221806.2035@lub001.lamar.edu>, lumensa@lub001.lamar.edu writes: |> In article <1993Feb13.173344.27488@ke4zv.uucp>, gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary |> Coffman) writes: |> > The late L5 Society killed this one. It was never ratified by the US. |> |> Sorry, Gary, but the L5 Society isn't "late," just renamed to The |> National Space Society when it combined with the former Space Studies |> Institute. We're still kicking. Sorry, Dale, but the L-5 Society is as dead as a doornail - if you consider the founding goals of the group important. Furthermore, L-5 merged with Von Braun's National Space Institute, NOT the Space Studies Institute. SSI continues doing privately funded research to support *real* space colonization, rather than lobbying Washington to fund aerospace subsidy projects like Fred. Jon __@/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 16:20:24 GMT From: 8 February 1993 Subject: anonymous IS accountable Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy,news.admin.policy dave@frackit.UUCP (Dave Ratcliffe) claims that anonymous postings are like CB radio because of the unaccountability of the users of the system. This is FALSE because the server does in fact keep record of the correspondence between the real names and the anonymized IDS. The analogy would be more apt to say that it is like caller ID where you capture the phone number of the anonymous caller. To summarize: anonymous postings ARE accountable and, in my experience, responsible. That is, at least I will respond to reasonable exchange of ideas. The ones who fear accountable anonymity are the net thugs who are used to extortion and intimidation of sysadmins. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi. *IMPORTANT server security update*, mail to update@anon.penet.fi for details. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 01:47:46 GMT From: Robert Mah Subject: A response from Anonymous Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro In <1993Feb13.155443.21243@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (8 February 1993) writes: > Why is this? Certainly most readers are adult and are able to hit 'N' Why is it that some people are afraid to take responsibility for what they say? As freedoms increase, so must the level of responsibility taken on by those who use that freedom -- otherwise chaos reigns. > I think the fundamental issue here is control. In my view, the fundamental issue is taking responsibility for your own actions. Personally, I think personal responsibility is a good thing. > Anonymous postings prevent just this kind of intimidation. While this is a valid point, I think it can be addressed by other means. > The settling of cyberspace will require new habits of thought from > the hierarchicalists: thoughts as expressed as postings are to be > judged by content and internal merit, if any, rather than on the > trappings of affiliations or other hoopla or fanfare. Studies have shown (refer to "Connections" by Sproull and Kiesler) that "cyberspace", in general, does just what you suggest. We don't need anonymous postings to get there. > The reader acknowledges the copyright of the original message remains with > an8785. Copyright (C) 1993 an8785. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized [ lots of inane pseudo-legal babble deleted ] > case of prosecution or litigation for whatever reason. To unconditionally > agree to all the above conditions, press any key. Saying something don't make it so. While the laws governing copyright of electronic messages have not stabilized yet, spouting off nonsense means absolutely zilch. Cheers, Rob -- [----------------------------------------------------------------------] [ Robert S. Mah | Voice: 212-947-6507 | "Every day an adventure, ] [ One Step Beyond | EMail: rmah@panix.com | every moment a challenge" ] [----------------------------------------------------------------------] ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 1993 16:21:33 +0100 From: Matthias Urlichs Subject: A response from Anonymous Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro In news.admin.policy, article , rmah@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes: > In <1993Feb13.155443.21243@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (8 February 1993) writes: > [ intimidation et al. ] > > While this is a valid point, I think it can be addressed by other means. > Such as? > > The settling of cyberspace will require new habits of thought from > > the hierarchicalists: thoughts as expressed as postings are to be > > judged by content and internal merit, if any, rather than on the > > trappings of affiliations or other hoopla or fanfare. > > Studies have shown (refer to "Connections" by Sproull and Kiesler) that > "cyberspace", in general, does just what you suggest. We don't need > anonymous postings to get there. > Yes we do. The problem is that this isn't cyberspace per se, this is cyberspace embedded in a real world with real-world restrictions and, let's face it, a lot of control freaks who want to impose their world view on others and who, unfortunately, may be in control of your future. If I have the choice to talk about my sexual preferences, drug preferences, political world view, et al., either under a pseudonym or not at all, what would you have me do? Tell my boss to please stop firing any admitted homosexual employee he can find out about? Read up on Colorado's Amendment 2 to find out why that isn't working right now. NB: Please take this discussion out of sci.space and sci.astro. -- System restarting, wait... -- Matthias Urlichs -- urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de /(o\ Humboldtstrasse 7 -- 7500 Karlsruhe 1 -- Germany -- +49-721-9612521 \o)/ ------------------------------ Date: 14 Feb 1993 02:58:17 GMT From: bafta@cats.ucsc.edu Subject: Clinton Email Address Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space There is a longish memo out at work stating that Clinton's email address is sort of bogus. The compuserve address really is the personal email address to one of his staff who has been assigned with setting up a way to distribute official statements via email. Aparrently something is in the works by which the public can email the President, but it has not yet been set up, and if you mail this guy, you are only making his life more miserable. Besides, as it it his own personal compuseve mailbox, he can't get more than 150 messages a day. Just so you know. If you are interested in the entire text of the memo I will try to dig it up on the nets but I really don't want to type it all in, it was several pages long. The hapless aide's name is Jock Gill, BTW. -- If you blow fire against the wind, take care to not get the smoke in your eyes. Big & Growly Dragon-monster | bafta@cats.ucsc.edu --------> shari brooks <-------- | brooks@anarchy.arc.nasa.gov The above opinions are solely my own. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 93 09:45:07 -0800 From: Bob Van Cleef Subject: Earth: (Was "A response from Anonymous") Newsgroups: news.admin.policy,alt.privacy,comp.org.eff.talk,sci.space,sci.astro In rmah@panix.com (Robert Mah) writes: >In <1993Feb13.155443.21243@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (8 February 1993) writes: > > Why is this? Certainly most readers are adult and are able to hit 'N' >Why is it that some people are afraid to take responsibility for what >they say? As freedoms increase, so must the level of responsibility >taken on by those who use that freedom -- otherwise chaos reigns. To take a look at one perspective on "secrets vs privacy" check out the novel "Earth" by David Brin. In it he postulates a world where hiding information is not only socially unacceptable, it is illegal. Definately a different perspective from what most people hold today, but a possibly logical projection of the trends that we see on the net. Bob VC -- ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> \|/ <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< Bob Van Cleef Peace -0- be revc@garg.Campbell.CA.US The Land of Garg BBS unto /|\ you BBS (408) 378-5108 ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> | <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 10:03:38 PST From: Jason Cooper Subject: hilarious Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) writes: > Better yet, why not ignore anything from anon.penet.fi regardless of whose > name is given. > > Dave Oh, that's REALLY MATURE. Remind you of the child that plugs his ears, saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"? In doing so, you are stopping yourself from from hearing many OTHER, possibly important, things, at the same time... ` Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 15:21:53 PST From: Michael Cooper Subject: hilarious Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy niebuhr@bnlux1.bnl.gov (david niebuhr) writes: > In article <1993Feb6.183234.7579@fuug.fi> an8785@anon.penet.fi (Tesuji) write > >X-Anon-To:sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy > > > >The response the Challenger transcript has gotten > >has been hilarious. > > > >If you guys can't joke about bone cancer, childhood leukemia, and facing > >certain horrifying death, then you guys don't have > >the perspective to call yourself adults. > > > >Get a life. Get *seven*. Ha ha. > > I personally don't find anything funny in bone cancer, childhood > leukemia or a horrifying death. This person has a very sick mind > and should be locked away until his/her mental processes are brought > under control. > > Better yet, why not ignore anything from anon.penet.fi regardless of whose > name is given. > > Dave > > -- > Dave Niebuhr Internet: niebuhr@bnl.gov / Bitnet: niebuhr@bnl > Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973 (516)-282-3093 I don't see anything wrong with thinking lightly about depressing topics. Certainly nothing meritting a closed-minded comment like saying that such a person should be locked up until his or her mental processes are brought under control. Granted it was a bad thing to post, but I wouldn't say anyone should be punnished for the posting of it. If it offends you and you have not got the common sense to stop reading it where it offends you, perhaps you should have a psychiatric evaluation. That is one of the wonderful things about the net. If someone is telling you something, it is difficult to stop listenning. But if you are reading something, it is quite a simple matter to stop reading that something if you do not approve of it. Michael Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 14:27:49 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: HST repair mission Newsgroups: sci.space In article <75596@cup.portal.com> BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn) writes: [Re: Hubble Jr.] > The solar panels and gyros have already been redesigned, and will be > part of the repair, so I don't see how that would change things very > much for a HST Junior. Same with the software, to a lesser degree. > I haven't heard of problems with HST's avionics, but the SAA is always > going to be there, no matter what electronics are aboard. I knew about the redesigned solar panels, but I thought they were just going to change out the gyros, not put in a different design. As to the SAA, I bet vacuum tubes wouldn't mind it. :-) (Actually that's only a half smiley, look up GE's TIMs program.) As to software, I don't know which instrument is responsible for fine pointing, but if it is one that is left off of Jr, then some redesign is definitely required. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 12:40:35 GMT From: Nick Szabo Subject: ICE Ship Newsgroups: sci.space >In article , stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: >> >> One day reinforced ice ships will cruise the depths of interplanetary >> space. >> >> If on its maiden voyage from Mars to Saturn a mighty Pykrete liner of >> space runs into a metallic asteroid the media headlines of the day will >> broadcast the sad news that: >> >> THE ICE SHIP TITANIC HAS STRUCJK AN IRON BURG AND BEEN LOST!! Heh! :-) Great to see the ice rocket meme spreading. I introduced the idea on sci.space a couple of years ago, with some inspiration from Phil Fraering who got me thinking about how the sun can naturally perturb the orbits of comets by causing directed comet jets. (Anything other references to the idea, earlier or later, greatly appreciated). The main benefits of using ice rockets are: * Zero tankage factor. Even if we use up 90% of the ice as propellant, the remaining 10% is usable payload, not tank. Thus, ice rockets can return massive quantities of ice, organics, etc. from known Jupiter-family comets to high Earth orbit, despite the high delta-v. * Choice of solar or nuclear thermal power. The deployable mirror for a solar thermal rocket would be similar to the reflector currently being tested by the Russians. * Low thrust, so that payload/rocket mass ratio is very high (about five orders of magnitude greater than rocket landing or taking off from Moon, for example). Because of this and the zero tankage factor, the mass of rocket that must be launched from Earth is extremely low; we might be able to use today's rockets at today's prices, though of course SSTO and an electric upper stage would be quite an improvement. The main markets appear to be providing propellant, structural materials and shielding for spacecraft in GEO orbits and above. It would be especially beneficial for any astronaut missions beyond LEO, and could cut the cost of Mars astronaut missions by 90%. The strongest tether materials (Kevlar, graphite epoxy, etc.) can be made from cometary volatile organics, with advanced processing techniques (cf. my old post "Microchemical Reactors for Space Development".) In the meantime, biotech vats and simpler chemical reactors can make a wide variety of products, including microgravity mfg. exports to Earth. The main engineering variable is the mass ratio of product:equipment for the machine to convert cometary "frozen mud" to pure water (or ammonia or methane) ice rocket. To be economical, the equipment needs a ratio of about 10,000:1/year, which is a little higher than an oil well but much lower than a water well. The main technological constraint is the ability to automate the plant -- at current prices astronauts are several orders of magnitude too expensive; a single mission should cost between $1-$5 billion to make money, not the $400+ billion for a NASA-style Mars mission. (Astronaut travel becomes much easier after the comet volatiles become available for shielding, propellant, life support etc., but we have to do the first mission without them!) >And god help you if you lost control of the ICE SHIP, imagine if it entred the >atmosphere, Hiroshima with out radiation.. Ice is quite a bit freindlier than rock or metal on the Earth's environment. Several independent calculations have confirmed that the Tungaska object was rock, not ice; 100,000 tons of ice would have exploded too high in the atmosphere for the shock wave to reach the ground. Ice rockets can be made small; with a sufficiently miniaturized thermal rocket they can be mass produced the size of large pine trunks, posing zero danger to Earth's environment during flyby or capture into Earth orbit. For more details on "environmental impact", cf. my old post "The Safety of Earth Flybies with Large Objects". -- Nick Szabo szabo@techboook.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:29:11 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: ICE Ship Newsgroups: sci.space In article szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes: > >>In article , stephens@geod.emr.ca (Dave Stephenson) writes: >>> >>> One day reinforced ice ships will cruise the depths of interplanetary >>> space. >>> >>> If on its maiden voyage from Mars to Saturn a mighty Pykrete liner of >>> space runs into a metallic asteroid the media headlines of the day will >>> broadcast the sad news that: >>> >>> THE ICE SHIP TITANIC HAS STRUCJK AN IRON BURG AND BEEN LOST!! > >Heh! :-) > >Great to see the ice rocket meme spreading. I introduced the idea on >sci.space a couple of years ago, with some inspiration from Phil Fraering >who got me thinking about how the sun can naturally perturb the orbits of >comets by causing directed comet jets. (Anything other references to >the idea, earlier or later, greatly appreciated). > >The main benefits of using ice rockets are: > >* Zero tankage factor. Even if we use up 90% of the ice as > propellant, the remaining 10% is usable payload, not tank. > Thus, ice rockets can return massive quantities of ice, > organics, etc. from known Jupiter-family comets to high > Earth orbit, despite the high delta-v. I don't think this could be called an ice spaceship. That has conotations of a vessel carrying a cargo, not of the vessel *being* the cargo. I think this falls more under the heading of (minor) planetary engineering. What you're doing is changing the orbit of an existing ice planetoid using native reaction materials. If the materials are sufficiently pure, it would be reasonable to use a steam rocket. If they aren't, a mass driver would be better since it doesn't care *what* it throws away, just how much it masses. You could then process only what was left that was useful at the end of the journey. That would probably result in a severalfold reduction in processing requirements. If orbital transfer time is long, as would be expected in the general case, you might be able to do processing in flight and wind up delivering *only* processed material at destination. This would likely be the most efficient case. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 93 23:54:59 GMT From: Dave Ratcliffe Subject: leading-edge anonymity Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy In article <1993Feb6.201801.866@news.eng.convex.com>, gardner@convex.com (Steve Gardner) writes: > We know they died because of incompetence and political favor > currying at NASA. Do we? Can you cite any reports or investigations that say exactly that? Or is that your intuitive gut knowledge of "the facts"? > Some people speak in hushed tones about the space > program and of astronauts as if they were some sort of ubermensch > and more deserving of respect and awe than the rest of us. Get a > life trekkies. Grow up and get off the space kick. Its over. > The great manned space dream-adventure is over. You can wake up now > and find a new topic to go ballistic over. What a crock. You oughtta get down on your knees and thank whatever God you believe in for the "space kick". It's responsible for more technological advances than you can imagine. The chances are very good that you never go through a day in your miserable existance without using SOMETHING that results directly or indirectly from the space program and all the research and developement programs it spawned. BTW, here's a free clue.... people who believe in and support the space program aren't necessarily "trekkies". But then you knew that, you were just trying to be cute weren't you. That's all. You may have a cookie now. -- vogon1!compnect!frackit!dave@psuvax1.psu.edu | Dave Ratcliffe | - or - ..uunet!wa3wbu!frackit!dave | Sys. <*> Admin. | | Harrisburg, Pa. | ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Feb 93 10:10:03 PST From: lord@tradent.wimsey.com Subject: leading-edge anonymity Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,alt.privacy 00acearl@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes: > Anonymous discussion of scientific issues leads to bad science. > > > Aaron Christopher > Ball State Univ. > > That's certainly a matter of opinion. Jason Cooper ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 15:01:09 GMT From: Gary Coffman Subject: Old Tech, why do we need new tech? Newsgroups: sci.space In article <1993Feb14.001159.1@acad3.alaska.edu> nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu writes: >Doing repairs and such.. Why do we need a shuttle? > >Why not just send a newly made Apollo/Gemini/Mercury (nely made not a refurbish >of an old one) on top of the right sized rocket and send it up to the >sattelite to do the repairs.. Well OK, let's suppose we have a LEO satellite in need of repair, forget GEO birds, costs too much to get manned vehicles there. Now if the satellite component in need of replacement is small, and if the tools to do the job are small, and if the work can be done with a free floating EVA, all big ifs, then spam in a can would be cheaper than a Shuttle mission *solely* dedicated to the satellite repair. But if the Shuttle is already in the neighborhood doing something else, using Shuttle could be cheaper since the incremental cost would be low. Shuttle usually is doing many things on a given mission so it can spread it's costs around. Spam in can has such limited room and payload that it's normally a one shot mission. For cases where free floating repair is difficult or impossible, the majority of cases so far, you need the ability to capture and anchor the satellite so you can work on it without both of you spinning out of control. This leaves spam in a can out of the picture for most larger satellites like HST. For minisats and microsats, what payload on board is so unique and so valuable that simply launching a replacement satellite wouldn't be cheaper than mounting a spam in the can mission to fix it? Launching a 100 kilo satellite is much cheaper than launching at 10 ton manned capsule. Likely in most cases to be enough cheaper to pay for the construction of the replacement satellite. >Why not just use the tech we have for now, stuff that can do the job and nicely >enough is old stuff (tech) and therefore cheaper, known, the infrastructure >is there already. Why re-invent the wheel? Because the very old tech is still too expensive, even when it's cheaper than the merely old tech of Shuttle. For the kind of things you want to do, you need systems as cheap to operate as Allen's optimistic figures for DC-1. Today satellite repair only makes sense as an incidental part of a larger mission, or for very special, very expensive satellites like HST. With *really* cheap manned access to space, about two orders of magnitude cheaper than old spam in a can, routine satellite retrievals or repairs become more interesting. Gary -- Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it, | gatech!wa4mei!ke4zv!gary Destructive Testing Systems | we break it. | uunet!rsiatl!ke4zv!gary 534 Shannon Way | Guaranteed! | emory!kd4nc!ke4zv!gary Lawrenceville, GA 30244 | | ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 17:40:57 GMT From: "Robert Chenina [Chemie]" Subject: Pictures of Mars wanted Newsgroups: sci.space Hello Earth! I'm looking for some pictures from the Viking mission. The pictures are details obout the region called _Cydonia Mensae_ (approx. 40.9N, 9.45W) and referenced as: 35A72, 70A13, 673B56, 753A33. Any help will be appreciated, Robert -- **************************************************************************** * Robert Chenina, Dpt. of Physical Chemistry, University of Kaiserslautern * * Erwin-Schroedinger-Str, D-6750 Kaiserslautern, Germany * * Phone: + 49 631 205 2534, Fax: + 49 631 205 3200 * * Email: chenina@rhrk.uni-kl.de * **************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1993 18:26:29 GMT From: Tom A Baker Subject: SSTO - SDI Budgets (Was SSTO news) Newsgroups: sci.space (Phil G. Fraering) writes: > >gawne@stsci.edu writes: >> >>Now I know that SDIO is the sponsor of DC-X. Is that $3.5B a close >>approximation of DC's budget? > >It's a close approximation of SDIO's entire budget. DC-X's budget was >~70 million dollars (or is it 40 million?). I wish. It's whole TWO-year budget has been $60 million, or $30 million per year. If they go ahead with Phase Three's Orbital Prototype, THEN it could cost $500 million a year, over four years. (The *cheapest* shuttle flight runs $500 million, and they go up to a full billion.) tombaker ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DC-X - The Rocket that thinks it's an Airliner! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 13 Feb 93 17:56:36 From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu Subject: SSTO news Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space In article <1lh099INNdna@access.digex.com> prb@access.digex.com (Pat) writes: In article steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson) writes: |Isn't this back to front? After all MD could build their own |test stands! |Should we now count the entire construction and operation cost |of NASA static test stands against DC development, or just the |marginal cost? ;-) THat's silly. only guys with a political agenda use marginal costing. for real analysis, you want to add the depriciated basis cost for the It's ok, it was a joke! See recent flamewars over whether shuttle costs should be countes as marginal, depreciated less sunk costs or total depreciated costs going back to Goddard! time period, plus the time rated unit operation cost, plus any variable operating cost. Given that most of NASA's test stands are dated from apollo, i don't think there is much of a depriciation, but let's say they run for two months of static testing, one could bill 2 months of costs for the center times the percentage size of the stand to teh center. plus any cost of consumables. I'd assume NASA maintains the center for testing a number of rocket proto types. Now, why should NASA just charge costs? Wouldn't a sensible pricing scheme be to figure how much it would cost MD to build a comparable facility and set the rate at just below that? :-) | 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 | ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 16 : Issue 183 ------------------------------